The Fragmented Experience of Male “Victims” of Intimate Partner Violence in Heterosexual Relationships

ABSTRACT

This study deals with the experience of men coping with violence toward them in heterosexual relationships. The research was conducted using a qualitative paradigm. It was based on 12 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Israeli men. The analysis focused on the participants’ self-perception in the context of domestic violence toward them. The findings demonstrated the effect of internalizations of socially constructed structural gender expectations on the participants’ self-perception, as a men, spouses and parents. The participants’ narratives exhibited deferent degrees of dichotomist gender perceptions, de-legitimacy for emotional vulnerability, traditional male roles as responsible spouses and parents. These elements intensified frustration and emotional repression of their experience which engendered helplessness and hopelessness. The knowledge generated should serve service providers by enabling professionals to examine IPV in a more holistic and flexible way, and to tailor interventions with men and women, that consider their unique cross-gender characteristics and difficulties.

KEYWORDS:

• Intimate partner violence (IPV)
• domestic violence
• male victimhood
• heroic victims
• masculine

Introduction

The background for this study includes socially constructed theories of intimate partner violence (IPV) and a brief review of the research on IPV toward men.

The socio-cultural context of IPV

In this study we position gendered intimate partner violence using the theory of social constructivism. Social constructivism focuses on the way that conceptual frameworks are formed and how they influence personal narratives. The emphasis is on the creation and organization of conceptual frameworks through social interaction, language, and discourse (Gergen & Gergen, 2000). Since intimate partner violence began to be researched in the 1970s, two main social constructions regarding this phenomenon emerged. —the feminist and the symmetrical approaches (Lysova, et al., 2019). The feminist approach focuses on the status of women against the background of social inequality designed to preserve male hegemony. It is based on a socially constructed, essentialist gender dichotomy in a patriarchal power system, in which the man is a priori the strong aggressor/perpetrator, and the woman is the passive/weak victim (D George & Stith, 2014, Haj-Yahia, 2000, Sivagurunathan et al., 2019, Yodanis, 2004). The dichotomous feminist approach regarding intimate partner violence is widespread, as demonstrated in recent studies (Billy & Dror, 2020, Deshpande, 2019, Dziewa & Glowacz, 2022).

Somewhat ironically, the feminist approach to IPV is not only based on, but also perpetuates, the hegemonic male image in the Western world in general (R. W. Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) and in Jewish Israeli society in particular (Eran-Jona, 2011). Theories of hegemonic masculinity focus on a dominant form of masculinity that is culturally and socially privileged within a given context, Traditional masculine traits include courage, independence, assertiveness, and an overemphasis on power, often associated with disregarding consequences and responsibility (Sharma, 2018, Sivagurunathan et al., 2019). The masculine image comprises physical action and strength, risk-taking, aggression, physical and emotional control, and high status in a hierarchical power structure (Bates, 2020, R. Connell, 2009, Gueta & Shlichove, 2022). In the Israeli context, the military fighter ethos, along with the experience of military service by the vast majority of Jewish Israeli men, creates an inextricable bond between being a male and being an aggressor and reinforces the hegemonic model of maleness not only in the military but in Israeli society as a whole (Brockbank & Greene, 2022). The presence of adversaries surrounding Israel has necessitated the enlistment of men as combatants in the army. While women also serve in the military, the majority of female enlistees do not join combat units. As a result, the prevailing ethos of the warrior within the military, coupled with the common experience of military service among Jewish men in Israel, establishes a link between masculinity and aggression. This further solidifies the dominant model of masculinity not only within the armed forces but also in broader Israeli society (Bokobza, 2017, Gueta & Shlichove, 2022).

Alongside the traditional feminist dichotomous theories of IPV, anti-oppressive feminist approaches challenge systems of oppression related to gender-based violence by supporting a non-dichotomous view of intimate partner violence (IPV), where both men and women can be perpetrators or victims. Anti-oppressive feminist approaches examine how power imbalances within relationships contribute to abuse. This includes recognizing that power can manifest in various forms beyond physical strength, such as economic control, emotional manipulation, and social status (Fraser & Seymour, 2017, Larance et al., 2022). This anti-oppressive feminist position toward IPV is sometimes referred to as the symmetrical approach to interpersonal violence. It holds that violence is a universal human phenomenon that is not necessarily associated with gender (Berns, 2001, Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1993, Straus, 1999, 2015, Winstok, 2007, Winstok & Straus, 2016). The symmetrical approach to intimate partner violence is based on systems theory, which in its original conception was largely gender-neutral, and assigns primary importance to the interaction between familial, environmental, and psychological systems (Berns, 2001). This approach cites research that shows rates of female to male violence in intimate relationships equal to rates of male to female violence (Straus, 2015, Winstok & Straus, 2016) and that demonstrates that female violence is used not only in self-defense, but also as a means to gain control, dominance, and/or revenge (Straus, 2015, Winstok, 2007).

There is as yet no conclusive determination of the relative validity of each approach. From a social constructivist perspective, there is in fact no objective reality of IPV and other interpersonal phenomena, but rather concepts, beliefs and norms that develop social interactions and structures (Berger & Luckmann, 2011). In terms of public awareness, media attention, and institutional policy, the feminist approach to intimate partner violence is dominant (Hines & Douglas, 2010, Laskey et al., 2019, Straus, 2015, Wilchek-Aviad, et al., 2018). Men who have experienced violence in intimate partner relationships have been largely ignored in social discourse, and research about this experience is relatively sparse (Gueta & Shlichove, 2022; Laskey et al., 2019; Winstok & Straus, 2016). The researchers in the current study adopt the symmetrical approach, while taking into account the pervasive influence of the feminist approach in society.

