The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Domestic Abuse Against Men in Scotland

CHAPTER FOUR - ABUSED MEN'S PERSPECTIVES

Introduction

Whilst there are undoubtedly fewer male victims of domestic abuse than female victims in Scotland, the findings of the SCS 2000 self-completion questionnaire suggest that one in twelve men will be forced or threatened by a partner at some point in their life. In order to seek a better understanding of these abused men's experiences and perspectives we retraced as many of those 90 men who had disclosed experiences of force or threat from partners in their self-completion responses to the SCS 2000 as we could. We asked those men who we successfully retraced whether they would be willing to participate in in-depth interviews about their experiences.

Retracing Male Victims

When people undertake the SCS they are asked if they can be re-contacted if further research projects would benefit from their co-operation. Of those 90 men who disclosed some experiences of force or threat some 63 (70 per cent) responded positively to this question - slightly below the average (78 per cent) for the main sweep. We had insufficient contact details regarding six of these 63 men, hence, the maximum sample size we could possibly glean for our follow-up interviews was 57.

We made telephone contact with as many of these 57 men as possible, and wrote to all those whom we were unable to speak to. By using letters and telephone calls we managed to retrace 40 men from the original sample. We also visited the homes of most of those who did not reply to us, and managed to locate a further six men in this way. As indicated in Figure 4.1, in total we managed to make contact with 46 of the 57 men for whom we had some contact details ⁶⁶.

Figure 4.1: Contacting SCS respondents

During the fieldwork we encountered 13 respondents who claimed to have never experienced any form of threat or force from a partner. We interviewed eight of these non-victim men in person. However, there were five men who said that it would be pointless to interview them because they had never experienced force or threats from their partners and ex-partners. Two of these men said they had never had partners, and in any case, neither of these men should have been given the self-completion questionnaire (one was under 16 years of age and the other was 71 years old ⁶⁷).

Those who were unwilling to participate in an in-depth interview were asked if they would simply confirm or deny the accuracy of the SCS record (either by telephone or by post). In total:

• Thirty-one men confirmed the accuracy of their record to us.
• Thirteen refuted the record, claiming not to have been forced or threatened by a partner.
• Two of the men we traced neither confirmed nor denied the accuracy of their record.

As Figure 4.2 indicates we interviewed 22 of these 'confirmers' and eight of these 'refuters' in-depth.

Figure 4.2: Responses of traced sample

On the basis of these findings we believe that the actual rates of domestic abuse against men in Scotland are between 50 and 70 per cent of the figures quoted in MacPherson's (2002) analysis of the self-completion questionnaire ⁶⁸.

Qualitative Interviewing Methodology

Those men who did agree to be interviewed in person (whether they turned out to be victims of domestic abuse or not) were given a choice of a male or female interviewer. Only one man specifically requested a female interviewer. No one requested a male interviewer. All interviewees were offered 10 to participate, however some men were subsequently offered 20 ⁶⁹. All of our interviewees were asked whether they wanted to be interviewed in their own homes or in a location nearby. Four men accepted the offer of having an alternative venue arranged for them, although one of these did not show up for interview. One man was interviewed at his workplace, at his request.

The interview techniques we used were adapted from the Free Association Narrative Method (FANIM) depicted by Wendy Hollway and Tony Jefferson (2000). In short, the FANIM involves inviting interviewees to take as much time as they need to answer one 'big' interview question. Interviewees are encouraged to tell their story in their own words, whilst the interviewer facilitates with active listening, nods, and 'hmms'. Subsequent questions typically probe the actual narrative disclosed by the interviewee ⁷⁰. All interviews were tape-recorded (and subsequently transcribed and anonymised).

Having initially checked to see if their interviewee had any questions about the research, our interviewers would move on to collect a few basic demographic details: the interviewee's age, occupation, religion, marital status, living arrangements and the ages of any children. Our interviewers then said to the interviewee:

You mentioned when you were interviewed for the Scottish Crime Survey that you had experienced threatening and/or forceful behaviour within a relationship you had with your current/ex-partner. Can you tell me the story of that relationship in your own words?

