One of the most influential studies ever conducted on female perpetrated domestic violence has the remarkably simple title, “Why I Hit Him.” Conducted by Jennifer E Caldwell, Suzanne C Swan, Christopher T Allen, Tami P Sullivan and David L Snow. Published in the Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, the study examined 412 women who admitted using physical violence against a male intimate partner. Rather than asking police officers, judges, social workers, or academics why women become violent, the researchers asked the women themselves. The findings challenge many popular assumptions.
Contrary to the belief that female violence is almost always an act of self defence, the women reported a complex mixture of motives. Self defence was certainly one factor, but it was only one factor among many. The researchers identified five major motivations behind female intimate partner violence: expression of negative emotions, self defence, control, jealousy, and what they called a “tough guise”, meaning aggression used to appear intimidating, powerful, or not to be taken lightly.
The most commonly reported reason was not self defence. It was anger. Ninety five percent of the women said they had used violence as a way of expressing negative emotions such as anger, frustration, hurt feelings, or resentment. Eighty nine percent reported motives related to control. Eighty four percent reported motives associated with intimidation or appearing tough. Eighty three percent cited self defence, and around two thirds reported jealousy as a contributing factor.
Perhaps the most important finding was that women rarely reported a single motive. On average, participants endorsed fourteen separate reasons for their violence. Female domestic violence was not a simple story of victim versus perpetrator. Instead, it appeared to emerge from a complicated mixture of anger, fear, retaliation, control, insecurity, frustration, self protection, and relationship conflict. In other words, women’s violence looked far more psychologically complex than many public discussions would suggest.
What makes the study particularly interesting is how it sits right in the middle of one of the biggest debates in domestic violence research. For decades, feminist scholars argued that domestic violence is primarily about patriarchal power and male control. Researchers such as Evan Stark argued that violence cannot be understood simply by counting acts because context matters. A slap delivered in self defence is different from a slap delivered as part of an ongoing campaign of intimidation. The Caldwell study partly supports this position.
The researchers found that women who reported the highest levels of self defence also experienced extremely high levels of victimisation from male partners. These women appeared to be fighting back against abuse rather than initiating it. However, the study also creates problems for a purely feminist explanation.
Women who never reported self defence as a motive were often among the most violent participants in the sample. They reported high levels of aggression despite experiencing relatively little victimisation themselves. The authors openly suggested that these women appeared to be primary aggressors. That finding is important because it undermines the idea that female violence can always be explained as a reaction to male violence.
The study also revealed something that psychotherapists would immediately recognise. Violence was often linked to emotional dysregulation. The strongest factor was “expression of negative emotions.” Women described becoming angry, hurt, frustrated, fed up, or emotionally overwhelmed and then responding with violence. This fits neatly with psychological theories that view aggression as a maladaptive emotional regulation strategy.
Strengths
The study is valuable because it uses a large sample of over 400 women. It examines multiple forms of aggression including physical violence, psychological abuse, sexual aggression, and coercive control. It moves beyond the simplistic question of whether women are victims or perpetrators and acknowledges that many are both. Most importantly, it allows female perpetrators to speak for themselves rather than having motives imposed upon them by researchers.
Weaknesses
The biggest limitation is that the study relies entirely on self report. People are notoriously poor at explaining their own behaviour. Psychodynamic therapists from Sigmund Freud onwards have argued that human beings frequently invent explanations for actions after the fact. A woman who punches her partner may genuinely believe she acted in self defence when jealousy, humiliation, revenge, or a desire for control were equally important factors. The study tells us what women believe motivated them, not necessarily what actually motivated them.
Another limitation is that the sample only included women who admitted violence. Women who were unwilling to disclose their behaviour may differ significantly from those who participated.
There is also the issue of social desirability bias. Participants may unconsciously emphasise socially acceptable motives such as self defence while downplaying less acceptable motives such as revenge, cruelty, or control.
Finally, the study tells us very little about severity. Throwing a cushion, slapping someone, punching someone repeatedly, and attacking someone with a weapon are all classified as physical aggression but represent very different levels of violence.
One of the most interesting observations is that the study actually supports both sides of the domestic violence debate. The feminist perspective is supported because many women clearly were reacting to serious victimisation.