Intimate partner violence towards men: comparative research

The most comprehensive study on gender differences in intimate violence was conducted by Archer (2000). This meta-analytic study examined combined results from 82 independent studies (including the National Violence Against Women Survey). Based on combined data across studies (a combined data sample of 64,487), women were found to be slightly more likely than men to use physical aggression (defined according to the Conflict Tactics Scale) against an intimate partner and to use such acts more frequently. Men were more likely to inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women. In the studies reviewed, samples from shelters for battered women were unrepresentative of community samples, since by definition they were female victim samples. This was not true of community samples. In general, the younger the sample, the higher the level of female violence relative to male violence.

A survey conducted in the years 2012–2013 in the UK, found that more men than women experienced intimate partner violence in the following categories – nonphysical violence such as emotional or financial violence (56% men, 51% women) and severe physical violence (34% men, 28% women). There were no significant differences in the rates of moderate physical violence and moderate sexual harassment. Women reported more threats of violence (23% women, 8% men) and more severe sexual harassment (11% women, 3% men) (Intimate Personal Violence and Partner Abuse, 2014).

In a U.S. survey conducted in 2020, it was found that approximately 1 in 4 women and almost 1 in 10 men experienced sexual violence, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime and reported some form of impact related to IPV. It was also found that more than 43 million women and 38 million men have experienced psychological violence during their lifetime in intimate partner relationships (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC, 2020).

There is a growing, yet still limited, number of research reports of men’s experience of IPV. The types of violence reported by Israeli men include: contempt and both private and public humiliation, outbursts of anger, controlling behavior, social isolation, psychological abuse, physical violence, economic violence, false legal complaints about violence or physical or sexual harm to children, violation of custody and visitation agreements, and parental alienation (Bailey, 2014). These categories of IPV are quite similar to those found in studies of men’s reports in Western countries (Hines and Douglas, 2010). Regarding the emotional impact of IPV toward men, preliminary research shows that IPV by women against men is associated with mental health problems in men such as depression, stress, psychosomatic symptoms, and general psychological distress (Bates, 2020, Scott-Storey et al., 2023, Lysova et al., 2019).

In terms of how men who experience IPV represent themselves, research has demonstrated that men tend to avoid labeling themselves as victims in cases of IPV (Sinclair et al., 2020). The severity of the physical and psychological abuse was found to be a main influence on the experience of victimhood (Allen-Collinson, 2009). Findings of a study of written petitions of 48 men from an urban county in the United States, who initiated and received restraining orders against their female partners after a violent episode, revealed that although the men did not describe themselves as victims, they described their wives as abusers. They emphasized their own control, strength, (nonviolent) active resistance and lack of fear in response to their female partners’ violence toward them (Durfee, 2011). In another study, the men denied their pain and presented concerns about expressing weakness (Migliaccio, 2002). Similarly, men who described forced sexual acts by their partners, avoided characterizing these actions as coercion (Stern et al., 2015). On the other hand, Brooks et al. (2017) conducted a qualitative study in which men expressed fear of their female partners, difficulties in trusting them, and anxiousness about being abandoned by them.

Studies also revealed men’s awareness of the direct impact of social factors such as perceived inequalities, on the differential attitudes and behaviors toward men and women. They were aware of radical hegemonic gender IPV policies which view women as victims and men as perpetrators (Brooks et al., 2017, Machado et al., 2017, Nybergh et al., 2016, Shaked et al., 2020). They felt lack of support by legal and social service institutions (Durfee, 2011, Machado et al., 2020). They were likely to be told that there must be something they did to provoke the perpetrator’s abuse and they can suffer embarrassment from not being able to protect themselves (Machado et al., 2020). The men objected to the existing system, yet felt trapped in it and expressed the difficulty in turning to others for help in situations of IPV because of the social stigma associated with male victimhood. This engendered feelings of loneliness, shame, and lack of environmental support (Brooks et al., 2017, Cho et al., 2020, Gueta & Shlichove, 2022, Machado et al., 2017).

In conclusion, research studies of IPV against men by female partners first appeared in the 1970s and yet, since then men’s victimization has received little attention, both within the scholarly literature and the popular media, particularly in Israeli society. Information and lack of information has an impact on social services’ policy, and treatment approach, the criminal justice system’s approach, and the attitudes of the public at large. These in turn have a critical influence on the experience of men coping with partner violence.

The current research

The purpose of the current research is to expand and deepen our understanding of the phenomenon of intimate partner violence toward men from an emic perspective, within a particular socio-cultural context, through the use of qualitative methodology. The article will analyze narratives as told in in-depth interviews with 12 Israeli men who experienced violence from their female partners. The research questions are: What is the experience of men coping with violence by their female partners within the Israeli cultural context? What are the intra- subjective and intersubjective aspects of this experience as an individual, as a partner and as a parent?

Research method

This qualitative study was conducted according to the Interpretative Phenomenological Analytic Method, IPA (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). This method focuses on both the experience of participants (phenomenology) and understanding the participants’ interpretation of the experience within a particular social context. In this way it allows for a rich and deep examination of the way in which people perceive their life experiences.