The question would be tailored to the data we already had about the interviewee from the SCS 2000. Our interviewers only asked subsequent pre-planned questions ⁷¹ if the interviewee did not come on to talk about these issues in their own narrative account. At the end of the interview our interviewers asked interviewees if there was 'anything else they wanted to ask or tell them'. Our interviewers then asked their interviewee a few questions about their contact with service providers for victims.

Reasons for Inaccurate Reports of Abuse in the SCS 2000⁷²

When we encountered men who said the responses recorded about them in the SCS self-completion questionnaires were inaccurate, we endeavoured to see if there were any reasons for these inaccuracies. Of course it is possible that some of these men fabricated stories - perhaps to avoid having to discuss their experiences of domestic abuse - but the impressions we formed from meeting these men and hearing their stories is that this was rarely, if ever, the case. Many of the men seemed genuinely surprised and, in some cases, annoyed that such information had been recorded about them. Two men were visibly upset about the insinuation that they had experienced domestic abuse. One man explained that he had never had a partner, and two interviewees invited their wives to verify their accounts.

Some of the reasons for misreporting were more comprehensible than others. For example, one man (Doug) who had been attacked by his girlfriend's other partner described an incident that was both 'domestic' (in the broader sense of the term) and serious. Doug depicted an incident in which his girlfriend's (female) partner had threatened him with a gun. Likewise another man (Leonard) had been involved in verbal altercations with a friend regarding his marriage. Both of these men may have wanted to draw issues to the attention of the SCS even though these issues were not strictly within the remit of the survey.

However, other cases centred on attacks that were clearly outside of an ongoing relationship. Three men reported having been assaulted by strangers in public places. We can only hypothesise that these men misread (or failed to read) the introduction to the self-completion questionnaire, being unaware that this part of the survey (unlike the main sweep) dealt exclusively with force and threat used by partners. Likewise, some men disclosed incidents of crime and disorder that were connected to their home lives but were not what is conventionally thought of as incidents of 'domestic abuse'. These men included: Clive, who had been frightened by 'trick or treaters' and had a bicycle stolen from his garden; Jonathon, who regularly intervened during physical and verbal altercations between men outside his home; Bill, whose front door was kicked down by a drug addict; and Ronald, who had rubbish thrown into his garden and had his fence set alight by local children.

Men who had been abused by Partners

Only one of these 22 men had been abused by a male partner. The other 21 had been threatened or had force used against them by female partners. All were white, and described themselves as either 'Scottish' or 'British'. Three of the men interviewed were still living with an 'abusive partner', the remainder either lived alone (n=8), with other family members (n=4) or new (non-abusive) partners (n=7). Hardly any of these men had sought the support of statutory service providers following their victimisation. Consistent with the findings of the SCS 2000, the police were the agency most likely to come to know about the domestic abuse. Yet, only four of the 22 'confirmers' had been in contact with the police because of domestic abuse incidents.

For simplicity, we have categorised these 22 men into four groups on the basis of how they sought to depict themselves. As we shall indicate, in some cases, the men's depictions of themselves as 'victims' did not correspond neatly with the details of the abuse they described. The four groups are as follows:

1. Primary Instigators - These are men who admitted that they instigated most of the abuse in their relationships (n = 1).
2. Equal Combatants - These men argued that their relationships were equally abusive on both sides (n = 4).
3. Retaliators - These men admitted having been abusive to their partners, but argued that this abuse occurred in the context of more prolonged or serious levels of abuse perpetrated against them by their partners (n = 8).
4. Non-Retaliatory Victims - These men said they were victims of their partner's abuse, but had never retaliated and had only used force to restrain partners who were physically attacking them (n = 9).

Primary Instigators

Adam was a manual worker in his mid-twenties who did not see himself as a 'victim of domestic violence'. Indeed, he began his account by describing the time when he was arrested for assaulting his partner. Adam's violence took place in the context of his recurring sexual jealousy - the one time his partner had ever struck out at him coincided with him 'questioning her' about where she had been, and him gesturing as if he was going to kick her in the head. There was some evidence in Adam's narrative to suggest he was still using his children to control his partner. Adam was never prosecuted for his violence, his then fiancée having asked the police to drop the charges ⁷³ against him. Adam had a history of heavy drinking and getting into fights with other men who 'stared' at his fiancée. Adam had never sought any counselling or support to address his violent temper.

