Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021)

Remove the Feminist Schema to Save Lives:

A Change in Approach
David Mottershead1 and John Law1

1
Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47611/jsr.v10i1.834

For around 50 years the feminist movement has dominated the discourse surrounding DV/IPV. Arguably, this ap-
proach has achieved very little. Is it time to reassess our perceptions in an effort to finally reduce numbers of vic-
tims?
The social phenomenon that is domestic violence (DV), is arguably amongst the most emotive and frequently
discussed subjects in the field of social sciences. Challenges can arise surrounding linguistic discourse when simply
attempting to define DV. Terminology used can be met with sometimes visceral (and arguably bigoted) responses
from different feminist leaning academics (Kelly & Westmarland, 2016); the media (Bindell, 1999); as well as some
of the more vocal women’s rights organisations currently lobbying the UK government (Women’s Aid, 2019). A
prime example of the extent of this issue can be seen in the process surrounding the adjustments made to the Violence
Against Women and Girls Act (VAWA) in 2015 here in Wales. A Welsh Assembly member who sat on the panel
charged with the responsibility of ensuring the Act was passed, reported that nine of the thirteen DV charities invited
to give evidence, wrestled with the wording as it included the phrase ‘gender-based violence’ and therefore (in his
words) “…could insinuate that men could be victims as well”. This is evidenced by his email excerpt, which he kindly
wrote for the purpose of this paper.

“The Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 became law in
Wales on 29 April 2015……The Act had originally been introduced in June 2014 as the “Gender-based
Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Bill”….Committee’s ‘Evidence Session 1’ kicked
off almost straight away with:
“[6] Christine Chapman: I just want to ask you some questions around the title of the Bill. I wonder whether
you could tell me why you chose not to refer to violence against women in the title of the Bill.”
Recommendation 2 in the subsequent November 2014 Communities, Equality and Local Government Com-
mittee ‘Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Bill: Stage 1 Committee Re-
port’ stated “We recommend that the Minister amends the Bill in the following ways:……..– to refer to
Violence Against Women, rather than Gender-Based Violence.” (Email, 2019).

Issues such as this have prompted the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to focus on the area of definition as part
of their creation of the new ‘Domestic Abuse Bill’ (Home Office, 2019). Until such a time as the government has
agreed a concrete definition, academics and institutions alike are forced to opt for one of the many differentiations
available, at the risk of being condemned for doing so. For the aforementioned reasons this paper will avoid the use
of a definition, instead highlighting this example as one of the many patterns surrounding DV that ultimately, the
author would argue, only serve to allow the continuance of said phenomena. It is the author’s hope that, by focusing
on patterns of behaviour surrounding the providers of victim and perpetrator services in conjunction with behaviours
exhibited by social actors experiencing DV, this paper will demonstrate that, by enabling this field to be dominated
by radical-left, feminist ideology, we only serve to create further victims of what most would agree to be amongst the
most abhorrent of crimes. It is hoped this would then enhance our ability to identify the root causes which, in turn,

ISSN: 2167-1907 www.JSR.org 1

 Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021)