Research field and sample

The research took place in Israel in the years 2017–2019. It was approved by an academic ethics board. The sample consisted of twelve Jewish, Israeli men, ages 28–56, who met the inclusion criteria of experienced violence toward them by intimate female partners within the last ten years (according to self-report). All of the participants were parents. Eight were divorced, two were married (one of whom was in a second, nonviolent marriage), one was separated, and one was single. Eight defined themselves as secular and four defined themselves as religious. Nine characterized their socioeconomic level as middle class, and three as lower-middle class. Employment varied from sales and business (4), sciences and health related fields (4), blue collar jobs (2), teaching (1) and police (1). Most of the men held stereotypical male professions, some in senior managerial positions. All had completed compulsory military service in the Israeli army, most in combat forces including elite units.

The interviewees were recruited via Israeli nonprofit organizations that advocate for male victims of IPV and for men’s rights (e.g., “Men for Men,” “On your Side,” “Fathers 4 Justice”). These organizations were established by volunteers, most of whom experienced victimization as men, to provide counseling and support due to the lack of existing solutions in Israel for men coping with divorce and intimate partner violence. A notice requesting volunteers for the study was posted on each organization’s Facebook site. In addition, the snowball technique, whereby a participant refers another potential interviewee to the researcher, was employed.

Data collection

Following an initial telephone contact explaining the purpose of the research and the requirements for the interviewees, a time and place convenient for the interviewee were set. All interviewees signed a consent form. The interview guide included an initial open invitation to share the experience of violence in an intimate relationship. This was followed by a dialogue around a number of topics, including: the beginning of the partner violence, the most severe violence experienced, the reaction to the violence, history of violence in relationships with others in the past or present, sharing the experience of partner violence with others, awareness about the phenomenon of violence toward male intimate partners. In addition, the interviews allowed for expressing thoughts and ideas brought up spontaneously by the interviewees. It should be noted that having a female interviewer may have impacted the participants’ willingness to disclose their experiences of IPV and/or be honest about their role in the violence that took place within their relationships with women. However, had the interviewer been male, the participants may have been sensitive to not appearing as masculine enough and may have denied their victimization. The length of the interviews was between 2.5 and 3.5 hours. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The names of the interviewees were changed to insure anonymity.

Data analysis

The interview texts were analyzed according to the stages outlined in the IPA method (Smith, et al, 2009). In the first stage the primary researcher [R.B.] read the interview text, highlighting key phrases and writing freely associated comments in the margin. She divided the text into meaning units and labeled each one with a succinct title that remained true to the interviewee’s words while incorporating the researcher’s interpretation of their meaning. At this point the other two researchers independently reviewed the texts and initial analysis, offered their own interpretations, refined and further conceptualized the titles of the meaning units. From this point on, the three researchers worked as a team. After dividing the meaning units into categories, the relationships between the categories were identified and organized according to context and content. In the final stage, the categories were synthesized and conceptualized into more abstract themes.

Trustworthiness

In addition to the systematic analysis of direct experience as related in the in‐depth interviews, trustworthiness was achieved through thick description of the context and grounding via precise quotes alongside analyses. While all three researchers are female, they have diverse experience. One is a social worker in the field of IPV; one is a criminologist who specializes in IPV research; and one is an experienced qualitative researcher who specializes in couple and family dynamics. The researchers practiced reflexivity throughout the process by engaging in ongoing dialogs.

Findings

The findings present the experience of self and other among men who dealt with violence toward them by their female partners. This experience constitutes the interface between the internal, intrapsychic dimension and the external, interpersonal dimension, both of which reflect and create socio-cultural constructions of masculinity, femininity, violence, and intimate relations. In the findings section, we did not quote all of the informants, but the words of those we did quote represent the thoughts and sentiments of other participants as well. Following examples of the types of violence experienced by the participants, we will present the main themes that emerged from the textual analysis of the interviews.

The men in this study described many forms of interpersonal violence – emotional, verbal, economic, physical and sexual at various levels of severity.

Harry (divorced with two children) described physical violence: At a certain stage she would throw a fit … she grabs a knife and threatens. It was very frightening. It ended only when something bad happens. I, let’s say am scratched, blood flows, something is broken, it’s over.

Alex (divorced with three children) spoke about the sexual abuse he experienced: It’s funny that a man says this, but she had crazy sexual violence. There was shameful abuse there. Once we went to a cabin, and suddenly humiliations, humiliations and threats, so I moved away from her … so after a few minutes, she starts to pounce on me, and I say to her: “Listen, I don’t want to sleep with you, I don’t want to! It went down [the erection].” And you can’t object because it’s very aggressive. You can’t push her off yourself. It’s insulting. You’re actually abused … There’s nothing to talk about, not about the blows, and not about the injuries, and not about the shouting, and not about the violence.

Ari (married with one child) gave an example of verbal humiliation: She would say to me: “In the morning, be a good dog, if you want to get through the morning nicely.” She liked the words, “good dog.”

Ari went on to describe the economic violence that he experienced at the hands of his wife: I live according to what she decides for me. She says to me: “Show me your pay slip and bring me your salary.” I say to her: “What for? Let’s put our money in a joint account.” She says: “No, no, no, I spend enough on you.” “What kind of spend on me? You haven’t bought me a shirt in years.”

These are a few of numerous descriptions of IPV the participants experience. Below is an explication of three main analytic themes focusing on 1. how the participants represent themselves as men, husbands and fathers; 2. how they believe others perceive them in the context of IPV, and finally, 3. how the self-image of the participants interacts with the perceived view of others toward them.

How I see myself as a man, a husband and a father

There are two sub-themes regarding the participants self-representation – a. men whose masculinity is threatened and b. men who in response to this threat develop a self-concept as heroic fathers.