Equal Combatants

In our appendixed case summaries the equal combatants are referred to as Barry (a soldier in his mid-thirties), Charlie (a professional worker in his early forties), Daniel (a farmer in his early thirties), and Eddie (an unemployed man in his late forties). Of these four men, only Charlie identified himself as a 'victim of domestic violence' in the Scottish Crime Survey 2000. Indeed, Daniel described a relationship in which there was no violence, only the kind of 'heated arguments' that (he felt) separating couples often have ⁷⁴. The 'threats' used against Daniel mostly seemed to be connected with his partner's reluctance to 'settle down' with him and her subsequent infidelity.

In contrast, Barry, Charlie, and Eddie described physically violent relationships in which their partners seemed to have sustained more injuries than they had. Interestingly, all three of these men said that they were provoked by their partners' words, behaviours or actions. These three men had much in common with Adam in terms of the way in which they each rationalised their own violent behaviour. Nevertheless, Barry, Charlie, and Eddie varied considerably in terms of socio-economic and demographic characteristics, as well as in their levels of educational achievement.

Barry described a relationship with an underlying 'violent atmosphere' in which he would become 'riled' by Amy's ability to 'push the right button' during arguments. These arguments would often end in reciprocated bouts of violence. Amy had hit Barry with objects, and Barry had caused Amy to crack her head against a wall. Barry was arrested and charged for his violence, although Amy later had the charges against him dropped, after Barry had reminded her how a conviction would 'finish his career'. Interestingly, Barry described the police's response as helpful.

Although Barry and Amy had been to Couple Counselling they had since separated. Like several of the other military men we interviewed, Barry blamed the problems in his marriage on the social isolation and loneliness his career imposed on his partner. Also, like several other men in our sample, Barry attributed Amy's aggression to her physiology - 'postnatal depression' - and her inability to trust him. Amy apparently perceived the problem more in terms of Barry's heavy drinking, absence from the family home (which included his two children), and (alleged) infidelity.

Unlike Barry, Charlie was still living with his partner, Maureen. Charlie told us that some recent aspects of his relationship were 'too raw' to disclose. He described a 'stormy' marriage of 21 years during which he and his partner had used force against each other every couple of months. Although he claimed his violence was usually 'a counter to her original aggression', Charlie's account revealed that he had, at times, squared up to Maureen provoking her to hit him. Charlie's account also revealed that Maureen had sustained bruising to her face so severe that she could not work. Charlie said he had sustained cuts and scratches as a consequence of Maureen's behaviour, but this had not resulted in days off work or medical treatment. Charlie attributed the problems in his marriage to: Maureen's insecurities about his fidelity ⁷⁵; the fact that Maureen's mother had been murdered by an abusive (second) husband; and Maureen's tendency to dispute their problems in public.

Like Charlie, Eddie was still living with his wife (Doris). Eddie described both himself and his wife as 'handicapped' ⁷⁶. When asked more specifically about his relationship with Doris, Eddie told us how Doris would be violent when she had been drinking. Eddie described only one instance of his wife's violence; Doris scratching Eddie 'all over' when he spent 5 of their rent money. Eddie also claimed that Doris's drinking caused him to be violent; her drunkenness would get 'on his wick'. Eddie was particularly open in disclosing his violent behaviour towards Doris, describing times when he would bruise her, choke her and lock her in a room. Eddie also told us how he had avoided marking Doris's face because this would enable the police to arrest him. Eddie said he had stopped short of killing Doris because he did not want to be arrested, and because he had memories of being a victim of his father's violence. Eddie said he did, however, routinely threaten to call the police (and his mother-in-law) when Doris was drunk and irritating him.

Retaliators

These eight men are referred to as Frank (an unemployed factory worker in his late fifties); Gary (a labourer in his early forties); Harry (a street orderly in his early forties and the only gay man in our sample); Ivan (an unemployed manager in his fifties); Jimmy (presently a restaurant worker, but formerly a soldier, in his forties); Kenny (a sales director and trainee psychotherapist in his fifties); Liam (an engineer in his mid forties) and Michael (an engineer in his fifties). Three of these men considered themselves 'victims of domestic violence' (Gary, Ivan and Michael). These three men were the only retaliators to have received medical treatment for their injuries. Frank did not know whether he considered himself a 'victim of domestic violence' or not. The remaining four men (Harry, Jimmy, Kenny and Liam) did not consider themselves to be 'victims of domestic violence'. The police had only come to know about incidents of domestic abuse in Gary and Jimmy's relationships.