The family violence perspective associated with researchers such as Murray Straus is supported because many women also used violence for reasons unrelated to self defence, including anger, control, jealousy, and intimidation.
The uncomfortable conclusion is that female domestic violence cannot be reduced to a single explanation. Some women hit because they are terrified. Some hit because they are angry. Some hit because they want control. Some hit because they have learned violence as a way of communicating distress. Some hit for several of those reasons simultaneously. That complexity is precisely why this study remains one of the most cited pieces of research on female perpetrated domestic violence.
What Is Domestic Abuse?
But that’s just one study, as impressive as it is and I want to look at other sides. I am talking about this because I get asked all the time in my counselling practice by men why women abuse and no one believes them. So lets define what domestic abuse even is. Domestic abuse, also called “domestic violence” or “intimate partner violence”, can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviours that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure, or wound someone. Domestic abuse can happen to anyone of any race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender. It can occur within a range of relationships including couples who are married, living together or dating. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels.
Anyone can be a victim of domestic violence, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith or class Victims of domestic abuse may also include a child or other relative, or any other household member. Domestic abuse is typically manifested as a pattern of abusive behavior toward an intimate partner in a dating or family relationship, where the abuser exerts power and control over the victim. Domestic abuse can be mental, physical, economic or sexual in nature. Incidents are rarely isolated, and usually escalate in frequency and severity. Domestic abuse may culminate in serious physical injury or death.
As I am sure you can imagine, this question of why women commit domestic violence is one of the most emotionally and politically charged topics in psychology, sociology, criminology, and public discourse. For decades, domestic violence was largely viewed through a framework in which men were perpetrators and women were victims. This was partly because women suffer the most severe injuries, are more likely to be killed by intimate partners, and historically had fewer social and legal protections in this patriarchal system we all operate in, in Britain. However, over the last forty years, researchers have increasingly found that the reality is more complicated as you read from the study. Women can be victims of domestic violence, but they can also be perpetrators.
One of the most influential researchers in this area is the psychologist Murray Straus. Through studies using the Conflict Tactics Scale, Straus repeatedly found that women reported using physical aggression against partners at rates similar to men. This finding created enormous controversy because it challenged the dominant narrative that domestic violence was almost exclusively male perpetrated. Critics argued that simply counting acts of violence ignored context, severity, fear, and injury. Supporters argued that ignoring female violence left many male victims invisible. The debate continues today.
One explanation which we know as cited by the study at the start is self defence and retaliation. Many women who use violence have previously experienced violence themselves. Research consistently shows that a significant proportion of women arrested for domestic violence report histories of victimisation. In these situations, violence may emerge as a survival strategy. Imagine a woman who has spent years being verbally degraded, intimidated, and occasionally assaulted. One day, after another argument, she throws a plate or punches her partner. The behaviour is still violent, but the psychological context differs from someone initiating violence as a strategy of domination. It is what is sometimes referred to as reactive abuse.
Psychotherapy, which is my field, often understands this through the lens of trauma. Trauma changes the nervous system. According to researchers like as Bessel van der Kolk in his book The Body Keeps the Score, people who have experienced chronic abuse often become hypervigilant. They perceive threats more quickly than others. Their bodies may react before their rational minds have fully processed the situation. A partner raising their voice may trigger memories of childhood terror, causing a fight response that appears disproportionate to the immediate situation.
However, not all female violence is defensive as we read in that study. Some women use violence for the same reasons men do. They may seek control, power, revenge, or compliance. Remember women still operate in a patriarchal system too and they too can take advantage of that system of power. Studies have found that jealousy is a major trigger for intimate partner violence among both sexes. A woman who suspects infidelity may smash a phone, slap a partner, or destroy property. The underlying emotion is often fear of abandonment. Attachment theory helps explain this. People with anxious attachment styles frequently experience intense anxiety when they believe a relationship is threatened. When panic and insecurity become overwhelming, aggression can emerge as an attempt to regain control.
Psychotherapist Sue Johnson has written extensively about how attachment fears drive conflict. She argues that many relationship fights are not really about dishes, text messages, or money. They are protests against emotional disconnection. When someone fears abandonment, they may lash out in ways that are destructive but understandable from an attachment perspective.
