Domestic violence and intimate partner violence are now often used synonymously. Although an achievement of the women movement, the terms have been criticized for not naming their gendered dimension. Using the term “domestic” violence can suggest that it is that domestic and a private affair. Hagemann White coined the term “gendered violence” to characterize “any violation of a person's physical and psychological integrity that is related to the gender of the victim or perpetrator and is inflicted by the structurally stronger person by exploiting a power relationship” (Hagemann-White 1997: 22). This definition also provides for different dimensions of violence. It includes interpersonal violence, which can be expressed physically but also emotionally, and indirect, structural violence. Gender relations refer to the social situation of duality, interplay and dependency related to gender. These relations are formed by attitudes, norms and attributes connected to the concept of “gender”. These relationships tend to be hierarchical, binary, and unequal. Because of the unequal distribution of property, income, work, political power, and symbolic capital according to gender, the “structurally stronger” are usually men or people attributed as male. However, the definition avoids the trap of gendered binaries, as it is equally applicable to the situation between a white, wealthy German woman and an undocumented, black, destitute man, or a non-binary and a cisgender person. Further Hagemann-Whites definition allows us to regard violence through action theory, emphasizing choice, personal responsibility, and accountability on the perpetrators side. 

When StoP talks about domestic violence, we refer to violence between adults who are in a close social relationship, and which – in its severe and diverse forms – affects women. The term “domestic violence” was deliberately chosen to stand for the most generic form. Violence against women is the focus of StoP's work – this includes all women, regardless of whether woman is understood as a self-determined, constructed gender or as the gender assigned at birth. 

This is the focus of StoP. Without creating hierarchies of victims – every victim of violence is one too many! Non-binary, queer people who are also affected by domestic and patriarchal violence are also StoPs target group. 

We believe that StoP's neighborhood work and our commitment to promoting gender equality promote non-violence and better coexistence in general. We also welcome people and organizations working on violence in other areas – only together can we change society. That is why StoP encourages men to support men and to work towards ending violence. 

Violence against women has physical, sexual, psychological, economic and social dimensions. Physical violence includes hitting, pushing, slapping, throwing objects at the partner, stabbing, burning, strangulation, and even attempted or committed murder. Psychological/emotional violence aims to damage the partner's self-esteem through verbal abuse and acts of power/control. Sexual violence is any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, or other act directed against a person’s sexuality using coercion (WHO 2024). Domestic violence is a cross-cutting issue in many socioeconomic, religious, and cultural communities. Economically, men exercise violence, for example, by restricting the household income or prohibiting or controlling paid work and socially, by deliberately isolating women, locking them up, prohibiting contact or intimidating acquaintances and friends of the woman. Forms of indirect violence include, for example, persistent wage inequality and gendered division of labor and even gendered, androcentric language patterns (Mazurana/McKay 2001, WHO 2024). Increasingly we see violence in online environments (FRA 2024). Cyber Violence against women has many forms – from cyber stalking, cyber harassment or trolling, doxing, non-consensual intimate image abuse, digital voyeurism, sextortion to identity theft or using and controlling functions of smart home to lock-in or torture (heater, sound systems) or for surveillance (i.e. cameras in home appliances). Violence against women is a social problem of epidemic proportions in many societies (WHO 2024). Research suggests that no racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group is immune. Globally as many as 38% of all murders of women are committed by intimate partners. International findings on the prevalence of femicide, show that homicides by (ex-)partners in heterosexual relationships account for the majority of femicides (for the UK Dobash & Dobash, 2015; for Germany Leuschner & Rausch, 2022. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) highlights that intentional homicide perpetrated by intimate partners or family members is the most common form of femicide. German police statistics for 2023 show that, while more than two thirds of homicide victims were male, the proportion of female victims of homicide in partnerships was 80,2 (BKA, 2024). Almost every day a woman is murdered by her (ex-)partner in Germany (BKA 2024). Almost one third of European women have experienced physical violence and / or sexualized violence over their lifetime by an intimate partner. This violence starts early, affecting adolescent girls and young women (FRA 2024). In many cases, violence is perpetrated by male relatives, intimate partners or acquaintances of the victim. The first representative nationwide survey in Germany (BMFSJ 2004) showed that every second to third woman (37% of the respondents) had experienced physical violence or assault after the age of 16. Almost one in seven had experienced sexual violence as defined by the criminal law, i.e. rape, attempted rape and sexual assault using threats or physical coercion. A total of 42% of the women surveyed had experienced forms of psychological violence. Women of all ages and social backgrounds were affected. In 99% of cases the perpetrator of intimate partner violence was a man. Most women were victims of violence more than once in their relationship: 36% reported 2 to 10 incidents and a further 33% reported 10 to over 40 incidents. In total, 64% of women said they had suffered physical injury. The study also notes that women experience violence from men not only in relationships, but also in institutions such as prisons or refugee centers. These results are supported by European numbers. According to the European Eurostat FRA Study one woman in three European has experienced physical and/or sexual violence since she was 15. Out of all women who have a (current or previous) partner, 17,7% have experienced physical and/ or sexual violence. If psychological violence is included, the lifetime prevalence increases to 31, 8% (FRA 2024, 20) (FRA 2024). Women with disabilities are at greater risk to be victimized by domestic violence (Garciá-Cuéllar 2023). The children of abused women are directly or indirectly affected by violence. According to a North American study, in 70% of cases where women were victims of intimate partner violence, the children also suffered violence that increased with the severity of the mother’s abuse (cf. Logar 2000: 175. Carlson et al 2020) showed that households reporting domestic violence are also more likely to report violence against children. Witnessing violence between adults directly impacts children too (Hale et al. 2024). 

