Female Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse

Female Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse

AApart from the areas mentioned within this literature review, the intention was not to include everything that I have read. Further, the selection of areas that I have included, are merely to give an indication of my flow of thinking as I have read and developed a deeper understanding within the area thus, enabling me to develop a more rounded approach to the phenomena of ‘behaviour problems’ which, manifest as a result of social dysfunction. This has allowed me to develop a more holistic appraisal of the area of female perpetrators thus, allowing me to analyse the multiple overlaps and intermittent intrusions upon female perpetrators and their experiences. Therefore, as Spradley (1980) argues, “to understand personality, society, individuals and environment from the perspective of other than professional scientific cultures, leads to a sense of epistemological humility” (Spradley 1980: 15). 

The consequences and prevalence of male to female violence and abuse has been well documented historically from the early 1970s, in ground breaking feminist literature by Kate Millet (1970), who explored the power dynamics within sexual relationships who was part of the feminist movement that focussed on power dynamics within sexual relationships turning the subject into a political issue. The focus of her work stated that power between the sexes required the dominance of one group over another. The consensus of feminist theory at that time suggested that women’s oppression and therefore, dominance was based on patriarchal assumptions that were embedded into society.  Due, to the development of theory that sought to liberate the plight of women. 

Specifically, research now recognises that the victimisation of women generally sits within intimate partner relationships (Women’s Aid 2020).  This is supported by the Crime Survey by England and Wales (2019), who have stated that an estimated 7.5% of women and 3.8% of men experienced domestic abuse in the previous year further, in 75% of domestic violence reported cases were female victims. However, due to the heteronormative assumptions of the society that has been more difficult for society to accept is the increase of crimes that are recording a rise in female perpetrators. According to Independent Newspaper (2016), 1,850 women were convicted of perpetrating the offence in 2006, a figure which rose to 5,641 in 2015. The statistics were released by the Crown Prosecution Service to Parliament following a question submitted by Conservative MP Philip Davies. Part of this difficulty has been the development of thinking that has challenged assumptions related to gender and gendered roles, as female aggression has generally been understood and viewed as a means of retaliation for women against male aggression rather than an active strategy employed by women to have specific needs met. This plays out specifically, when we look at female aggression in relation to how it pertains to domestic violence and sexual abuse. Douglass et al., (2020). 

According to Douglass (2020), increased aggression in women as a strategy appears to be generally more understood within the context of personality traits, psychopathology, interpersonal conflict, demographics and psychosocial connections. However, this is little understood as this research field is only now being developed and therefore, the contributing factors and correlations are little understood due to the fact that prior empirical research has predominantly suggested that domestic violence and abuse has been framed as exclusively not only as male but, heterosexual Carney et., al (2006). Further, research related to demographic and environmental factors according to Capaldi et al., (2012) suggests that the risk factors for intimate partner violence are relevant to both males and females whether they be victims or perpetrators. These being age, low income, unemployment and minority group membership. 

Similarly, in research that explores developmental models that explore the emergence of antisocial behaviour (Broidy et al., 2003; Cote, Tremblay, Nagin, Zoccolillo, & Vitran, 2002; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001),  suggests that while age is an important factor contributing to violence within dating relationships again, males and females appear to be equally affected. Kim, Laurent, Capaldi, & Feingold, (2008). 

While, there appears to be discrepancies in relation to prevalence rates of female perpetrator crimes the general consensus in the area suggests that this is due to data reporting being reflected using crime statistics versus ethnological methodology. (Straus & Gelles, 1986). What appears to cause more controversy is perhaps the recognising that relationships, the concept of family and the spaces that females now find themselves situated in have transformed dramatically in more recent times. (Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford, & Fiebert, 2012). Consequently, female aggression and therefore, female perpetrators has to be better understood with an acknowledgment to the diversity of human relationships. Within the research developed by Cortoni et al., (2016), this becomes better understood when the research explores the prevalence of recidivism in relation to male and female perpetrators and sexual crimes. The research itself while exploring these relationships manages to expose statistically for one of the first times female perpetrator recidivism directly relational to sexual abuse and children. Further, to this the research acknowledges that until recently perpetrator programme designed for men have been used for women thinking that male and females are motivated and impacted by similar issues. This research states specifically that in order to support female perpetrators assessment tools must be gender specific.