Another factor is emotional dysregulation. Many people, regardless of gender, struggle to manage intense emotions. Psychiatry has long recognised that impulsive aggression can be associated with certain mental health conditions. Borderline Personality Disorder is one example often discussed in the literature. One of its core features is intense fear of abandonment combined with emotional instability. During moments of perceived rejection, some individuals may become verbally or physically aggressive.
This does not mean people with mental health diagnoses are inherently violent. Most are not. However, when emotional regulation systems are compromised, the likelihood of impulsive behaviour increases. Similarly, untreated post traumatic stress disorder, severe depression, bipolar disorder during manic episodes, and substance abuse can all increase the risk of aggression.
Alcohol deserves special attention. Decades of research have shown that alcohol is strongly associated with domestic violence. Alcohol reduces inhibitions, impairs judgement, and increases impulsivity. Someone who would normally walk away from an argument may instead become physically aggressive. This applies equally to men and women.
The cycle of trauma is another important explanation. Children learn how relationships work by observing adults. If a child grows up watching parents scream, threaten, hit, manipulate, or humiliate one another, those behaviours can become normalised. Family systems theorists often refer to this as intergenerational transmission. Violence becomes part of the emotional language the child learns.
Imagine a girl growing up in a household where every disagreement ends with shouting and objects being thrown. She never learns how healthy couples resolve conflict. As an adult, when emotions run high, she unconsciously falls back on the only conflict resolution model she knows. This does not excuse the behaviour, but it helps explain how it develops.
The psychiatrist John Bowlby argued that early relationships create internal working models of how people expect others to behave. If someone’s childhood taught them that love and violence coexist, they may struggle to separate intimacy from aggression later in life.
There are also social and cultural factors. Society often views male and female aggression differently. A man slapping his partner is universally condemned. A woman slapping her boyfriend is sometimes portrayed in films, television shows, and comedy routines as humorous or understandable. Countless romantic comedies contain scenes where a woman hits a man after discovering a betrayal. The audience laughs. If the genders were reversed, the scene would likely be interpreted very differently.
Researchers have called this the minimisation of female aggression. Studies have found that both men and women tend to perceive violence by women as less serious than identical violence committed by men. This cultural double standard can create an environment in which some women underestimate the seriousness of their behaviour.
Male victims often report additional barriers. Research by psychologists such as Denise Hines has documented how men frequently fear being ridiculed, disbelieved, or even arrested if they report abuse. Some describe being told to “man up” or being laughed at when seeking help. This underreporting makes it difficult to understand the true prevalence of female perpetrated violence.
Feminist theory offers a different perspective. Many feminist scholars argue that domestic violence cannot be understood simply by counting acts of aggression. They distinguish between situational couple violence and coercive control. Situational violence occurs when conflicts escalate and someone becomes physically aggressive. Coercive control involves a sustained pattern of domination, intimidation, isolation, surveillance, and fear.
Researchers such as Evan Stark argue that men are more likely to engage in coercive control because broader social structures historically granted men greater economic, legal, and physical power. From this perspective, a woman slapping a partner during an argument is different from a man systematically controlling finances, movements, friendships, and daily life over many years.
Critics of this approach argue that coercive control can also be perpetrated by women. They point to examples where women use children, false allegations, social networks, reputation damage, or emotional manipulation to control partners. Increasingly, modern researchers acknowledge that coercive control is not exclusively male, even if it may manifest differently.
Online discourse has added another layer to the conversation. In men’s advocacy spaces, there is growing attention to male victims and female perpetrators. Many men describe experiences of being slapped, punched, having property destroyed, or being subjected to emotional abuse. In feminist spaces, the focus often remains on protecting women from severe and lethal violence, which statistically affects women more often. Unfortunately, these conversations sometimes become polarised rather than integrated.
A more balanced position recognises several truths simultaneously. Women are disproportionately affected by severe domestic violence and homicide. Men can also be victims of domestic violence. Women can commit serious acts of abuse. Trauma, attachment insecurity, mental health difficulties, substance misuse, learned behaviour, jealousy, fear, and desires for control can all contribute to female violence. Understanding these causes does not excuse the behaviour. It helps explain it.