Gary and Michael's stories were quite similar. Both men had married women who subjected them to life-threatening forms of violence (attacks that resulted in substantial blood loss) and both of these men's partners had had violent reputations (Gary's partner had killed her subsequent boyfriend). Likewise, both men described assaulting their partners in retaliation (punching and threatening to hit), and relationships in which abusive arguments were commonplace. Both men indicated that they felt so embarrassed that they had lied to friends and family about the source of injuries that they had sustained. This embarrassment, together with a desire not to publicise their problems, had protected their partners from being arrested ⁷⁷. Gary, however, had been arrested and fined for his own violence, whereas Michael had not.

Gary attributed his wife's (Deborah) violence to her addictions to alcohol and Valium. He also said that Deborah had threatened to kill him, broken his window, and feigned injuries to get him arrested. Gary also claimed that after they had separated, Deborah had instructed her brother and another male friend to assault him. Deborah also harassed Gary by making nuisance telephone calls. Michael was still traumatised by the injury he sustained 20 years ago when his wife stabbed him in the back with a knife. Infidelity and a marriage based largely on an unexpected pregnancy were recurrent themes in Michael's account of the abuse he experienced.

In contrast to Gary and Michael's accounts, the abuse described in Ivan's relationship was mostly verbal, although he had also been slapped and hit on the arm with a spade by his former partner (the latter incident requiring medical attention). Ivan depicted his ex-wife as a 'drama queen', and considered her reluctance to let him walk away from verbal confrontations as a form of abusive 'force'. During one such incident Ivan had trapped his ex-wife's finger in a door that he was using as a barrier (for which she needed medical attention). Infidelity and jealousy were sources of tension in Ivan's relationship. The police were never notified of these incidents, but Ivan and his ex-wife did discuss their abusiveness in Couple Counselling.

Frank was the only 'retaliator' who had not experienced any force, only arguments. Frank told us how his wife, Hilary, and their children had left the family home to live in sheltered accommodation. Hilary subsequently moved back to their home and changed the locks, forcing Frank to live with another member of her family. Frank said that Hilary had 'threatened to kill' him but maintained he was 'never really frightened' of her. He also said that he might have threatened Hilary, but that he could not remember a specific incident.

All four of those men (Harry, Kenny, Jimmy and Liam) who did not consider themselves 'victims' described turbulent relationships that occasionally became physically abusive. Harry, the only gay man we interviewed, had been involved in abusive relationships with two men (the first both physically and mentally abusive, the second, predominantly physical). The clandestine nature of this first relationship helped sustain the abuse for fifteen years. Aside from the physical fights, Harry's partner had been repeatedly unfaithful (using prostitutes, bringing another male partner to live in their home, and planning a marriage to a woman). The abuse in Harry's second relationship was more of a 'one-off' incident. This incident involved Harry retaliating against his partner who had first grabbed him by the throat. Harry had found the support of Gay Men's Health particularly 'helpful'.

Kenny described some 'wrestling matches', instigated by his wife, in which they would both lose control. Kenny claimed that these wrestling matches coincided with the onset of his wife's menopause. The most severe of these occasions occurred when Kenny had dragged his wife down the stairs, and she had scratched his hands. Likewise, Liam described a relationship with an ex-girlfriend in which they had both hit each other in the face during rows. Liam said that this only happened a couple of times.

Jimmy's experiences of abuse were slightly more complex, not least because he had been assaulted by two different partners (his ex-wife, Ann, and his ex-girlfriend, Mandy). Most of the incidents described in Jimmy's marriage were relatively trivial (e.g. Ann throwing toast and water at him). On the one occasion that Ann had punched him, Jimmy had been 'playing rough' with their son who had started to cry ⁷⁸. Jimmy responded by putting Ann up against the wall and threatening to punch her. Ann called the police, but neither she nor Jimmy pressed charges. Jimmy mentioned that the threat of being charged acted as a deterrent that prevented him from hitting Ann, not because he was concerned about being prosecuted, but because an arrest would alert his Commanding Officer to his behaviour. Jimmy's flirting, together with the isolation his job imposed on Ann, were both factors he mentioned as exacerbating the problems in his marriage. Like Michael, Jimmy had not planned to marry his wife until she unexpectedly 'fell pregnant'.

