This article is in response to two articles: "Domestic Violence: It's Not About Gender - Or Is It?" (Johnson, 2005), and "Male Versus Female Intimate Partner Violence: Putting Controversial Findings in Context" (Holtzworth-Munroe, 2005). These articles appear in the same issue of the Journal of Marriage and the Family, and criticise the authors' original article, "Partner Violence and Mental Health Outcomes in a New Zealand Birth Cohort" (2005). In that article, Fergusson, Horwood, and Ridder explore the relationship between domestic violence and mental health outcomes in a birth cohort of 1,003 participants involved in the longitudinal Christchurch Health and Development Study, assessed at age 25. The authors sought to dispel the belief that domestic violence is gendered, typically involving a male offender and a female victim. Their findings indicate that men and women had similar rates of victimisation and perpetration of partner abuse; exposure to domestic violence had a positive relationship with mental disorders; and mental health outcomes were similar for men and women. Johnson criticises Fergusson et al. as using the overarching term domestic violence to only discuss what he describes as 'situational couple violence' rather than more severe 'intimate terrorism'. In response, Fergusson et al. dismiss Johnson's criticism as failing to address the spectrum of domestic violence, minimizing and marginalising the experiences of those not exposed to extreme violence, and encouraging policy development that caters only for a minority of those exposed to domestic violence. To support their rejection of Johnson's typology of domestic violence, they construct a model to explain what they describe as the 'gender paradox'. Holtzworth-Munroe criticises Fergusson et al. as inadequately considering the significance of gender differences in experiences of fear of partners and the impact on women. She suggests that a study of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) might address this short-coming. In response the authors reiterate that, in relation to the focus of their study, experiences of fear were a minor factor and demonstrate gender symmetry. They argue that data on PTSD was too small within the selected cohort for useful study. With reference to Holtzworth-Munroe's criticism of the usefulness of longitudinal studies in relation to measuring predictors of intimate partner violence, the authors do recognise the potential of studying larger samples in order to fully address questions of gender differences and testing typological models such as that put forward by Johnson. The authors' final statement in response to Holtzworth-Munroe's and Johnson's safety and ethics based criticisms is to argue that feminist theoretical approaches to domestic violence prevention are now outmoded, as they argue they always have been in relation to child abuse prevention. The authors also argue that, as a result of their findings, policies and services need to refocus. They say that, while cases of extreme violence are likely to remain the focus of services attempting to meet the needs of abused women, the dominant focus needs to be on less severe cases of mutual violence and conflict.

xxu

Journal of Marriage and Family 67(5) 2005 : 1131-1136