Masculinity under threat

We can identify the participants’ need to shore up their self-image as men, by their choice to begin the interview with information that highlights their own activism and success. For example, this is how Harry, introduced himself:

I got to the Minister of Justice. I got there in an attempt to pass laws in the Parliament. I am very active, number one or two in a fairly large group of fathers. I met Parliament members, I met people, I made demonstrations, I was very accepted.

Harry’s interview was filled with graphic descriptions of injurious and humiliating experiences, for example, “I cried inside myself … I felt less than an animal, that maybe I don’t have a right to exist.” Despite this, he as well as other men chose to begin his interview and return again and again to his fighting spirit that led to success against the odds in gaining custody of his children. Perhaps this was the participants’ way of reinforcing their injured masculinity.

Another aspect of injury described by the participants concerned “the paradox of male victimhood.” Alex, a divorced father of three described how the socially constructed expectation of men contributed to his experience of victimhood within the couple relationship.

The inequity, it’s actually also our fault, the men, that we in this whole process of couple relationships learned about ourselves that we have to take responsibility for the failures of others. We don’t actually have the ability to say, “wow, I was hurt by someone, that’s it, stop.” We aren’t built or ready for this. We’ll always be on the side that we are obligated to strengthen and to strongly hold, to look after and to take care of.

Alex presented the social construction of two opposing poles in the couple relationship, strength and neediness, according to gender stereotypes. In his experience, his wife was the strong aggressor and he was the weak victim. The dissonance between his experience and societal gender expectations ruled out the possibility of speaking out: “But there’s nothing that can be spoken, not about the blows, and not about the injuries, and not about the screaming, and not about the violence.”

Harry also expressed his sense of responsibility for his wife and the marriage, even in the face of her violent behavior.

You need a lot of energy in order to believe in yourself, to leave this situation, and you need to understand, suddenly, no! I want it to be OK for me and that’s it. I am not willing anymore. That’s it, til here … It’s either divorce or it will never be different. … I am responsible for the situation and for her. She is my beloved. I am the one who needs to care for her, and how can I suddenly do this to her? I am the man who looks after and always looked after that it should be good for her, and loved her, and suddenly I get up. [to leave]

Harry struggled with the gap between his internalized expectation that as a man he should always take care of his wife and between the reality of his unwillingness and/or inability to do so in the face of her violence. It is fascinating that at the beginning of the passage, when Harry talked about his difficulties in caring for himself, he used the Hebrew feminine verb forms and the feminine “you” when referring to himself. When he made his decision, “suddenly, no! I want it to be OK for me, and that’s it,” he regained his masculine strength and switched to the masculine syntax. Alex echoed Harry’s position that the man is ultimately responsible for the couple relationship.

It’s our responsibility that the couple relationship succeeds, because in the education that the western world instills, the woman is hormonal, she’s after childbirth, before childbirth, it’s difficult for her … but you are a man! so she yells, big deal? We’re afraid even to say we deserve something, because … Who told you, you deserve a woman who doesn’t yell? The social perception is—be a man and take it, so take it, what? It’s the end of the world? [We’re] busier with preserving the couple situation.

Harry’s and Alex’s words indicate that even when they gather their strength and rebel against the weak position of the abused partner by initiating divorce (rather than staying and “taking it like a man”), they continue to be weakened by the guilt feelings about having broken the marriage. One of the ways in which the participants shored up their manhood in the face of the abuse, was by presenting themselves as what can be termed “heroic fathers” rather than victims.

Heroic fatherhood: the new masculinity

In the Israeli context, there is a traditional emphasis on men being “tough,” This is often attributed to men’s role as combat soldiers and defenders of the homeland. This cultural norm discouraged the open expression of emotions in order to prove masculinity, as if emotionality might identify them as feminine (Billy & Dror, 2020, Vandello & Bosson, 2013). In recent years, there has been a shift in societal understanding, an acknowledgment that men, like women, have a wide range of emotions and should be allowed to express them. This shift reflects a broader global trend toward recognizing the importance of emotional well-being for everyone, regardless of gender (Bokobza, 2017). It has engendered what has been termed a “new fatherhood” which focuses on sensitivity to the child’s emotional needs and nurturing behaviors in addition to the tradition paternal role as disciplinarian. Despite these changes, there may still be lingering gender stereotypes that influence how men and women are perceived and expected to behave (Bokobza, 2017). The following passages illustrate different ways the participants found to realize masculine fatherhood within what they perceived as an atmosphere of violence by their partners.

Oren, divorced with one child, a muscular, powerful-looking man who does not outwardly fit the stereotype of the gentle, new man, described what could be termed “paternal heroism” along with sensitivity and empathic hurt for the child who was injured by the violent situation.

Every time I would drop the child off, she [his ex-wife] had to make a scene; it was a kind of [emotional] blackmail. Once, I bring him with a plastic container with small sandwiches. I would drop him off and put him into her car. She would explode that I bring him breakfast. She would scream and the child was so stressed out that it would get stuck in his throat. Before that she took it and threw it out. Other times she drove in reverse and twice she dislocated my leg [showed the scar]. They opened my knee from the top to the bottom, because she ran over me in reverse. Now you can’t [feminine form] scream. For Dad it doesn’t hurt. And the child is stressed out, hyperventilates because he sees Dad’s entire leg twisted. What can you do [feminine form]? Scream [feminine form] to the heavens. At that moment I said to him, “It doesn’t matter Ami, everything will be OK.” I closed the door very slowly, and let her drive away.