Jimmy also described being hit with shoes and a screwdriver by his subsequent girlfriend Mandy. The police came to see Jimmy several days later because Mandy alleged that Jimmy had dislocated her knee (for which he later received a warning from the Procurator Fiscal). Jimmy also described a much more serious assault perpetrated by a male stranger in a pub, during which he sustained a broken jaw.

Non-Retaliatory Victims

The non-retaliatory victims are referred to as: Neil (unemployed and in his forties); Oliver (ex-armed forces and in his early thirties); Patrick (early forties and self employed); Robert (a sales manager in his mid thirties); Simon (a nurse in his mid forties); Trevor (self employed and in his mid twenties); Vince (a police officer in his late thirties); Warren (a house husband in his fifties) and Zac (unemployed and in his mid twenties). Five of these men considered themselves to be 'victims of domestic violence' (Neil, Oliver, Robert, Simon and Warren). The remaining four (Patrick, Trevor, Vince and Zac) did not consider themselves 'victims of domestic violence'. The police had not come to know about any domestic abuse incidents concerning these men, although Zac's partner had unsuccessfully attempted to take out an interdict against him. None of these nine men were still living with their abusive partners.

Patrick and Trevor's experiences were similar. Both of these men described isolated incidents of domestic abuse, occurring in otherwise peaceful relationships. Trevor's ex-fiancée had 'swung' him into a window during an argument. Although the window had broken, Trevor did not sustain any injuries. Shortly after the birth of their first child, Patrick's wife had threatened him with a knife during an argument over something that Patrick considered 'trivial'. Although Patrick was not hurt, he described himself as being 'worried', and then 'livid', about his wife's behaviour.

Robert told our interviewer how his ex-girlfriend had started to 'lift her hand' against him in the last six months of their relationship, describing how she had punched him in the face and on his body. Like Robert, Vince also had a relationship where his ex-girlfriend became more violent as he tried to leave her. Vince explained that his girlfriend's violence typically occurred when they had both been drinking. Vince's ex-girlfriend had smashed a glass into his wrist and had punched him. In hindsight, Vince considered these incidents 'funny', although he did not see them this way at the time.

Likewise, Zac belittled the actions of the three partners he claimed had abused him. Zac described the behaviour of these three women as 'amusing' and was especially derisory regarding these women's reasons for feeling annoyed with him. Zac's partners' opposition to his desire to work long hours was a recurrent theme in his account, as was his partners' previous histories of abuse at the hands of other men. Despite Zac's separation from each of his partners shortly before or after they became pregnant, Zac reiterated how important he considered long-term relationships to be.

The incidents of abuse Zac described by his first partner involved her throwing objects and using a knife against him (although he provided us with few details regarding the knife incident, and was dismissive about the impact of this on him). In the account of his 'violent' marriage, Zac described his wife's 'tantrums'. However, he later indicated that his wife had only become 'hysterical' when he had accidentally put his 'hand on her throat'. Zac argued that the emotional abuse he experienced from his third partner was 'worse' than the physical abuse he experienced from his previous partners. Zac described his ex-girlfriend's attempts to make him look like 'an idiot' in the company of others as especially hurtful.

The issue of embarrassment and humiliation was also a feature of Warren's account. Warren complained how his ex-wife would get drunk and expose herself in front of his workmates. Also like Zac, Warren tended to belittle his partner's violence as childlike. Warren's ex-wife had thrown shoes at him (for which he sought hospital treatment) and had scratched him with her hands. Warren contextualised his ex-wife's violence in terms of her previous experiences of a violent partner. Nevertheless, Warren also described his own experiences as a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Warren considered his ex-wife's infidelity as an act of violence against him, and was evasive when questioned about whether he was violent towards her. Warren did, however, take pride in having physically removed his ex-wife's lover from their house. He also indicated that he exercised considerable control over his wife's finances and daily routine.