The need to develop research is not to refute patriarchal explanations as these clearly exist when we examine male and female relationships within the context of culture. However, being mindful of the liberal society that we live in and in acknowledgment of abuse perpetuated by women, a rise in this phenomenon could be better understood in relation to the growth and societal acceptance of lesbian relationships and more complex familiar relationships. According to Lie and Gentlewarrier (1991), a survey of 1099 lesbians found that over half had been victims of violence by their female partners. Donald et al., (2005). Further, in the survey of 350 women in lesbian relationships rates in relation to verbal, physical and sexual abuse were much higher within this cohort than reported in heterosexual relationships. Lie et al., (1991). 

While, this will not completely explain the increase in females as perpetrators across more recent years, it is an important consideration. Further, to this it is important to be mindful of the changes that have happened within law enforcement and how some behaviours have become less normalised and more criminalised. This can be seen in the rise of domestic abuse by female family members within the UK. According to the Guardian (2020), figures produced by the Metropolitan police have caused an investigation in relation to offences committed by sisters, female family members and half-sisters. Figures suggest that there has been a rise of nearly 600 cases since 2010 and an increase of 109 cases when we are specifically speaking of sisters and half-sisters. Hence, female perpetrators now make up 28% of cases in relation to female inflicted domestic abuse. Most recently as victims of female violence begin to speak out and seek support from services within society there has been a further, growth of female convictions. Most notably in the UK and reported recently for the first time a female was convicted of abuse specifically linked to the category of coercion within her intimate heterosexual relationship which, ended in her being sentenced to 7 ½ years imprisonment Daily Telegraph (2018). 

While female perpetrators of intimate partner abuse lack the research that has been devoted to male perpetrators it is becoming increasingly evident that female perpetrators are as capable of inflicting physical and sexual abuse on their chosen victims. Further, according to Archer (2000), males have reported at a similar rate to females in relation to intimate aggression. The data collected according to Hines et al.; (2003) suggests that the injuries sustained by men are generally related to use of the weapon and physical attacks on male genitalia. According to the research examined by Ridley and Feldman (2003) which, reviewed data gathered from a group of 153 female volunteers related to a study on conflict and communication a recent trend appears. Female perpetrators in the sample reported physically abusing, choking, strangling, kicking and attacking their partners genital organs. Further to this, women that reported using lethal weapons also reported numerous and repetitive attacks on their partners.

This supports a small but growing area of research which, is challenging the construction of domestic violence and abuse as a gendered social problem framed within heterosexual assumptions Josolyne (2011), where women are maintained as victims. This does not negate the fact that according to government statistics based on the ‘Position Statement on Male Victims of Crimes Considered in the Cross-Government Strategy on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls’, (2019), which estimated that 2.4 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 786,000 men). What is important though is that while we might acknowledge that the levels of abuse that females and males do demonstrate when labelled as perpetrators the suggestion becomes that feelings of low self-esteem, culture pride and strict attitudes towards gender roles and identities, silences men in attempts to avoid threats of emasculation. Feelings of low self-esteem noted in the literature on abused women (e.g. Lempert, 1994) are echoed in the accounts of abused men, (Migliaccio, 2002).

More recently there has been a drive to recognise more gendered specific traits. What is becoming apparent is that socio-economic, demographic and environmental factors appear to have more influence over female perpetration. According to ‘National Resource Center on Justice-Involved Women’, Dieten et al., (2014) explore risk factors related to intimate partner violence for both males and females. However, based on in-depth narrative accounts, common recurring factor for female perpetrators highlights unemployment, socio-economic status, poverty, lack of social support, continued relationship with a male perpetrator and more recently there has been an addition of binge drinking. (Office Of National Statistics, 2013). However, the challenge according to what Dutton and White (2013) refer to as prejudice supporting a ‘gender paradigm’, where not only are heterosexual males limited on a development of understanding. Further, impact is that there is immediately a lack of  services available in society,  the question of support for same sex couples of abuse as well as support for female perpetrators becomes, very challenging within a ‘gendered paradigm’ which, effectively  renders invisible any challenge to that construct. 

Further, upon incarceration this creates issues when we think about ‘offence specific programmes’ which, should be designed to work with the risk factors related to female perpetrators. Unfortunately, due to the ‘gender paradigm’ Dutton and White (2013) refer to female perpetrators as being exposed to offence programmes designed specifically for male perpetrators. While, the extent of violence inflicted by men and women can be similar there is nothing to suggest that women’s treatments needs might be similar but, not as same as men. There appears to be an assumption that previously designed programmes with the male perpetrator in mind are gender neutral. According to Meckay et al. (2018) it was noted that while, in 31 instances of inclusion criteria being met there was no evidence that risk factors and definitions of risk were identified for female perpetrators. Consequently, it continues to remain unclear what specific factors are needed to target interventions and assessment tools for female perpetrators which, could allow us as researchers to gain a deeper and more defined understanding of predisposing factors. 

