A working understanding of violence in the home begins with a definition. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) define Intimate Partner Violence as "abuse that occurs between two people in a close relationship" that includes four types of behavior over a continuum from unique occurrence to habitual patterns:
• Physical abuse is when a person hurts or tries to hurt a partner by hitting, kicking, burning, or other physical force.
• Sexual abuse is forcing a partner to take part in a sex act when the partner does not consent.
• Threats of physical or sexual abuse include the use of words, gestures, weapons, or other means to communicate the intent to cause harm.
• Emotional abuse is threatening a partner or his or her possessions or loved ones, or harming a partner’s sense of self-worth. Examples are stalking, name-calling, intimidation, or not letting a partner see friends and family. Often, IPV starts with emotional abuse. This behavior can progress to physical and/or sexual assault. Several types of IPV may occur together. (CDC 2006) (n3)
In this review, language referring to the perpetrator will usually be male-oriented (he, him, the man, etc.), reflecting usage in the literature and subjects of available research studies, as well as affirming the significance of domestic violence as part of the tragedy of worldwide gender-based violence. (n4) However, the literature indicated an ongoing controversy regarding family violence and gender. With this in mind, it is an appropriate to remember that victims of violence in the home are not limited to women and perpetrators of violence are not limited to adult men. (Archer 2002) Though studies highlighting intimate partner violence against men have been more limited than similar studies on women, a Canadian study indicated that "abused men were more likely than abused women to report having had something thrown at them or having been slapped, kicked, bitten or hit." Further, "similar proportions of women and men reported inflicting both minor and severe physical abuse on their partners." (Lupri and Grandin 2004: 4) The United States has shown similar patterns, where approximately 4.8 million women and 2.9 million men were victims of IPV physical assaults and rapes, with a resultant 1,544 deaths in 2004 (25% male, 75% female). (n5) (CDC 2006)
Further, Young et al (2006) have noted that several populations that have suffered from family violence have traditionally been overlooked.6 Controversy surrounding this issue brought the development of the "Gender Inclusive Approach" to addressing domestic violence, with ten basic principles for researchers and practitioners to employ to enhance balance and effectiveness in addressing issues of family violence. (Hamel and Nicholls 2006; see also Holtzworth-Munroe 2005)
***Notes1) Indeed, the name is the first controversy one encounters in the literature. "There is still no universally agreed-upon terminology for referring to violence against women. Many of the most commonly used terms have different meanings in different regions, and are derived from diverse theoretical perspectives and disciplines." (Ellsberg & Heise 2005: 10) For example, psychologists have often preferred the term 'family violence,' while many feminist researchers object to its gender-neutral language and prefer a broader term like 'gender-based violence.' (ibid, 11) For our purposes, we have tended to use these names interchangeably except where noted.2) “The profound impact of domestic violence, community violence, physical and sexual abuse and other forms of predatory or impulsive assault can not be overestimated. Violence impacts the victims, the witnesses -- and, ultimately, us all. Understanding and modifying our violent nature will determine, in large part, the degree to which we will successfully 'adapt' to the challenges of the future --the degree to which future generations of human beings can actually experience humanity.” (Perry 1997: 124)3) Other types of abuse become prominent in particular cultural/historical contexts (e.g., coercion through destruction of property; or economic coercion, where a violent partner uses financial support as part of a control mechanism to leverage power over the spouse). These will be noted where appropriate.4) In fact, “The single most powerful risk marker for becoming a victim of violence is to be a woman.” (Walker 1999: 23) See also Kishor and Johnson (2004) for comprehensive statistics of the worldwide situation of women suffering from domestic violence.5) This last statistic indicated another important trend in IPV, namely that the rate of male violence against a female tends to increase with the assault's seriousness: "For example, women were two to three times more likely than men to report that an intimate partner threw something that could hurt or pushed, grabbed, or shoved them. However, they were 7 to 14 times more likely to report that an intimate partner beat them up, choked or tried to drown them, threatened them with a gun, or actually used a gun on them." (Tjaden and Thoennes 1998:7)