Infidelity was also an important theme in Simon, Oliver and Neil's accounts. Simon's ex-wife admitted her infidelity just a few days after the two of them were married, and he was distraught when she told him that she no longer wanted to have children with him. Simon said that from then on his ex-wife kept trying to provoke him into hitting her. Simon maintained that he never rose to these provocations mentioning that he had 'horrendous' memories of his father's violence towards his mother.

Oliver too had seen the effect of his father's violence on his mother, and offered this as a reason for not retaliating against his abusive ex-girlfriend, Jenny. Oliver's job required him to be away from home for long periods to Jenny's dissatisfaction. Jenny would kick and slap Oliver (although this never caused injury). Jenny had also threatened to abort their child and leave Oliver if he did not give up his job and on one occasion attempted to stab him with a knife. Shortly after this, Oliver was subject to a severe assault by a male stranger, which left him hospitalised for a year, physically disabled and with slight brain damage. Whilst Oliver was in hospital Jenny aborted their child, emptied their joint bank account and left him for another man. It was this, not the physical violence, that upset and angered Oliver the most.

Finally, Neil described an ex-wife (Kate) who was abusive when drunk, accusing him of infidelity. Neil told us of a series of minor incidents when he had threatened to call the police. He also explained how Kate's violent temper made him 'terrified' for the safety of his children. The two main incidents Neil described to us involved: a time when Kate had punched him in the back with a set of keys (causing cuts and bruising) whilst he was holding their daughter (in order to prevent Kate from leaving with her); and another time when Kate had hit him causing him to split his eye on their car door. Neil also described how Kate had hit him when he was drunk in the presence of other family members. At the time of interview, Neil had sole custody ⁷⁹ of his children and Kate was receiving psychiatric help.

Summary

In retracing those men counted as victims of domestic abuse in MacPherson's (2002) report, we uncovered a number of men who said they had never been forced nor threatened by any of their partners. Our suspicion is that the use of self-completion interviewing techniques introduced a greater level of misunderstanding amongst interviewees than was hitherto the case. The men who inaccurately reported experiences of force or threats from partners seemed to have misread the self-completion questions, interpreting these questions to be about crimes connected to their home/domestic lives or violence in general.

Using a narrative interview method we elicited in-depth accounts of 22 men's experiences of domestic abuse perpetrated by partners, (plus eight in-depth accounts from men who had not experienced domestic abuse from partners). These 22 men's experiences of domestic abuse varied greatly. Although only one man (Adam) identified himself as the primary instigator of abuse in his relationship, three (Barry, Charlie, and Eddie) out of the four who depicted relationships in which they felt their partners were equally abusive admitted perpetrating severe assaults. At times, the adoption of a discourse of victimisation in these three men's narratives seemed to be more to do with the men's desire to justify the violence they had themselves perpetrated than detailing the abuse which had been perpetrated against them.

Likewise, the two retaliators (Gary and Michael) who were victims of life-threatening forms of domestic abuse had also been repeat perpetrators. Furthermore, two retaliators (Jimmy and Frank) and two non-retaliators (Zac and Warren) presented accounts of abuse that were so contestable and contradictory that a persuasive case could be made for placing these men in categories which contravened the terms they used to describe themselves. Jimmy, Warren and Zac all avoided detailing the circumstances that precursored the assaults on them. These three men provided rather ambiguous accounts of their own accidental (Zac), defensive (Jimmy), and 'twisted' (Warren) responses to their partner's 'abusiveness'. Similarly, Frank's lapses of memory, together with his revelation that his wife had left to find sheltered accommodation with her children, could lead one to question whether this man really had been more sinned against than sinning. Also of note is the fact that the relatively infrequent incidents of abuse experienced by Kenny and Liam were matched by their own physically violent responses, even if (in their view) their partners usually 'started' the altercations.

In short, our suspicion was that at least half of the partners of the men who had experienced some form of force or threat would have also been able to offer accounts of repeat domestic abuse perpetrated against themselves. We suspect that these partners would have described abuse that was criminal, as well as psychological (perhaps highlighting the men's infidelity and use of children to get their own way). Differentiating perpetrators from victims in these cases is an irreconcilably contentious task.