Surprisingly, while this remains under researched there is now a growing body of research which is developing in the area of male victimhood.  Wright (2016) while, this in itself is useful just as in relation to the area of female perpetrators there is an invisibility again created due, to male victims of abuse being marginalised by system that has now been designed for women. Hence, it appears to be expected that men can be understood through a framework designed for women. 

The whole area discussed above is all valid and useful. However, there appears to be a lack of development in research which, leaves  massive holes within the areas that are necessary to continue to support a society based on looking for and moving towards positive outcomes for the entirety of society. 

Further to this, there has most recently been a development in the area of female perpetrators which, appears to challenge society’s gendered assumptions in relation to sexual violence within conflict and war. This area according to Sjoberg (2017) is hugely acrimonious to social thinking particularly because, most generally in war and conflict zones, the assumption is that women are overwhelmingly victims when men act out as perpetrators. Sjoberg (2017), focuses specifically on female perpetrators of physical and sexual violence which, throws in the air any research and writing which maintains its stance within the wider context the patriarchal heterosexual narrative. Sjoberg (2017) suggests that not only are male victims rendered invisible. The challenge to stereotyping and gendered assumptions, works to limit our understanding of these crimes and further, how to prevent them.

Sjoberg’s (2018) work charts historically what society has preferred to hide, she choses to note the distressing and infamous journey of female perpetrators across the second world war, the Rwandan genocide, the Bosnian conflict, and other notable conflict regions. The writing is crucial in order to gain perspective on the gendered lens that is used to portray and understand predominantly abusive, physical and sexual crimes. Most disturbingly, this challenges the very framework of society when it is already recognised and acknowledged that female perpetrator programmes are maintained through a male lens. Sjoberg (2018) in her challenge to societies, ‘gendered paradigm’ is crucial to understanding development of the female perpetrator. This is demonstrated specifically when societies assumptions are completely blown out of water when Sjoberg (2018) revisits the role of a female US reservist who was captured on film and convicted of sexually abusing prisoners in Iraq. This is particularly supported when in a (2010) survey which took place in the ‘Democratic Republic of Congo’ when working with 1000 households which, found that 40% of women and 10% of men stated that they were abused and sexually violated by women. This demonstrates a clear understanding of women’s culpability as a female perpetrators. 

As this discussion demonstrates abuse perpetrated by females is not only under researched but under resourced. There seems to have been more of a development in relation to female perpetrators in broadly explored intimate relationship violence. As the research suggests the social and political triggers that result in negative outcomes for male and female victims appears to reflect similarities in relation to background causes. However, contradictory to research which, suggests that women use of aggression is merely a reaction to violence inflicted on them by men as self-defence. In identifying female perpetrators specifically the research has revealed that not only are there holes in areas related to assessment, identification and  prevention but, that the holes in research appear to be justifying frameworks that are being considered gender neutral rather, than working towards gender specific interventions. This would create spaces that render both males and females invisible in turn. In the work produced around female aggression, war zones and conflict the female perpetrator becomes starkly clear in contrast to the assumptions based around male gendered abuse, violence and sexual assault. 

References 

Abel, E. M. (2001). Comparing the social service utilisation, exposure to violence, and trauma symptomology of domestic violence female victims and female batterers. Journal of Family Violence, 16(4), 401-420.

Abuse…I., (2020). What Is Domestic Abuse? – Womens Aid. [online] Womens Aid. Available at: https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/ [Accessed 7 August 2020].

Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent

Behavior,7, 313−351.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.

Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,7, 313−351.

Babcock, J. C., Miller, S. A., & Siard, C. (2003). Toward a typology of abusive women: Differences between partner-only and generally violent women in the use of violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 153-161. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.00095

Banwell, S. (2010). Gendered narratives: Women’s subjective accounts of their use of violence and alternative aggression(s) within their marital relationships. Feminist Criminology, 5, 116–134. doi: 10.1177/1557085110366223

Batchelor, S. (2005). “Prove me the bam!”: Victimization and agency in the lives of young women who commit violent offences. Probation Journal, 52, 358-375. doi: 10.1177/0264550505058034

Bottos, S. (2007). Women and violence: Theory, risk, and treatment implications. Ottawa, ON: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.