For many men, one of the most confusing aspects of being abused by a woman is that society often struggles to recognise their experience. A man may be six foot three, physically stronger than his partner, and still feel trapped. He may avoid defending himself because he fears legal consequences. He may endure years of psychological abuse because nobody believes he could be a victim. Domestic violence is not simply about physical strength. It is about fear, control, coercion, humiliation, and the destruction of safety within a relationship.
Violence as a Communication Strategy
One thing often overlooked is that some people use violence because they have never learned how to communicate distress effectively. In Psychotherapy we often talk about behaviour as communication. Sometimes violence is not primarily about wanting to hurt someone. It is about desperately trying to get a response. For example, a woman may feel ignored for months. She complains, cries, argues, and threatens to leave. Nothing changes. Eventually she throws a glass against the wall. Suddenly she has her partner’s full attention.
The danger is that the nervous system learns a lesson. Violence works. This is one reason domestic violence can become entrenched. The behaviour achieves the desired result, even if only temporarily.
Personality Traits and Character Pathology
Let me also say this, modern discussions often avoid talking about personality traits and character pathology, because it sounds judgmental, but some domestic violence is connected to personality traits rather than trauma. Not everyone who abuses has been abused.
Researchers studying narcissistic traits, antisocial traits, and psychopathic traits have found that some individuals use violence because they genuinely feel entitled to control others. A woman with strong narcissistic traits may become violent when criticised because criticism threatens her self image. A woman with antisocial traits may simply care very little about the suffering she causes.
This is important because many therapists focus heavily on trauma, which can sometimes create the impression that all perpetrators are wounded victims. Some are. Some are not. Sometimes the explanation is not pain. Sometimes it is entitlement.
Violence Through Children
Many men will tell you that the most damaging abuse they experienced was not physical. It involved children. Family court researchers have increasingly examined behaviours such as parental alienation, gatekeeping, and using children as weapons during separation. A mother may not hit her partner once. Yet she may tell children that their father abandoned them. She may block contact. She may make false accusations. She may deliberately damage the father child relationship. Many men describe this as more painful than being punched. Traditional domestic violence frameworks often struggle to account for these forms of coercive behaviour because they are indirect rather than physical.
Social Rewards for Victimhood
This is controversial but worth discussing carefully. Sociologists have observed that people sometimes gain social benefits from being perceived as victims. They may receive sympathy, support, validation, protection, or moral authority. In some relationships, violence can occur alongside a strong self perception as the victim. A woman may hit, insult, manipulate, or control her partner while simultaneously viewing herself as the injured party.
Psychologists call this self serving bias. Human beings are remarkably skilled at noticing the harm done to them while minimising the harm they inflict on others. This is not a female trait. It is a human trait. Listen women have had to learn to survive in the various systems of power they operate in. Whether its the family system or religion.
Female Aggression Often Looks Different
One of the biggest omissions in public discussions and it was said in that study is that violence is not always physical. Women tend to score lower on physical aggression but often score similarly or higher on indirect aggression. Research by psychologists such as Nicki Crick found that girls and women frequently use relational aggression. This includes:
- Social exclusion.
- Gossip.
- Reputation destruction.
- Manipulation.
- Humiliation.
- Turning others against someone.
A man may never be punched. But his wife may systematically destroy his friendships, isolate him from family, and undermine his confidence. The psychological impact can be devastating.
Attachment Panic
I touched on attachment, but I would expand it much more. Many abusive behaviours are driven by terror rather than hatred. A woman who fears abandonment may:
- Constantly check her partner’s phone.
- Demand reassurance.
- Become controlling.
- Become physically aggressive when she feels rejected.
The behaviour can look controlling from the outside. Internally it may feel like survival. The person is trying to prevent abandonment at any cost. This is one reason some relationships become intensely volatile. Both people are fighting fears they barely understand.
Evolutionary Psychology
This is another area usually missing. Evolutionary psychologists argue that jealousy is one of the most powerful emotions humans experience because relationships historically affected survival and reproduction. Researchers such as David Buss have written extensively about how mate guarding behaviours emerge in both sexes. Some domestic violence occurs when individuals perceive threats to their relationship. This does not excuse violence. It simply recognises that jealousy, possessiveness, and fear of replacement are deeply rooted human emotions.