Another way of considering the issue is to differentiate those men who actually referred to themselves as 'victims' from those who did not. Out of the 22 men who had experienced 'force' or 'threats', only nine perceived themselves as 'victims of domestic violence'. Most of these nine men also described relationships in which they themselves were either not abusive (n = 5), or were only abusive in retaliation (n = 3). Only one of the equal combatants (Charlie) defined himself as a 'victim'. Thus, those men who had used little or no force against their partners were more likely to view themselves as 'victims' than those who had used force. Those men who had injured their partners, or had at times instigated the violence, were less likely to view themselves as 'victims of domestic violence', although there were exceptions to this (e.g. Oliver). Men for whom the violence had been an isolated incident were also reluctant to portray themselves as 'victims'.

Four out of the five men in our sample who had received medical treatment because of their injuries considered themselves to be 'victims'. Of the four men who had been in contact with the police (for their own alleged violent behaviour against their partners) only one considered himself a victim (Gary). This man had been strongly encouraged by the police to press charges against his partner, even though they had arrested him previously as a perpetrator of domestic abuse.

In fact, all four of the men who had been in contact with the police as a consequence of domestic abuse indicated that they had physically assaulted their partners on at least one of the occasions when the police had been involved. In all four cases the police had been alerted to incidents in which the men were themselves at least partly responsible for the abusive behaviour taking place. None of the men we interviewed claimed to have been wrongfully arrested, although Gary maintained that his partner had made a malicious complaint to the police about him, feigning injury to exaggerate the extent of her victimisation.

Other men's accounts of victimisation seemed less controvertible to our interviewers. Some of our interviewees had experienced genuinely harrowing forms of abuse. For example, Harry (a retaliator) appeared to have endured persistent mental cruelty and physical abuse at the hands of one of his partners, as had Neil (a non-retaliatory victim). In these two cases the abuse seemed to escalate as the men's relationships came to an end. This observation about the termination of relationships also resonates with the accounts of Vince, Robert and Daniel. Both Vince and Robert described partners who became physically abusive when they tried to leave, although Vince claimed to be largely unaffected by this. Daniel implicated his ex-wife's new partner in his victimisation, although this was purely verbal. In contrast, Trevor and Gary experienced violence from men known to their partners after their respective break-ups. Trevor, along with Patrick and Oliver described isolated - but potentially serious - violent incidents from their partners during relatively short relationships. In Oliver's case, a range of other psychological and financial abuses accompanied the physical violence.

Only four men indicated that they had lived in fear of their partners (Harry, Neil, Gary and Michael), although the majority mentioned feelings of embarrassment (and/or humiliation) at having been abused by women. A few men (especially Neil and Oliver) complained about the lack of support services for men, but most preferred not to involve the police. Couple Counselling appeared to be the most favoured source of support for men, perhaps because this organisation enables abusive partners to work through their problems without criminal justice intervention ⁸⁰.

Recurrent themes in the 22 men's accounts included: infidelity and mistrust, their own and/or their partner's excessive drinking, and their partner's feelings of social isolation. These feelings of isolation were invariably connected to the men's own absence from the family home, the men's long working hours and/or busy social lives. Many of our interviewees attributed their partners' violence to (uncontrollable) biological and psychological 'causes' ⁸¹, although it is debatable whether all of the women in question would have endorsed these explanations (Worrall, 1990). Interestingly, two of the men (Barry and Patrick) who attended counselling with their partners underplayed the psychological support they had received, stressing their partner's needs above their own.

Nine of the men we interviewed had also been involved in fights with other men. As one might anticipate given the survey evidence discussed in Chapter One of this report, these fights often involved more serious assaults than the men had experienced from their partners. An unexpectedly high number of male victims had served in the armed forces. All four of the men who served in the forces cited aspects of military life that contributed significantly to the problems in their relationships. None of the male victims we interviewed said they were members of men's/father's rights groups. Four men (Eddie, Oliver, Simon and Kenny) mentioned memories of their fathers' abusiveness as reasons for restraining their aggression during altercations with partners, although it is worth noting that this restraint did not always preclude actual violence. These cases demonstrate the limitations of social-learning and/or cultural-transmission theories as explanations for men's violence and restraint in intimate relationships (Gadd, 2002).

« Previous | Contents | Next »