Applying ambivalent sexism theory to explain the intersection of gender, power, and sexism within intimate partner violence

Two theoretical perspectives on intimate partner violence (IPV) emphasize the need for understanding its foundations in sexism, gendered power dynamics, and gender inequalities.

The gendered perspective emphasizes that patriarchal attitudes lead to men's IPV as an expression of dominance and, by contrast, that women's IPV occurs in self-defense. We draw from ambivalent sexism theory to present a gender-inclusive framework for explaining IPV. Two forms of sexism — hostile sexism and benevolent sexism — are critical for understanding distinct occurrences of men's and women's IPV that are nonetheless consistent with representative community-based evidence that victimization occurs across genders. For instance, men's endorsement of hostile sexism predicts IPV via insecure concerns about lacking power, whereas women's endorsement of benevolent sexism predicts IPV via heightened pressures on women to maintain their relationships. We conclude by describing the need for gender-inclusive research, practice, and policy acknowledging IPV toward women, men, and non-binary genders.