close
close

Women as perpetrators of intimate partner violence

Women as perpetrators of intimate partner violence

There are a few couples whose attraction seems made in hell. They are inextricably linked by unconscious and perverse forces, and together they engage in abusive practices, both against each other and against themselves. While it is undeniable that male violence against women is a major public health problem, it is important to consider how and when women are the perpetrators of significant harm, including violence, against male partners. In general, the man is seen as the perpetrator of the violence and the woman as the victim. This reflects a societal reluctance to see men as victims, but rather as aggressors. This may also influence the degree to which male victims experience their abuse, whether they perceive and identify as victims, and whether they report this abuse (Taylor et al., 2022).

Statistics relating to intimate partner violence it tells a different story, one that needs to be read, despite the discomfort and disbelief it causes. Over two hundred studies have found that men and women commit intimate partner violence at roughly equivalent rates, depending on where the samples are drawn and what level of violence is identified. (Dutton and Nicholls, 2005). Discrepancies between reported prevalence rates depend largely on whether situational violence, with a lower level of severity, is reported—aggression between partners in discussions that become physical or if refuge samples are used to determine prevalence rates.

In the latter case, there is a minority of women as perpetrators compared to men, indicating that men are the perpetrators of serious violence that causes women and children to leave them and seek refuge in a shelter. However, this is also complicated by the fact that some shelters will not accept a male victim as a resident fear that they will harm others in the house.

The discrepancy in prevalence rates is clarified by considering the sampling that is used. The definition provided by IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) also shapes the nature of statistics, which are ultimately not neutral and objective, but depend on sampling, reporting and definitional techniques. Johnson (2008) usefully describes three different types of intimate partner violence,

Intimate terrorism: Patterns of violent coercive control, predominantly perpetrated by men.

Violent resistance: Committed while resisting violence, more often by women in self-defense.

Couple Violence Situation: It escalates from arguing to physical aggression, occurs between couples.

Viewing domestic violence as simply an expression of the male desire for power and control is both reductive and inaccurate. In my clinical practice, I have worked with both women and men who have been both victims and perpetrators of IPV. Therapeutic engagement with women who have been deemed dangerous to their partners and children is sometimes difficult to establish but invaluable in enabling change, as the following brief description of working with a woman who has committed IPV illustrates.

When I met her, Paula was 42 years old, referred psychotherapy because of her long history of violence against others, including her partner, her children, and various mental health professionals whom she stalked and threatened. He had a diagnosis of antisocial and borderline personality disorder and was hospitalized numerous times. These admissions only led to further deterioration of her mental health and were characterized by her attacks on staff and frequent “compulsions” which she seemed to invite and resist. She was rejected for outpatient treatment by mainstream mental health services because of her violence and was subsequently referred to the forensic psychotherapy and psychology service.

On assessment, Paula was withdrawn and flat, presenting as emotionally shut down, but with sudden flashes of vivacity that took me by surprise. She conveyed a strong sense of discomfort and pent-up violence, so I had to tread lightly. Early on, she told me about her struggle with feeling like a woman. as she tended to consider herself masculine. She felt that she did not possess femininity, as she associated this with vulnerability, softness and powerlessness. She commented that she felt I was “comfortable” with my femininity and told me she would never be able to wear a skirt or heeled boots like I was. At this point I suddenly felt exposed and judged in a harsh way and felt there was an implicit accusation in her comment. I felt that her sudden and pointed comment was unconsciously designed to throw me off balance and raise a question about my version of “femininity”. This gave me an important insight into her distrust about me and how quickly her mood and perceptions changed. Despite her suspicions, she felt able to tell me about her early life and her past and present difficulties. Paula felt she was spiraling out of control and driving her family away with her volatile moods and outbursts of anger.

At the end of the assessment we agreed to work together for 18 months in weekly psychotherapy. Her violence was not a threat to the general public, but as is typical of female violence, it was targeted against her in savage acts of self harmher partner, her children, and towards those in a “caring” position in relation to her, such as the psychiatrists she had threatened and the nurses on the wards. Paula revealed both of them sexual and physical victimization and described how she learned to use violence to maintain control over her family members in an attempt to ensure they did not leave her. She gradually reduced her addiction to self-harm. Through reliable, robust, and sometimes challenging criminal psychotherapeutic work, she was finally able to reveal her underlying fears and finally let go of her defenses against abandonment, rejection, and loneliness.

I will never forget Paula, who taught me so much about how violence can be an expression of early MIND and a defense against deep fears of abandonment.