How many of us, as we read this passage, say to ourselves, “Oren is being melodramatic,” simply because he is a man? Even Oren speaks in the feminine form when referring to his feelings of helplessness. Yet, as a father and as a man Oren chose to suffer in silence in order not to increase his child’s stress.

Nathan, a divorced father of three, also described a situation where he was torn between the need to look strong and powerful as a father, and the hurt that he felt for himself and his children.

And I take them back [to the mother] sometimes, and it’s difficult for them to separate [from me], it’s difficult for them. It tears me apart as a person. It’s difficult for us as adults and the kids are torn sometimes. In a certain place, you have to show them the strength, and have to show them that everything is OK. You have to and want to take care of them, you strengthen them, you tell them things that you don’t really believe: “you know we have to separate in order to meet again,” things that give them tools to deal with this tearing apart. What’s important to me is that it should be good for the kids, always to walk between the raindrops and consider their wishes, and to give them love and to wrap them, that’s what preoccupies me.

Here, Nathan, too presented himself, as do other interviewees, as a “heroic father,” a role that established him as strong and protective in stark contrast to the weak position he occupied in the couple relationship.

How others see me: gender and intimate partner violence through the eyes of others

This theme deals with the participants’ perception of the views of others regarding women’s violence toward their male partners in the context of a. dichotomous narratives of strength and weakness, b. family values, and c. the silencing of male victimhood.

Dichotomous narratives of strength and weakness

In the following passage, Roy, a divorced father of three, explained why a man cannot be a weak victim of intimate partner violence.

A man does not experience violence. You’re talking about two very different sexes. A man also can’t accept bullying. A woman doesn’t have this at all, but she has societal tools that enable her to cope. It’s not that I’m pitiable. You’re [feminine form] simply in a situation that is hell, the emotional state, because of the pressure, there’s a lot of pressure and unpleasantness, it’s a situation that’s unpleasant by nature, from here comes the distress, not from the bullying. You see [feminine form] it as “how will I manage the day? What do I do?” You’re [feminine form], the whole day, in this situation, a survival situation. Let’s say it’s an unpleasant situation. Therefore, a man won’t go to complain about his wife if she attacked him. Same thing with me, even though you can easily define what she did to me as bullying, but it doesn’t fit your situation, because you can [feminine form] deal with it in some way. That’s the issue, that’s the challenge, it simply leads you to a situation of inconvenience.

A man does not experience violence, period, not in our society. So, what does a man whose wife attacks him do? First of all, don’t complain; that’s not manly. Secondly, downplay it. In this short paragraph, Roy shifted from violence to bullying to unpleasantness to inconvenience. Finally, if you experience violence, you need to shift to feminine pronouns and verb forms since victimhood and maleness is socially unacceptable.

Gendered norms impacted not only couple relations, but also the men’s standing in their families as a whole.

Familism and masculinity

The participants in this study were Jewish, Israeli men. Israel is a familist society in that it places great value on the family as a social unit (Birenbaum-Carmeli & Carmeli, 2002). Thus, the responsibility and commitment of the participants to the family was central in their narratives. When the family system was threatened by intimate partner violence, the men struggled to make choices between conflicting family values. Danny, married for a second time and father of four children described the feeling of being between a rock and a hard place while trying to balance between the desire to preserve the family structure and the desire to protect his children.

See, you come from a spiritual world, your motivation is religious—you don’t break up a home. Everything can be fixed, it’s not on the agenda. In addition to this, I knew that it [divorce] was going to be very bad. I wanted to protect the children, I wanted, I wanted to protect the structure …

There was humiliation, there was great embarrassment. Think, my children saw her violence towards me. And you understand that on the one hand you are trying to hold on to the structure so it will function, and on the other hand, I am in a situation that my children are being destroyed, simply being destroyed in this system, as it appears. The sense is a terrible strong sense of failure.

Even though the substance of his family’s life was dysfunctional, Danny’s inability to preserve both the family structure and his children’s welfare leave him feeling utterly defeated as a religious man.

Izzy, a divorced father of two, also described the dilemma of preserving the family when there is intimate partner violence.

In the next stage, after I realized that this is a problem, I asked myself, “OK, what do I do with this?” You don’t straightaway get up and go. OK, there’s a problem, but this is the mother of my children. I grew up in a home that family is family. I didn’t see breaking up my marriage. There’s a problem, so treat it. I tried and tried. My family held me. I saw it as a problem. If she had cancer, would I get up and leave? No. It’s a problem. You have to cope … On the day that it sunk into my head that it can’t be fixed, and it harms the children. That was The End.

Despite his and his family of origin’s strong family values, Izzy opted out of his marriage. This seems to have happened in stages, after realizing that his wife’s violence toward him was a problem. The cancer metaphor connotes a very serious, sometimes fatal condition. Yet despite Izzy’s assertion that a husband does not leave a wife with cancer, he ultimately did leave his wife, since her condition was untreatable, and it threatened his children. The listener/reader is left wondering whether the children’s welfare must be cited in order to allow Danny and Izzy to live with their decision to break up the family.

Delegitimizing male victimhood: silence and silencing

This category describes the participants’ perceptions of societal attitudes toward male victimhood and female violence. Nathan explained why it is more difficult for men to speak out.

I think that it is more difficult for men to share, because a man is perceived as a shield, as strong, and it is difficult for him to admit to … you know what, I can tell you about me that for a long period … . it’s hard for you to admit to weaknesses or to failures, you want to be strong. So yes, women react differently.