Broidy, L., Nagin, D., Tremblay, R., Bates, J., Brame, B., Dodge, K., & Vitaro, F. (2003). Development trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222-245. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.222

Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Wu Shortt, J., & Kim, H. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231

Cortoni, Franca and Gannon, Theresa A. (2016) The assessment of female sexual offenders. In: Boer, Douglas P., ed. The Wiley Handbook on the Theories, Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offending. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK. 

Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships: Part 2. Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse, 3, 170-198. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.170

DeKeseredy, W. (2000). Women, crime and the Canadian criminal justice system. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.

Douglass, M., D’Aguanno, S. and Jones, S., 2020. Women as active agents: Female perpetrators of sexual harassment and domestic abuse. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), pp.32-49.

Dowd, L. (2001). Female perpetrators of partner aggression: Relevant issues and treatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma,5, 73−104.

Dutton, D., Nicholls, T. and Spidel, A., (2005). Female Perpetrators of Intimate Abuse. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41(4), pp.1-31.

Fenton, S. (2016). Number of Women Convicted of DV at Record High, Independent. 19th September.

Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2003). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Family Violence Lab: University of New Hampshire.

Henning, K., & Holdford, R. (2003, September). “Why doesn’t HE just leave?” Relationship continuity and satisfaction among male domestic violence offenders. 8th International Conference Family Violence, San Diego, CA.

Henning, K., Jones, A., & Holdford, R. (2003). Treatment needs of women arrested for domestic violence: A comparison with male offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 839-856. doi: 10.1177/0886260503253876

Josolyne, S. (2011) Men’s experiences of violence and abuse from a female intimate partner: Power, masculinity and institutional systems, [online]. Available at: http://www.mankind.org.uk/pdfs/Thesis%20Web%20Version%20060412.pdf [Accessed: 13th November 2014].

Kim, H. K., Laurent, H. K., Capaldi, D., & Feingold, A. (2008). Men’s aggression toward women: A 10-year panel study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1169-1187. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00558.

Laroche, D. (2005). Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence—Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999. Quebec City: Government of Quebec Table 8, p. 16

Lawson, D. (2003). Incidence, explanations, and treatment of partner violence. Journal of Counseling and Development,81,19−32

Lempert, L. B. (1994). A narrative analysis of abuse: connecting the personal, the rhetorical, and the structural. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22 (4), 411-441.

Lie, G. Y., & Gentlewarrier, S. (1991). Intimate violence in lesbian relationships: Discussion of survey findings and practice implications. Journal of Social Service Research, 15, 41-59.

Lie, G. Y., Schilit, R., Bush, J., Montagne, M., & Reyes, L. (1991). Lesbians in currently aggressive relationships: How frequently do they report aggressive past relationships? Violence and Victims, 6, 121-135.

Mackay, J., Bowen, E., Walker, K. and O’Doherty, L., (2018). Risk factors for female perpetrators of intimate partner violence within criminal justice settings: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41, pp.128-146.

MIGLIACCIO, T., 2002. Abused Husbands. Journal of Family Issues, 23(1), pp.26-52.

Millett, K., (2000). Sexual Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Moffitt, T. E., & Capsi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescent-limited anti-social pathways among males and females. Development and psychopathology, 13, 355-375. doi: 10.1017/S0954579401002097 

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva. P. (2001). Sex differences in anti-social behavior: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Office Of National Statistics. (2013). An Overview of Sexual Offending In England and Wales. HM [pdf] United Kingdom.

Pollock, J. M., Mullings, J. L., & Crouch, B. M. (2006). Violent women: Findings from the Texas women inmates study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 485-502. doi: 10.1177/0886260505285722

Ridley, C. A., & Feldman, C. M. (2003). Female domestic violence toward male partners: Exploring conflict responses and outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3), 157-170.

Spradley. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (Reissued Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2016)

Stets, J., & Straus, M. (1992). Gender differences in reporting marital violence. In M. A. Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American

Families (pp. 151−166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Stets, J., & Straus, M. (1992). Gender differences in reporting marital violence. In M. A. 

Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American Families (pp. 151−166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Sjoberg, L., n.d. (2016). Women As Wartime Rapists. New York university press.

Ward, V., (2020). Controlling Girlfriend ‘First Woman Convicted’ Of New Domestic Abuse Offence. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/controlling-girlfriend-first-woman-convicted-new-domestic-abuse/> [Accessed 7 August 2020].

Wright, C. (2016) ‘The Absent Voice of Male Domestic Abuse Victims: The Marginalisation of Men in a System Originally Designed for Women’, Plymouth Law and Criminal Justice Review, 8, pp. 333-350. Available at: 

https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/9037 

https://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/9037

Search