More than twenty years ago, Denise Hines embarked on a pioneering journey into an area of intimate partner violence (IPV) research that many scholars hesitated to explore: men as victims. Alongside her colleague Emily Douglas, Hines became one of the first researchers in the United States to secure federal funding explicitly dedicated to studying male IPV victims. Their groundbreaking studies confronted long-standing gender biases in the field and generated significant discourse, challenging assumptions that had dominated research and public understanding of domestic abuse for decades. This early work laid the foundation for a broader, more inclusive understanding of intimate partner violence beyond preconceived gender roles.
The culmination of this research trajectory is “The Routledge Handbook of Men’s Victimization in Intimate Relationships,” a recently published volume that represents the most comprehensive international synthesis on the subject to date. Edited by Denise Hines, Emily Douglas, and Louise Dixon, the handbook aggregates insights from 31 contributors hailing from five continents, illuminating how male victims of IPV navigate abuse in distinct cultural contexts—from Uganda’s rural communities and China’s sprawling urban centers to Denmark’s crisis shelters. This global scope is a marked departure from the historically U.S.- and U.K.-centric research on intimate partner violence, providing a nuanced, cross-cultural perspective that has been sorely lacking.
Hines, who holds the Elisabeth Shirley Enochs Endowed Professorship of Social Work at George Mason University, emphasizes the critical importance of this expanded lens. Much of the existing literature has concentrated on English-speaking Western countries, leaving vast geographical and cultural gaps in both data and understanding. By incorporating studies from non-English-speaking and less-studied regions such as Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, the handbook broadens scholarly horizons and highlights disparities in research focus and resource allocation. This international approach reveals diverse patterns and consequences of male victimization, underscoring how cultural norms, legal frameworks, and social support systems affect the recognition and treatment of male survivors.
The collaborative nature of this endeavor is reflected in the expertise of the editors. Douglas contributes her extensive experience as a professor of social work and child advocacy at Montclair State University, while Dixon brings a global educational vision from her role as Pro Vice-Chancellor of Education at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland. Their combined perspectives ensure the handbook is both academically rigorous and practically relevant, serving audiences ranging from researchers and policymakers to frontline professionals in social work, therapy, and law enforcement. This multifaceted utility positions the handbook as a critical resource for advancing both understanding and intervention strategies.
Within the handbook, Hines authored two pivotal chapters. The first comprehensively reviews studies on heterosexual men victimized by female partners in English-speaking countries, where research traditions are comparatively more established. This chapter delves into epidemiological data, patterns of abuse, psychological outcomes, and systemic responses, providing a detailed portrait of male IPV victimization in these contexts. The second chapter ventures into less-charted territory, surveying fragmented but emerging research from regions including continental Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Here, Hines highlights unique cultural variables and systemic challenges, as well as the gaps that remain in both research and services.
One striking revelation emerging from this synthesis is the unevenness of research attention, especially the paucity of studies emerging from Latin America relative to Africa, despite the substantial social complexities and IPV prevalence in both regions. Hines notes that this discrepancy points to broader systemic inequities in funding, academic capacity, and institutional priorities, which in turn impact the visibility and support systems for male victims. These findings underscore the necessity of international collaboration and resource-sharing to develop a more equitable and comprehensive evidence base on IPV.
The historical context of the field shapes much of the current discourse. As noted in the preface of the handbook, male victimization has long been marginalized in family violence research. Early trailblazers such as Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles challenged dominant paradigms but faced fierce resistance, including personal attacks and professional backlash. Hines herself recalls encountering vitriolic opposition, ranging from online accusations to questions about her credibility, illustrating the deeply entrenched gender biases that have impeded progress. These historical dynamics elucidate the political and social challenges confronting researchers who seek to highlight male victims.
Despite these barriers, the landscape of IPV research is gradually evolving toward inclusivity. The handbook advocates for an evidence-based paradigm shift that acknowledges the diverse experiences of male victims, spanning across cultural backgrounds, age groups, sexual orientations, and social contexts. This approach challenges simplistic or stereotypical notions of IPV and calls for comprehensive reforms in laws, policies, and service provisions to better reflect the complexities of partner violence. Recognition that partner violence “does not fit one mold” is a foundational concept emphasized by Hines and her colleagues.
From a technical perspective, this research emphasizes the multifactorial nature of intimate partner violence against men. Psychological, physical, and sexual abuse often intersect with issues of stigma, masculinity norms, and systemic invisibility. Male victims frequently encounter barriers such as disbelief by service providers, lack of tailored resources, and societal expectations discouraging disclosure. These factors collectively contribute to underreporting and inadequate support, underscoring the need for targeted policy interventions and professional training.
Moreover, the handbook addresses the critical importance of culturally sensitive methodologies in studying IPV among men. Standardized tools developed within Western contexts may not translate directly to different sociocultural environments, necessitating adaptation and contextualization. A globalized research framework that respects local definitions of abuse, relational dynamics, and help-seeking behavior enhances validity and relevance. This methodological rigor is vital for developing interventions that are both effective and respectful of cultural nuances.
For frontline practitioners—including therapists, social workers, law enforcement officers, and legal advocates—the handbook offers guidance on recognizing signs of IPV in men and navigating the systemic pitfalls that male victims encounter. It discusses the shortcomings of current service systems, which are often designed primarily with female victims in mind, and advocates for expanded screening protocols, inclusive educational campaigns, and resource diversification. The overarching goal is to cultivate environments where male victims feel validated, safe, and empowered to access assistance.
As the field moves forward, the handbook’s comprehensive global perspective sets the stage for future research agendas and policy reforms. By highlighting both commonalities and differences among male IPV victims worldwide, it calls for an intersectional approach that integrates gender, culture, and social context. This paradigm aims to dismantle entrenched biases and promote equitable support structures, thus advancing both scientific knowledge and social justice.
Denise Hines and her co-editors’ contribution marks a watershed moment in intimate partner violence scholarship—a transition from gender-exclusive narratives toward a multidimensional understanding of victimization. Their work invites researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to rethink existing frameworks and embrace complexity, fostering a more inclusive and responsive field attuned to the needs of all survivors. In doing so, they challenge the invisibility of male victims and push the boundaries of violence prevention and intervention strategies worldwide.
Subject of Research: Male Victimization in Intimate Partner Violence
Article Title: The Routledge Handbook of Men’s Victimization in Intimate Relationships – A Global Perspective
Web References:
https://publichealth.gmu.edu/profiles/dhines2
https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Mens-Victimisation-in-Intimate-Relationships/Dixon-Hines-Douglas/p/book/9780367701802
Keywords: Domestic violence, intimate partner violence, male victims, gender bias, cross-cultural research, social work, violence prevention, family violence, victim services, epidemiology of IPV