This passage constitutes an enactment of self-silencing. Even when talking about not talking, Nathan starts and stops twice, unable to get the words “I was battered by my wife” out in the open. Alex also described the hiding of his victimhood and the reasons for it.

I didn’t tell anyone, also not my family. She would share with my father. I never told him, maybe because the feeling of failure … Your respect is trampled each time again, something that’s not pleasant for you to reveal and talk about a failure. Even when I was humiliated and injured in many, many situations, but this shout [of protest] has no place at all. It’s something like, “be a man and suck it up.” The situation is much more absurd. The societal perception perceives the violence towards a man as much more correct, when you absorb the violence, because like you say: “I’m stronger, I can absorb it.”

According to Alex, the message is, if you suffer the violence in silence, you are more of a man.

Izzy forthrightly summed up how sharing the violence he experienced at the hands of his wife will made him less of a man through the eyes of others.

I don’t feel less of a man, but … I see the gears moving in my friend’s mind and I see what he thinks, “she’s a woman, why didn’t you push her away?” If you bring it up in a group of men on Facebook, I’m pretty sure that this is what they will say, “Give it to her in the head, break her bones, what is this supposed to be?” But I’m old school, I grew up on not hitting women, no matter what happens.

Izzy went on to describe in detail the situations he found himself in when his wife acted violently.

React? If I bring one on her, I break all of her teeth. Really? I don’t feel like being arrested. You think of this as I’m getting it [the blows]. I clinch her hands and say to her, “Let me leave.” “No, you’re not leaving this room.” Wild behavior, blows, fists, and again you’re in fear, you will always be blamed, you are a man.

This story appears in different variations in almost all of the interviews. The interviewees feel that in cases of marital conflict, society will not look kindly at the use of physical force in self-defense, and they therefore must absorb the blows silently until “she calms down,” and continue to be silent about the violence.

Finally, Allan, the father of two children who was undergoing divorce at the time of the interview, gave an additional explanation for hiding his wife’s violent behavior toward him: “People can’t understand this shocking reality.” The society simply has no space or words for women’s violence toward their male partners.

The interaction between self-image and the perceived views of others

This theme deals with the participants’ experience of themselves in the context of IPV in light of their own and society’s accepted gender narratives and violence narratives.

Roy, a divorced father of three, began his interview with a foundational question: How is violence defined?

We live in a violent culture … Violence is through language, songs, so how do we define violence? … Here, the violence is in almost every home—shouts, throwing things, and the like. It happens in every home … Isn’t man a violent creature by nature … At what level does forgiveness still work.

Roy speculated about what level of his wife’s violence should be tolerated. Danny added the dimension of female violence as a further source of confusion around defining and dealing with his wife’s violent behavior toward him.

There is something confusing about being a man who experienced violence. I am sure that when a woman experiences violence, she knows right away to classify it as violence. It’s repeated so much in the media, that it’s clear that it will be very clear what it is, and also how to relate to it. With a man it’s different. I didn’t relate to it as violence. Considering I’m muscular, tall. She can’t really injure me, even though today I am well aware that I was in actual physical danger. But then, I didn’t see it like this. She threatened me many times with a knife, and I know she could have done something. Then, I didn’t experience it like this. Her behavior did contribute to the experience of my fear and the anxiety from the unknown, but not like a woman apparently would experience when a man waves a knife in front of her. And surely the society will relate to it differently. From society’s point of view, doesn’t matter what, the man is guilty.

An interesting question is what was the “breaking point” for the participants, the incident or realization that propelled them to separate from their partners and/or to speak out about their experiences to family members, friends, or the authorities. For most it was a serious escalation of the violence or the fear of physical or emotional injury to their children. Below are examples of each of these situations.

Smith a divorced father of two, remarried with a child: She could be aggravating but not in an exaggerated way. That was what was deceptive. And then, she runs after me and says, “Now it will end in murder.” That’s it, I’m fed up. She brings a knife and tried to stab me. I closed the door and she tried to stab the door. I called the police. Policemen came. My oldest son came out of the house. I sent him back inside.

Nathan, a divorced father of three: I don’t know when it started, but I can point to the exact moment that it finished. On the day it seeped into my head that it can’t be fixed and it injures the children, that was the end. I told my parents I want a divorce … I understood that my children are suffering, and why should they have to suffer? A child doesn’t grow up well when he sees things like this at home.

Nathan concludes with a reflection that was shared by a few of the other participants regarding telling their stories in the interviews.

When I asked myself, “Why did I come here to speak? I’m not looking to pour out my heart.” And I said to myself, “The world isn’t aware enough of this.” It isn’t that I’m a trailblazer who is waving the flag, but I do think it will be better in the world when there is more awareness.

In conclusion, the findings indicate the parallel processes of the personal and the social constructions of gendered violence as they are expressed in the narratives of men who have experienced violence by their female partners. These expressions paint a picture of lack of legitimacy and even recognition for male victims of IPV, the paradox of male victimhood, silence and silencing that victimhood, and in some cases the diminishing presence of the basic essence of man (and woman) – the self.

Discussion

This study highlights the interface between socio-cultural norms and the experience of men coping with IPV To understand this interface, we can view the findings through the lens of social constructivism. Social constructionist theory posits that IPV, like all social phenomena, is not solely a result of individual actions but is shaped by social norms, cultural beliefs, and institutional structures. It traces how a collective social reality comes to be considered the objective truth and suppresses both inner and external voices that do not conform to this “reality” (Corbally, 2015, Durfee, 2011, Gergen & Gergen, 2000). This may explain why there is a relative dearth of literature about the male experience of women’s violence, since male victimization in general, and physical violence of women toward men in particular, are simply not part of the social lexicon (Ben David, 2014; Gueta & Shlichove, 2022, Laskey et al., 2019, Winstok and Straus, 2016).

