Experiences of Physical and Psychological Violence Against Male Victims in Canada: A Qualitative Study

• Date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20911898
• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Author: Eugene Emeka Dim
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20911898

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2021, Vol. 65(9) 1029 –1054

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20911898

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Experiences of Physical

and Psychological Violence

Against Male Victims in

Canada: A Qualitative Study

Eugene Emeka Dim1

Abstract

The concept of intimate partner violence (IPV) implies gender-neutrality in the

experiences of violence. Gender symmetry in IPV implies similar numbers of men and

women victims. Data from the 2014 Canadian General Social Survey (Victimization)

indicate that 262,267 men and 159,829 women were victims of self-reported spousal

violence over the past 5 years. Despite the prevailing notion that IPV predominantly

affects female victims, these data suggest that men too are victims of IPV, especially in

heterosexual relationships. However, very few qualitative studies have shed light on

heterosexual male victims’ experiences of IPV. This article describes some of these

experiences and also seeks to understand the effects of IPV on male victims. Qualitative

data collected through semi-structured interviews with 16 male victims of IPV were

used to explore their experience of physical IPV and psychological IPV, as well as the

consequences of such abuse. Results revealed common themes pertaining to the type

of abuses (i.e., physical, controlling and threatening behaviours, and verbal abuse)

male victims experienced and the subsequent physical and psychological impacts. This

study identifies the need to distinguish between physically and psychologically abused

male victims of IPV.

Keywords

IPV against men, physical IPV, psychological IPV, marital violence

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to acts of violence perpetrated against intimate

partners, spouses, and dating partners, either in current or former relationships (Sinha,

1University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Emeka Eugene Dim, University of Toronto, 725 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2J4.

Email: eugene.dim@mail.utoronto.ca

911898IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20911898International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyDim

research-article2020

1030 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 65(9)

2013). Since a 1975 study (published in 1980) by Murray Straus and his colleagues,

which revealed men were just as likely as women to report getting hit by their oppo-

site-sex intimate partners, there has been significant debate about the gendered nature

and our understanding of IPV (Dutton & White, 2012; Johnson, 1995; Johnson &

Leone, 2005; Kimmel, 2002; LaRoche, 2005; Straus, 2007a, 2010; Tjaden & Thoennes,

2000). IPV against men as a concept has also been contested as a term that reflects

women’s expression of self-defense (Babcock et al., 2003; Swan & Snow, 2003), a

minimal form of IPV (Johnson, 2006; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Tjaden & Thoennes,

2000), or another concept within the broader context of the dynamics of family and

spousal conflict (Caldwell et al., 2009; Dutton & Corvo, 2006; Straus, 2007b). Others

have expressed concern that the focus on IPV against men reflects disingenuous politi-

cal motives (Kimmel, 2002; Richardson, 2004) and the possibility of diverting victim-

ization services for women to male victims (i.e., a zero-sum approach to addressing

IPV). Regardless of the contentious nature of the debate of IPV, it is now possible to

conceive men as potential victims of IPV.

Several studies have aimed to understand the nature and prevalence of IPV victim-

ization based on gender. Archer (2000) conducted one of the first meta-analytical stud-

ies to point to the existence of gender symmetry in IPV. Fiebert (2014) also documented

221 empirical studies that aligned with the gender symmetry perspective. Kimmel

(2002) argued that studies revealing gender symmetry tend to have methodological

flaws and lack context on the motivations of IPV; he also stated that studies revealing

gender symmetry tend to ignore the possibility that male perpetrators have more

impactful attacks on their victims than female perpetrators. Studies by Johnson (2006)

and Johnson and Leone (2005) align with Kimmel’s argument. However, studies that

have investigated who struck first in partner assault incidents reveal that women are

just as likely as men to start the assault or violence (Gondolf, 2000; Stets & Straus,

1990). Also, Whitaker et al.’s (2007) study revealed that women were the perpetrators

in 70% of the cases of nonreciprocal violent, heterosexual relationships. A recent

meta-analytical study on the motivation of IPV among men and women revealed that

women’s motives for IPV were often similar to those of men and ranged from anger to

coercive control (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). Other meta-analytical studies

also point to gender symmetry (Capaldi et al., 2012; Desmarais et al., 2012). Data

from the 2014 Canadian General Social Survey (Victimization) align with the gender

symmetry perspective. About 2.9% of men and 1.8% of women in Canada were vic-

tims of self-reported spousal violence in their current relationships within the past 5

years (Ibrahim & Burczycka, 2016). In addition, men were slightly more likely than

women to report emotional or financial abuse (Ibrahim & Burczycka, 2016).

Johnson (1995) conducted research that shed light on the various contexts in which

men and women perpetrate IPV. Using the National Violence Against Women Survey

(NVAWS) data, Johnson and Leone (2005) suggested a framework concerning the

typology of violence and the recognition of intimate terrorism (IT), as different from

situational couple violence (SCV; Johnson & Leone, 2005). They described IT as

forms of violence that are rooted in coercive behaviour and have a higher likelihood of

injuries, whereas SCV referred to ordinary conflicts that occasionally escalate to