should facilitate the opportunity for the government to develop interventions with much higher success rates than
those currently relied upon, notably at substantial cost to the taxpayer.
To understand the current climate surrounding DV, it is important to briefly assess the predominant theoret-
ical approach to these phenomena. The overwhelming and dominant ideology states that DV holds its roots in the
patriarchal oppression of women (Bettman, 2009). It also appears to be widely accepted amongst academics that
“Since the 1970s, many feminists continue to maintain that patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women”
(Tracy, 2007:557). As a result, interventions surrounding DV perpetrators has been heavily geared towards the re-
education of men, working from the core premise of what is colloquially referred to as the ‘Duluth model’ (Pence &
Paymar, 1993). This approach grounds its philosophy within the notion that all DV is as a result of mans innate need
to retain power and control, which is then expressed as violence towards their partners. One of the underlying issues
of this model is that it precludes the possibility of men being victims, or indeed other members of the LGBTQ+
community (Letellier, 1994). After many years of this being the predominant approach, right across the western world,
it has now been reported as a catastrophic failure, not just by institutions such as the Ministry of Justice (MOJ,
2013:23) or academics within the field (Dutton & Corvo, 2007) but, interestingly, by one of the originators of the
Duluth model (Shepherd & Pence, 1999).
The abject failure of said intervention is perhaps amongst the most important indicator of what many an
academic has long argued, is the result of a very serious fundamental attribution error, an excellent example of which
can be seen during the testing of this theory (Bates, Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2014). Theoretical testing aside, its
basis of foundation within patriarchal theory is, arguably, disproved by the existence of male victims in heterosexual
relationships, as well as female victims in same-sex relationships. The author would argue it is these victims who
remain truly oppressed by a political ideology whose only intent appears to be to further ‘blame or shame’ said victims
into nonexistence. Frustratingly, the research has long shown that the prevalence of male victims is very similar to the
rates of females. Here in the UK, the best current measure is agreed to be the ‘Crime Survey for England and Wales’
(CSEW)’(ONS, 2018); which currently records the prevalence rates as 695,000 male victims as compared to 1.3 mil-
lion female victims for the year ending 2018. Whilst this may seem a substantial difference, it is important to remember
that men underreport abuse at about the rate of three times higher, than that of women (Brooks, 2018, citing ONS,
2015). It is perhaps understandable why men would be hesitant to seek help, given the reaction by the services sur-
rounding the phenomena, whereby men often find themselves being arrested, despite being the victim (George &
Yarwood, 2004).
For those academics researching outside of the feminist theoretical perspective, the prevalence rates of DV
towards men are potentially much higher than we see in the CSEW, even when adjusting for rates of under-reporting.
Evidence of this can be seen in what are widely regarded by gender neutral academics to be amongst the most com-
prehensive investigations to have been conducted in this field (Archer, 2004; Whitaker et al, 2007; Hamel, 2012).
Studies such as these consistently report victimisation rates to be comparable across the two most common genders.
The differentiations become apparent when one focuses on the perpetrator gender as compared to other factors such
as, motivation, form of violence used, and type of injury sustained by the victim. For example, all three reports show
higher perpetration levels by women than men when quantifying ‘unidirectional’ violence (meaning the violence was
only directed at one individual). The Hamel (2012) report, recorded unidirectional rates of male to female violence as
13.8%, whilst female to male violence was recorded at 28.3%. Interestingly, and counter to the prevailing ideology
within the field, 57.9% was reported as bidirectional (meaning that both parties expressed violence to each other).
As the academic fields and western governments alike become more aware of the true dynamics of this type
of social action, we see an increased scrutiny of the patterns surrounding individuals involved with this type of behav-
iour, leading to further conclusions regarding the ultimate cause. For example, the Hamel report’s research into the
motivation of perpetrator behaviour identified several recurring themes. Interestingly, primary motives appear to range
from matters such as revenge for emotional harm, stress, jealousy, to express anger and to get their partners attention.
This seems to suggest emotional literacy levels and poor communication habits within the relationship as being a
predictor to potentially violent behaviour. Associations between mental health problems and risk factors further

ISSN: 2167-1907 www.JSR.org 2

 Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021)

