Numerous meta-analyses and studies show that in domestic abuse situations, women are as frequently violent or even moreso than their male counterparts (abusive men, however, tend to inflict more damage), contrary to the prevailing narrative which seeks to preserve a single-sex monopoly on victimhood. As a result, male victims are frequently ignored.

Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression to heterosexual partners and in its physical consequences are reported. Women were slightly more likely (d = –.05) than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. Men were more likely (d = .15) to inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651

.

In nonclinically abusive relationships, perpetrators were primarily women. In clinically abusive relationships, men and women used physical abuse, although more women needed medical treatment for injury. Women in clinically abusive relationships had childhood family adversity, adolescent conduct problems, and aggressive personality; men had disinhibitory psychopathology since childhood and extensive personality deviance.

Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically Abusive Relationships in an Unselected Birth Cohort: Men's and Women's Participation and Developmental Antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(2), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.2.258

.

The first part of this article summarizes results from more than 200 studies that have found gender symmetry in perpetration and in risk factors and motives for physical violence in martial and dating relationships. It also summarizes research that has found that most partner violence is mutual and that self-defense explains only a small percentage of partner violence by either men or women. The second part of the article documents seven methods that have been used to deny, conceal, and distort the evidence on gender symmetry. The third part of the article suggests explanations for the denial of an overwhelming body of evidence by reputable scholars. The concluding section argues that ignoring the overwhelming evidence of gender symmetry has crippled prevention and treatment programs. It suggests ways in which prevention and treatment efforts might be improved by changing ideologically based programs to programs based on the evidence from the past 30 years of research.

Straus, M. A. (2010). Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: Implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.332

.

Feminist theory of intimate violence is critically reviewed in the light of data from numerous incidence studies reporting levels of violence by female perpetrators higher than those reported for males, particularly in younger age samples. A critical analysis of the methodology of these studies is made with particular reference to the Conflict Tactics Scale developed and utilised by Straus and his colleagues. Results show that the gender disparity in injuries from domestic violence is less than originally portrayed by feminist theory. Studies are also reviewed indicating high levels of unilateral intimate violence by females to both males and females. Males appear to report their own victimization less than females do and to not view female violence against them as a crime. Hence, they differentially under-report being victimized by partners on crime victim surveys. It is concluded that feminist theory is contradicted by these findings and that the call for “qualitative” studies by feminists is really a means of avoiding this conclusion. A case is made for a paradigm having developed amongst family violence activists and researchers that precludes the notion of female violence, trivializes injuries to males and maintains a monolithic view of a complex social problem.

Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001

.

Intimate partner violence against men is a controversial area of research, with terms such as gender symmetry, battered husband syndrome and bidirectional IPV provoking a great deal of debate. The lines of the debate tend to fall between two basic polemics. The first of these argues that scholars who focus on female-perpetrated violence are part of an anti-feminist backlash, and are attempting to undermine the problem of male-perpetrated abuse by championing the cause of the man, over the serious cause of the abused woman.[9][10] The second polemic argues that violence against men is a significant problem and underreported, that domestic violence researchers and feminist academics have ignored this in order to protect the fundamental gains of the battered women's movement, specifically the view that intimate partner abuse is an extension of patriarchal dominance, and that concealing violence perpetrated by women puts the abuser herself at risk of future escalation of IPV.[11][12][13]

Wikipedia contributors. (2022, November 25). Domestic violence against men. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 01:01, December 25, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence_against_men&oldid=1123737880

.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Men are victims of domestic violence more often than you think

We tend to think of domestic violence as abuse enacted primarily by men, against women — sometimes that assumption even guides policy. But Sarah Desmarais says it's wrong. The forensic psychologist studies partner violence, and explains the research.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2695485751