The case against the role of gender in intimate partner violence

I argue that Gondolf, Johnson and Dekeseredy, in a recent issue of Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, presented one sided arguments and misleading evidence for the role of gender in intimate partner violence (IPV). Johnson and Dekeseredy use only female victim samples and Gondolf only a male perpetrator sample. These methods generate spurious support for the gender paradigm. Better methodology; longitudinal and laboratory studies indicate that bilateral IPV, matched for level of severity is the most common form of IPV. Our policies should be directed towards this most common form not the relatively rare "wife battering". The stereotype of IPV proffered by the gender paradigm has obscured the dyadic patterns and psychological profiles of IPV so that a "one size fits all" approach has been the normative response. The future of IPV policy lies in prevention and in models that treat abusive families as coherent systems.