strengthen this theory but, interestingly, the link is stronger for women than men, suggesting a possible focus for
future, therapeutic interventions. This is further evidenced by the identification of protective factors against dating
violence, which include a high standard of involved and positive parenting during adolescence, combined with the
existence of supportive peers. This point alone seems to strengthen the argument that intervention may be possible if
approached from the correct therapeutic or preventative perspective.
Building from this evidence we can see a historically well-known correlation between DV and poor mental
health (Howard, et al., 2009). In searching to identify causation, we would at this point be remiss not to highlight the
growing understanding and recognition of comorbidity of mental health problems and addiction (Carra, et al., 2014),
in relation to how this dynamic may interact with the circumstances surrounding DV. It is the author’s belief that
whilst many feminist academic papers highlight the link between substance use and increased rates of DV incidents
(Brooks-Hay & Nancy, 2018), the true relevance of this dynamic is yet to be understood. A recent paper written on
behalf of the Australian government (Hulme, Morgan & Boxall, 2019), found 36% of DV incidents were alcohol
related, whilst another 4% (median ranges) were drug related. The importance of this study is that it took a non-
gendered and largely quantitative approach that, compared with most other ideologically and politically-driven re-
search, is rare. The findings of nearly 40% of DV incidents being related to substance abuse, highlights an area re-
quiring much more focus by services worldwide. This is obviously a substantial finding and, arguably, should form a
much more significant part of current and future intervention practices.
According to the Hamel report, women, when intoxicated, are more likely than men to initiate physical vio-
lence. Controversially, all three reports state that women are much more likely to initiate violence directed towards
their male partners in most situations. This is especially relevant to the coercive and controlling dynamic of what some
have termed ‘social’, ‘relational’, or ‘indirect’ forms of violence (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Once again, all three of the
main studies highlighted have shown that female perpetrators utilise this form of DV at much higher rates than men
do. The UK governments definition of coercive and controlling behaviour states “Controlling behaviour is: a range of
acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting
their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and
escape and regulating their everyday behaviour…..Coercive behaviour is: a continuing act or a pattern of acts of
assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”
(Home Office, 2015). Given the severity of the impact on the targeted individual (Williamson, 2010), the author feels
this is a much-understated area in relation to female perpetrated violence.
The idea that women use social violence at higher rates than men is a familiar aspect of society and can be
seen in good detail during the study of the phenomenon of ‘Slut Shaming’ (Muggleton, Tarran & Fincher, 2019). The
researchers of this study state that women may have a natural disposition to this type of social punishment action,
which the researchers identify as being ingrained in evolutionary anthropology. Darwinist routes aside, further evi-
dence is documented in well-known sayings such as “hell hath no fury as a woman scorned”, “women can be right
bitches to each other”, as well as media representations of how women treat each other in the workplace (Khazan,
2017) or in society in general (Vine, 2016). With this type of behaviour being so prevalent in society, the author would
argue, we would be misguided to presume this dynamic would not then impact in our day-to-day intimate relation-
ships. One of the more damaging areas of this type of socially destructive behaviour comes in the form of parental
alienation syndrome (Harman, Hines & Kruk, 2018). The dynamics of this type of behaviour, whereby the relationship
between child and parent is manipulated and destroyed, appears hauntingly reminiscent of the socially isolating pat-
terns associated with slut shaming.
Further investigation into these dynamics reveal that amongst alienating parents, mothers are significantly
more likely to use indirect forms of alienating strategies (such as the use of false accusations) than fathers, who are
often statistically recorded to be the most likely to experience such targeted behaviour (Harman, et al., 2019). The
long-term impact on targeted parents and children alike is often described as torturous (Hassman, 2013; Whitcombe,
2014) which goes some way to explaining the often-far-reaching impact on both parties mental and physical health
(Baker, 2005; Bates, 2019). Many feminist academics have long argued that when victims of DV are questioned by

ISSN: 2167-1907 www.JSR.org 3

 Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021)

their perpetrator in the family court environment, it leads to a situation whereby the victim is further abused during
the process of what is termed ‘secondary victimisation’ (Laing, 2017). Given that the process of parental alienation
involves the manipulation of all the authorities surrounding the victims, it could be argued that this situation can be
much more impactful than to simply be questioned by your abuser. This can be seen during research into the impact
of psychological torture and exposure to humiliating and inhumane behaviour (Basoglu, Livanou, & Crnobaric, 2007)
and would explain the existence of what has been termed ‘legal abuse syndrome’ (Huffer, 1995).
The lack of understanding regarding the severity of these indirect forms of DV by the criminal justice system
has, so far, been attributed to the perception that physical violence is more impactful and therefore should take prece-
dence (Robinson, et al., 2016). Given that bidirectional rates make up most recorded incidents, combined with the
tendencies of females to use more covert forms of indirect violence, this then raises substantial concern relating to the
guilt of men who have been charged with DV. As we have seen in the George and Yarwood report (2004), innocent
men often find themselves being arrested despite evidence showing they are the victim. Couple this issue with the
well-known and evidenced research showing the existence of gender biases in judicial decision-making (Miller, 2018),
it is perhaps easy to understand how mistakes can be made when attempting to identify on whom to focus appropriate
services. The need of the services to identify a clear victim and perpetrator, is evidently as a result of the polarising
attitude of theoretical scientists in this field. The need to pigeonhole men as dangerous and violent (and therefore
prove the existence of patriarchy) appears to have completely overridden any concerns regarding the safety of men,
women and children. It is quite clear to the author of this paper, as well as many others, that this particular societal
schema is responsible for the suffering of millions of truly vulnerable people in the UK.
As this paper has shown, the patterns surrounding DV and the reason for its existence are often considered
complex. Once we remove the societal schema centring on female oppression and take an objective stance, it becomes
quite clear that there are many missed opportunities for intervention. Most importantly, it appears that a great deal of
DV behaviour can be attributed (but not limited) to three main causes: emotional disturbance (and therefore associated
behaviours such as revenge seeking), substance abuse issues, and the existence of mental health problems. Perhaps
this is an oversimplified approach but, given that such a high proportion of incidents are centred on these three issues,
combined with the failure of the Duluth Model, it appears quite obvious that much can be done to vastly reduce the
numbers if one were to simply approach this matter from a therapeutic perception. Therefore (and with a heavy heart),
the only conclusion this paper can come to is that the reason DV exists at such high rates is because of the existence
of sexist attitudes by feminist academics, and because of the tendency of the government to virtue signal. These aca-
demics and officials alike are responsible for the last 50 years’ worth of faulty reporting on these matters and, as we
have seen, have long fought the idea of the presence of male victims despite the existence of evidence to the contrary.
Finally, by ignoring the largely bidirectional nature of DV, we fail to help those individuals who have been
polarized into categories irrespective of whether that pertains to the victim or perpetrator. The continued and quite
deliberate ignorance over the true nature of this phenomenon must, at some point, beg the question to be asked as to
whether the UK government and academic institutions are complicit in their behaviour. It is hard to imagine any other
scenario where we would ignore the plight of victims, especially where so many children are exposed to such devas-
tating behaviour, simply because it offends our sensibilities. Whilst the author recognises that this particular societal
schema is deeply entrenched in UK society, and that change would have to be radical and of a particularly wide scope,
given the vast impact this is having, coupled with the vast cost, something must be done sooner rather than later.