Learned Helplessness Turning Into Aggression
Sometimes violence emerges after prolonged feelings of powerlessness. Psychologist Martin Seligman demonstrated that people who feel trapped often develop depression and resignation. However, some eventually move from resignation to rage. Years of feeling unheard, ignored, dismissed, or trapped can create explosive reactions. Again, this does not justify violence. It helps explain why apparently small triggers can produce massive reactions.
Cultural Narratives About Men
This is particularly relevant for my male clients. Many men report that women sometimes justify aggression through cultural narratives. Examples include:
- “Men only understand force.”
- “He deserved it.”
- “I was teaching him a lesson.”
- “A real man can take it.”
- “It’s not abuse if she can’t physically hurt him.”
These beliefs can lower internal barriers against aggression. If someone genuinely believes their behaviour is harmless or justified, they are more likely to engage in it.
The Shadow Side of Feminist Theory
Let me also say that “feminist” is a very big and broad word, with many layers and dimensions. Meaning that even feminists do not agree on ideas. There is definitely internal debates within feminism itself. Some feminist scholars have argued that the movement’s historical focus on male perpetrators and female victims sometimes made female violence harder to see.
Others argue that recognising female perpetrators does not undermine women’s victimisation but creates a more complete picture. This debate can be found in the work of researchers such as Erin Pizzey, who became controversial after observing that many women in refuges were both victims and perpetrators of violence. Her observations remain disputed, but they forced uncomfortable questions about whether domestic violence is always best understood through a simple victim perpetrator model.
The Darkest Reality
As I have already said, perhaps the biggest thing I explain to my clients is that some women commit domestic violence for exactly the same reason some men do. Because they want power. Because they enjoy dominance. Because they are angry. Because they are cruel. Because they can. Most discussions search for deeper explanations. And deeper explanations are important. But sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. Just as we would not assume every violent man is acting from trauma, insecurity, or social conditioning, we should not assume every violent woman is either. Some people have suffered enormously and never abuse anyone. Others have had relatively stable lives and become abusive. It is so complicated and every case is different. But I hope this has helped shed light.
Counselling for Male Domestic Abuse, Relationship Conflict and Emotional Abuse in Reading and Online
If you are a man struggling to understand your experiences in a relationship where there has been conflict, emotional abuse, intimidation, physical aggression, or controlling behaviour, you are not alone. Domestic abuse is complex and can affect men and women in different ways, often leaving people feeling confused, isolated, or unsure whether what they experienced “counts” as abuse.
At Male Minds Counselling, I work with men who are trying to make sense of difficult and painful relationship experiences, including situations involving anger, jealousy, control, emotional dysregulation, or repeated conflict. Many of the men I support describe feeling unheard, dismissed, or blamed in relationships where communication has broken down and patterns of conflict have escalated over time.
As an NCPS Accredited Counsellor based in Reading, Berkshire, I provide a confidential, non-judgemental space where you can explore what has happened in your relationships and how it has affected your sense of self, confidence, and emotional wellbeing. Therapy can help you understand patterns of behaviour, attachment wounds, trauma responses, and the impact of unresolved emotional pain.
Whether you identify as someone who has experienced abuse, used aggression in a relationship, or feel stuck in cycles of reactive conflict, counselling can help you reflect, take responsibility where needed, and develop healthier ways of relating.
I offer counselling for men in and around Reading, Wokingham, Woodley, Earley, Caversham, Tilehurst, Theale, Pangbourne, Twyford, Winnersh, Bracknell, Maidenhead, Newbury, Thatcham, Basingstoke, Henley-on-Thames, High Wycombe, Didcot, Wallingford, and surrounding Berkshire, Hampshire, and Oxfordshire areas. I also provide online counselling across the UK via Zoom, making support accessible wherever you are.
Sessions are available both online and in person in Reading, with flexible evening appointments for professionals, shift workers, and parents.
Counselling Sessions: £60 per 60-minute session
If you are looking for counselling for relationship breakdown, emotional abuse support, domestic abuse counselling for men, anger and conflict therapy, or online counselling in the UK, Male Minds Counselling offers professional, confidential support tailored to men’s mental health and emotional wellbeing.
For more information or to arrange an initial appointment, visit www.malemindscounselling.com