Feminist theory explicates the tendency to assign men the role of perpetrator and women the role of victim. Chodorow (1978) claims that since women were assigned the maternal role, they were socialized to develop gentleness, sensitivity and empathy. On the other hand, men were socialized to be independent in order to fulfill a protective function and, therefore expressions of anger and aggression were legitimized and even encouraged (Martin & Doka, 2000). The theory of masculine hegemony holds that anything that is not masculine is, by definition, feminine (Billy & Dror, 2020, R. W. Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). In this way society constructs gender characteristics and roles as dichotomous. Men bear the burden of proving their masculinity and of suffering the anxiety of being socially shunned if they exhibit what are considered female characteristics (Gueta & Shlichove, 2022).

In addition to the framework of social constructions of violence and gender in Western societies, the participants in the current study experience IPV within the particular context of Israeli society. Bokobza (2017) applies Connell and Messerschmidt’s (2005) concept of “hegemonic masculinity” to Israeli masculine expectations and claims that these expectations are accentuated due to the nation’s military-centric ethos. According to this ethos, service in the Israeli Defense Forces is highly esteemed and the depiction of the “hero soldier” embodies the pinnacle of the idealized “masculine” identity. The “warrior Israeli man” is mandated not to display vulnerability, sensitivity, or shed tears. Instead, he must safeguard the home front, forge ahead, take charge, exemplify courage, exhibit the capacity to succeed and triumph, and he must never be rendered “subservient.” According to Bokobza, there are well-established and deeply ingrained values that define the Israeli “norm” for masculinity, and they have become entrenched over the years. These masculine codes tend to create an inextricable bond between being a man and being an aggressor and reinforce the hegemonic model of maleness not only in the military, but in Israeli society as a whole (Bokobza, 2017, Gueta & Shlichove, 2022).

The findings of this study address the male experience of IPV from two perspectives – the individual’s self-representation as a man, a partner, and a parent, and the social self, i.e. how one sees himself through the eyes of others. According to narrative psychology, a person narrates his/her experiences as a dialogue between internal experience and cultural expectations. In this way, personal and social meaning construction are in a dynamic and often dialectical interchange (Sarbin, 1986). We turn now to some of the specific findings and trace the personal, social, and interactional processes in the experience of men coping with IPV. Specifically, we examine the implications of the dichotomous construction of gender on male victimhood, the ways in which men internalize these social constructions, and how they impact the self-image of men who experience IPV as partners and fathers.

Dichotomous social construction of masculinity and femininity and its implications

The study participants were highly aware of how outsiders and society at large view them as men whose partners behave violently toward them. First and foremost, among social constructions of gender is the rigid split between characteristics of strong-weak, controller-controlled, active-passive, aggressive-delicate (Bokobza, 2017, Dutton & White, 2013, Sharma, 2018). The participants conformed with these constructions; they spoke about the Israeli context in which a man who is battered by a woman is seen as weak, “a sucker,” not a “real man” (Bokobza, 2017). They commented at length about how the mass media, social policies and the legal system reinforce dichotomous positions such as defining IPV as exclusively male violence toward women and positing that if there is in fact female violence toward men, it must be justified: “The absurdity is that the society perceives violence towards men as more right” These findings are consistent with Fried’s (2017) assumption about societal blindness to the suffering of and lack of compassion toward the “strong” gender. This construction created confusion, fragmentation, and inner conflict in light of the men’s experiences in coping with the paradoxical phenomenon of women’s violence toward them. In addition to those who rejected the label “battered man,” there were those who experienced embarrassment and shame regarding their damaged sense of masculinity as men who were battered or controlled by women. These feelings are consonant with the arguments of Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) and Cho et al. (2020) that victimhood is a feminine characteristic and therefore a “scarlet letter,” a symbol of shame, for men.

There were participants who did not see themselves as less masculine, but still had difficulty revealing their partner’s violence toward them to others. “I always thought that those men [who spoke about the violence] were to blame and cry babies. Until I coped with this, I didn’t understand what it was all about.” While three of the participants assigned the responsibility for the violence entirely to the female partner and were therefore comfortable to share with friends and family members the violence they suffered at the hands of their female partners, the other nine participants felt silenced by what they perceived as the social delegitimization of male victimhood and believed that revealing their female partner’s violence toward them would have negative consequences. “They will laugh at me;” Who will accept me for a job and let me manage hundreds of workers?” “To share is like being raped twice.” In consonance with the findings reported in Wilchek-Aviad, et al., (2018), If they did share with relatives and friends, they were asked, why don’t you just leave her? and experience this response as criticism: “In other words you are telling me: you are a sucker, you are a loser.”

The internalization of social constructions of femininity and masculinity

The narratives in this study demonstrate the significant impact of traditional masculinity stereotypes on the participants. Similar to Connell and Messerschmidt’s (2005) findings regarding men’s socially expected characteristics, most of the men in the current study described themselves in terms of success, power, achievement, and activeness. Some chose to begin the interview first and foremost with a declaration of primacy even within the confines of men who are fighting for their rights: “I am number one or two in a fairly large group of fathers.” Likewise, it was surprisingly common to hear men slipping into feminine self-assignment when describing victimization, and using masculine prepositions and verb forms when describing their female partners’ violence: “Someone [masc.] catches you [fem.] and breaks all of your fingers, and brings you [fem.] to your knees, so you will do [fem.] what he wants.” As Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) states: Anything that is not masculine is considered feminine.