References

Archer, J (2004) Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Review of General Psychology. 8(4): 291-322

Archer, J. & Coyne, S. An Integrated Review of Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression. Personality
(2005) and Social Psychology Review. 9(3): 212-230

ISSN: 2167-1907 www.JSR.org 4

 Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021)

Baker, A. (2005) The Long-Term Effects of Parental Alienation on Adult Children: A Qualitative
Research Study. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 33(4): 289-302

Basoglu, M. Livanou, Torture vs Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment: Is the Distinction
M. & Crnobaric, C. Real or Apparent? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 64(3): 277-285
(2007)

Bates, E. Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's partner violence. Ag-
Graham-Kevan, N. gressive Behavior. 40(1): 42-55
& Archer, J. (2014)

Bates, E. (2019) “I Am Still Afraid of Her”: Men's Experiences of Post-Separation Abuse. Partner
Abuse. 10(3)

Bettman, C. (2009) Patriarchy: The Predominant Discourse and Fount of Domestic Violence. THE
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY. 30(1):
15-28

Bindell, J. (1999) Feminist n, adj. a woman who destroys families, demonises men and lies through
her teeth, The Guardian. [Online] Available from:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/23/gender.uk
Accessed on: 08/12/18

Brooks, M. (2018) Male victims of domestic and partner abuse 35 key facts. ManKind Initiative.
[Online] Available from: https://www.mankind.org.uk/wp-content/up-
loads/2018/03/35-Key-Facts-Male-Victims-March-2018.pdf
Accessed on: 03/11/19

Brooks-Hay, O. & ‘Home game’: domestic abuse and football. Journal of Gender-Based Violence.
Nancy, L. (2018) 2(1): 93-108

Carra, G. Comorbid Addiction and Major Mental Illness in Europe: A Narrative Review.
Bartoli, F. Substance Abuse. 36(1): 75-81
Brambilla, G.
Crocamo, C. & Clerici,
M.
(2014)

Dutton, D. & The Duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy. Aggression
Corvo, K. (2007) and Violent Behavior. 12(6): 658-667

Email (2019) VAWA(WALES). [Email] Sent 29th October. Accessed 29th October 2019.

George, M. & Yar- MALE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVEY 2001. Dewar Research, Ascot.
wood, D. (2004)

ISSN: 2167-1907 www.JSR.org 5

 Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021)

Hamel, J. (2012) Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project Findings At-a-Glance. [Online] Availa-
ble from: http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf
Accessed on: 05/11/19

Harman, J. Parental Alienating Behaviors: An Unacknowledged Form of Family Violence.

Hines, D. & Psychological Bulletin. 144(12): 1275-1299
Kruk, E. (2018).

