Page 42 - IJPS-10-1

International Journal of
Population Studies Men’s experience of IPV during COVID-19 lockdown

a burning issue among scholars, activists, and development any form of hitting, there seems to be a gender symmetry
organizations. This debate erupted mainly as a result of the in IPV, but when IPV is loosely defined to include physical
claim that women and men are both equally victims of harm, expression of fear, and other psychological harm,
domestic violence (Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1993). Thus, then IPV primarily affects women (Esquivel-Santovena
it was these premises that led to the formulation of the et al., 2013).
gender symmetry theory. A more recent study has indicated that the gender
The gender symmetry theory was developed by Straus symmetry theory is not applicable to all contexts (Esquivel-
and Gelles in 1975 and was used in a survey study that Santovena et al., 2013). By implication, factors such as
examined violence in the American families. The theory religion and other cultural elements might affect the
stresses that IPV occurs among married couples with symmetrical position of IPV. For example, in some religious
roughly comparable frequency and magnitude. This is and cultural settings, it is forbidden for a woman to either
reflected in their study, which revealed that 11.6% of men retaliate or raise her voice or abuse her partner. In sum, the
and 12% of women had experienced one form of IPV or proponents of this theory, however, acknowledged some
the other in the 12 months before the survey, with men asymmetrical aspects of IPV. Hence, they accepted that
experiencing a more severe form of IPV compared to men often use more violent and use more deadly means of
women (4.6% and 3.8%, respectively) (Gelles & Straus, IPV in relationships (Swan et al., 2008; Chan, 2011).
1988). Thus, there was no statistically significant difference The gender symmetry theory is subjected to serious
in IPV between men and women. Straus et al. further criticism. Michael Flood expressly denied the existence of
stated that while women face far more frequent and severe gender symmetry when he wrote that “there is no gender
physical and economic violence than men, a considerable symmetry in domestic violence; there are important differences
number of men also face physical and economic abuse between men’s and women’s typical patterns of victimization;
from women. However, men are more likely than women and domestic violence represents only a small proportion of
to be victims of psychological assault (Stets & Straus, 1990; the violence to which men are subject” (Flood, 2004).
Straus, 2008). The gender symmetry theory also indicates
that IPV has repercussions ranging from mild to fatal. Other scholars have criticized this theory for excluding
Considerably, more men than women commit murder of two important aspects of IPV: conflict-motivated aggression
their spouses, and the rates of homicides of ex-spouses and control-motivated aggression (Kimmel, 2002). Hence,
present even more gender asymmetrical distribution critics have noted that women in America mainly engage
(Straus, 2009). In addition, the injury rate for men is in IPV as a form of self-defense or retaliation (motivated
almost seven times higher than that for women (Stets & aggression), which does not involve a high level of fear or
Straus, 1990). injury (Swan et al., 2008). Meanwhile, in cultural contexts
such as Sub-Saharan Africa, where men tend to have higher
These findings sparked a lot of discussion on the decision-making power, the men generally engage in IPV
issue of gender symmetry leading to Steinmetz’s coinage as a form of control and cause some form of serious injuries
of the controversial term “battered husband syndrome” and fear to their partners (Darteh et al., 2019; Allen, 2013).
(Steinmetz, 1977). However, other researchers have Thus, critics of gender symmetry have argued that specific
pondered the existence of gender symmetry in IPV cases as indicated above must be taken into account when
(Saunders, 1988; Dobash et al., 1992). assessing IPV between women and men (Jewkes et al.,
Some empirical findings have pointed to the existence 2017). Notwithstanding these criticisms, this theory
of gender symmetry (Straus, 2011). These findings indicate provides an important framework for more understanding
that the rates of gender perpetration of IPV are symmetrical of male and female experiences of IPV. Under the purview
among males and females for both minor and severe of this theory, the high frequency and magnitude of IPV
violence (Cercone et al., 2005). Buttressing the gender among men and women during the COVID-19 lockdown
symmetry position in two recent studies, Straus concluded period is proposed, with both genders experiencing
that about 70% of IPV involve mutual acts of abuse (Straus, the abuse in either equal or different intensity. Besides,
2008; Straus, 2011). However, according to Tjaden (2000), considering the restriction of movements and social
the gender symmetry in IPV is caused by the frequent use isolation, many men were confined together with their
of violence by women as a tool of resistance or self-defense female abusers indoors. Because of limited route of escape
against their male partners. Nevertheless, Bair-Merritt et al. when conflicts occur, male victims could suffer from both
(2010) indicated that distinguishing between self-defense physical and psychological abuse and consequently severe
and retaliation in IPV was difficult. Besides, when the injuries as women often use violence or harmful tools for
scope of IPV is expanded to include emotional abuse and self-defense against their male partners (Tjaden, 2000).

Volume 10 Issue 1 (2024) 36 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.376