Another manifestation of social constructions of gender and IPV is apparent in the words and concepts the participants used vis a vis their experiences. They do not use the phrase “victim of violence,” but rather talk about “coping” or “dealing” with their wives’ aggressive behavior: “A man doesn’t take bullying; he either deals with it or doesn’t deal with it.” This is a contraction in terms. The social norm declares that a man doesn’t take bullying (Sabri, 2022), but on the personal level he may not be able to deal with it. This dichotomy requires conceptual gymnastics: “I am not a battered man the way that society sees a battered man.” In other words, a man can’t be a battered man in the way that a woman is a battered woman even though the physical, verbal, economic, sexual and emotional violence described by the men in this study is quite similar to the male violence described by women who experience it in intimate relationships (Archer, 2000). The current study supports previous findings (Durfee, 2011, Sinclair et al., 2020, Migliaccio, 2002) that men experiencing IPV tend to deny emotions such as fear: “I am not afraid; what can she do to me? She can’t kill me. Only in retrospect, I understand that my life was in danger.” It is possible that they disassociated from the fear in order to maintain an intact social self, due to social constructions related to gender and violence (Archer, 2000).

We see how dichotomous gender stereotypes of male violence and female victimhood impinge on the participants’ ability to construct a coherent narrative of their painful experiences. The fragmented experience of male victims of female violence, lies in the internalization of the social construction of incongruity between two characteristics of their identity – male power and partner victimhood (Sabri, 2022). In an attempt to reconcile the dichotomy, the participants attempt to construct a new meaning framework by developing a different voice for different victimhood, what we have termed “heroic victimhood.” Men are responsible for sailing the ship, and the ship is sinking.” Within this new meaning framework, they struggle with the questions: Am I allowed to be “the victim” and Whom should I protect? my family? my partner? or myself?

Self-image as a partner and family man

In consonance with the complicated and fragmented experience as men facing violence by their female partner, the majority of the participants expressed a sense of responsibility for their partners, the couple unit, and the family as a whole while simultaneously experiencing IPV. They constructed the failure of the marriage as their own personal failure, since, as some mentioned, men should be a stabilizing strong anchor and a safe harbor: “I am the one who has to take care of her.” This role is part and parcel of being the “head of the family.” These expectations are equivalent to the expected characteristics of the Israeli “warrior” man who is trained to sacrifice, be in charge and to lead (Bokobza, 2017).

In addition, the men in this study expressed high levels of paternal concern and commitment. They undertook the role of strong protectors for their children in the face of their partners’ violence, even if it required denying or canceling their own suffering “Dad doesn’t hurt;” “You have to show them that you are not broken, in order to protect.” These men constructed their identity as captain of the ship, the one responsible for the welfare of the ship and of all those on it. When the safety of the passengers was threatened, the question was where did I go wrong, as the captain of the ship, and a sense of failure arose. We can see that the patriarchal male hegemony can turn against men as they feel burdened with protecting the family in sometimes unbearable conditions due to internalized societal expectations.

The findings revealed a new fatherhood fusion – “heroic fatherhood,” comprised of exceptional qualities of courage, sacrifice, dedication, and love in their role as parents, which seems to be a mix of the traditional narrative of the “strong male protector” combined with values of the Israeli familism (Birenbaum-Carmeli & Carmeli, 2002, Gueta & Shlichove, 2022) i.e., compassion and high levels of involvement with and commitment to the children, consistent with “the new fatherhood” (After, 2020). Perhaps the representations of heroic victimhood as a partner and heroic fatherhood shored up their masculinity that was threatened by the humiliation inflicted on them by their partners, by their family or by society and perhaps by themselves as well. It might be one of the only areas they could preserve at a time when many other family spaces were under attack.

Study limitations

The current research is one of the first Israeli studies to examine the male experience of IPV at the hands of the female partner; thus, the choice of an in-depth exploration of the experience of 12 men is appropriate. It must be noted that due to the small sample the findings are not generalizable, but may be transferable to other populations. The study relies largely on Western literature as a point of reference. The scope of the study did not allow for analyzing specific ways in which men from different ethnic and religious backgrounds and socio-economic levels experienced IPV Since men are much less likely to report being a victim of family violence than are women, and therefore there may be specific characteristics in the sample of this study of men who came forward with their stories. Finally, the retrospective nature of the study allowed the men to talk about the violence in their relationships from a distance with the processing that occurs with the passage of time. While this perspective has the potential to develop greater insight, it may subdue the intensity of the experience and perhaps even promote the reconstruction of a narrative that conforms to socially acceptable notions of masculinity.

Practical implications

This study opens a window to a broad, but largely unrecognized phenomenon of men’s experience of violence by their women partners, and employs an innovative cross-gender perspective. The knowledge generated should serve as a wake-up call for social policy makers, legislators, and service providers who deal with intimate partner violence. The study not only gives voice to an invisible, silenced group, it also challenges social and cultural constructions of gender and the dichotomy of female victim-male perpetrator. This is the first step in reducing and ultimately eradicating IPV is recognizing and understanding all of its manifestations. The findings expand rigid paradigms and will enable professionals to examine individual couple dynamics in a more open, holistic and flexible way, to identify cases of female to male partner violence, and to tailor interventions with men that take into account their unique experiences.

Statements

-On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

-This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of … … .

-The interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim in Hebrew. Interview extracts that appear in the article were translated into English.

The data can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ariel University, Israel.