Harman, J. Lorandos, Gender Differences in the Use of Parental Alienating Behaviours. Journal of Fam-
D. Biringen, Z. & ily Violence. 34(198): 1-6
Grubb, C. (2019)

Hassman, S. (2013) Welcome to PARENTAL ALIENATION SOLUTIONS. Parental Alienation Solu-

tions. [Online] Available from: http://www.palienation.org/
Accessed on: 12/11/19

Home Office (2015) Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship Statutory
Guidance Framework. Home Office. [Online] Available from: https://assets.pub-
lishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach-
ment_data/file/482528/Controlling_or_coercive_behaviour_-_statutory_guid-
ance.pdf
Accessed on: 10/11/19

Home Office (2019) Statutory definition of domestic abuse fact sheet. Home Office. [Online] Available
from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2019-fact-
sheets/statutory-definition-of-domestic-abuse-fact-sheet
Accessed on: 29/10/19

Howard, L. Trevillion, Domestic violence and severe psychiatric disorders: prevalence and interventions.
K. Khalifeh, H. Psychological Medicine. 40(6): 881-893
Woodall, A.
Agnew-Davies, R. &
Feder, G. (2009)

Huffer, K.P. (1995) Legal Abuse Syndrome: 8 Steps for Avoiding the Traumatic Stress Caused by the
Justice System. Las Vegas: Fulkort Press.

Hulme, S. Domestic violence offenders, prior offending and reoffending in Australia. Trends
Morgan, A. & Boxall, & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. 580: 1-22
H. (2019)

Kelly, L. & Westmar- naming and defining ‘domestic violence’: lessons from research with violent men.
land, N. (2016) Feminist Review. 112(1): 113-127

Khazan, O. (2017) Why Do Women Bully Each Other at Work? The Atlantic. [Online] Available
from: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-queen-bee-in-
the-corner-office/534213/

ISSN: 2167-1907 www.JSR.org 6

 Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021)

Accessed on: 10/11/19

Laing, L. (2017) Secondary Victimization: Domestic Violence Survivors Navigating the Family
Law System. Violence Against Women. 23(11): 1314-1355

Letellier, P. (1994) Gay and Bisexual Male Domestic Violence Victimization: Challenges to Feminist
Theory and Responses to Violence. Violence and Victims. 9(2): 95-106

Miller, A. (2018) Expertise Fails to Attenuate Gendered Biases in Judicial Decision-Making. Social
Psychological and Personality Science. 2(2): 1-8

Ministry of Justice Transforming Rehabilitation: a summary of evidence on reducing reoffending.

(2013) 2013. London. Ministry of Justice Analytical Series.

Muggleton, N. Tarran, Who punishes promiscuous women? Both women and men are prejudiced towards
S. & Fincher, C. (2019) sexually-accessible women, but only women inflict costly punishment. Evolution
and Human Behavior. 40(3): 259-268

Office for National Sta- Crime in England and Wales: year ending June 2018. 18 October 2018. UK: Office
tistics (2018) for National Statistics.

Pence, E. & Paymar, EDUCATION GROUPS FOR MEN WHO BATTER: The Duluth Model. New
M. (1993) York. Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

Robinson, A.L. Myhill, WHAT WORKS: CRIME REDUCTION RESEARCH Risk-led policing of do-
A. mestic abuse and the DASH risk model. [Online] Available from: https://what-
Wire, J. works.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/Risk-led_polic-
Roberts, J. & ing_and_DASH_risk_model.pdf
Tilley, N. (2016) Accessed on: 10/11/19

Shepherd, M. & Pence, CORDINATING COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Les-

E. (1999) sons from Duluth and Beyond. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications, Inc.

Tracy, S. (2007) PATRIARCHY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: CHALLENGING COMMON

MISCONCEPTIONS. JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL
SOCIETY. 50(3): 573-594

Vine, L. (2016) 'Women Hate Women': Is Madonna Right? GRAZIA. [Online] Available from:
https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/opinion/madonna-women-hate-women/
Accessed on: 10/11/19

Whitaker, D. Haileye- Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships
sus, T. Swahn, M. & With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence. American Journal
Saltzman, L. (2007) of Public Health. 97(5): 941-947

Whitcombe, S. (2014) Powerless: the lived experience of alienated parents in the UK. [Unpublished

ISSN: 2167-1907 www.JSR.org 7

 Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021)

Manuscript].

Williamson, E. (2010) Living in the World of the Domestic Violence Perpetrator: Negotiating the Unreal-
ity of Coercive Control. Violence Against Women. 16(12): 1412-1423

Women’s Aid (2019) Domestic abuse is a gendered crime. Women’s Aid. [Online] Available from:
https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/do-
mestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/
Accessed on: 29/10/19

ISSN: 2167-1907 www.JSR.org 8