The concept of intersectionality and the interconnections of discrimination are a limitation to most prevalence studies on violence. Indeed, the very definitions of race and ethnicity are often problematic. Different ethnic groups are often lumped into a single category, such as “refugees”, or the patterns of a single group are generalized. Thus, studies on domestic violence among minority populations are often incomplete, precluding meaningful generalizations, and experiences of undocumented women are often excluded (Alhabib 2010, Monterrosa 2021). Research in this field has been growing however (Sokoloff 2005 Thiara et al 2011, Rehmann et al 2013).

In recent years there has also been an increasing debate about men as victims of female violence, and some have questioned whether the number of female victims of male violence is so much higher than the number of male victims of female violence. At the same time male victims of domestic violence tend to be less visible in society than female victims. Partly, because violence against men may not be seen as severe as violence against women and because men suffer from different forms of domestic violence than women (Machado 2020, Walker et al. 2020). In addition, there are still strong barriers for (male and female) victims to report their experiences and get help. Studies have found prevalence rates ranging from 3.4% to 20.3% for domestic physical violence against men. 10.6–40% of them reported having been abused or maltreated as children. There seems to be a lack of recognition of male victims of domestic violence, that perpetuates domestic violence against men and boys and likely places victims and their children at additional risk (Machado 2020, Walker et al. 2020). It should be noted that studies quoted used different survey instruments and threshold values for the presence of psychological violence, which can contribute to differences in prevalence. This limits the comparability of the study results from different studies. Further, surveys may not measure the actual number of women who have been abused, but rather, the number of women who are willing to disclose abuse. A recent comprehensive study from Germany on the extent to which men are affected by violence in relationships perpetrated by women shows that men substantially experience violence (Schemmel et al. 2024). However, it appears that only an extremely small number of those surveyed had been exposed to systematic and regular violence, i.e. the majority of experiences of violence were rather isolated and presumably occurred in the context of isolated, escalated conflicts. Moreover, serious acts of violence were generally reported less frequently than less serious ones (ibd: 187). Violence against women clearly predominates in terms of frequency and severity or in the case of sexual assault. This research and the other studies mentioned also found, that most of the men had themselves been violent towards their female partners. The predominant, albeit well-founded, perception of men as perpetrators obscures the fact that men are often victims of physical, psychological and sexual violence in everyday life, in war and in prison (cf. BMFSJ 2004, BKA 2024). The denial of male experiences of victimization reinforces a one-dimensional image of men and thus also makes it more difficult for men to actively take up the reduction of violence as their own concern. The prevalence of violence against men and the risk factors for it should be studied more. It would be desirable to develop preventive measures and to make special help available to the men concerned (Kolbe et.al 2020).

The “typical” perpetrator of violence does not exist. Violence is perpetrated by men all over the world, of all classes, backgrounds and status, although the World Health Organization states that “Factors associated with increased risk of experiencing intimate partner and sexual violence include low education, exposure to violence between parents, abuse during childhood, attitudes accepting violence and gender inequality.” However, in the nationally representative study in Germany, two thirds of the partners who used violence were employed and well educated, and no significant correlations were found between education and violence, nor between income and violence (cf. BMFSFJ 2004a, ibid.). As far as the level of education is concerned, the current prevalence study shows a slightly higher level of education among victimized women than among the average women surveyed (BMFSFJ 2004a: 21). 

There is no typical pattern of violence in intimate relationships, no identifiable phases that can guide intervention. Abuse takes different forms and courses: For some, the first act of physical violence is a shock and crosses an invisible line, followed by apologies, regrets or reconciliation. With others, expressing anger or dealing with conflict physically may be seen as a part of normal family life, described as arising from specific conflicts. Women as well as men can physically assault their partners, and violence occurs in same-sex couples. Such violence does not always increase over time, but when abuse becomes more frequent until hurtful or humiliating acts are happening repeatedly or even “all the time”, it has become an ongoing abusive relationship, characterized by a mixture of actions aimed at coercion and increasingly underpinned by fear. Physical or emotional attacks are then interspersed with surveillance; control and domination, maintained through tactics such as social isolation, frightening threats, insults and ridicule.

A growing body of population-based research now recognizes a broad division between situational violence, in which some couples deal with conflict, and coercive control, “defined as an ongoing pattern of domination by which male abusive partners interweave repeated physical and sexual violence with intimidation, sexual degradation, isolation and control. The primary outcome of coercive control is a condition of entrapment.” Coercive control is “gendered” because it is used to secure male privilege and its regime of domination/subordination is constructed around the enforcement of gender stereotypes (Stark 2012, p.7). 

In addition to the health consequences, women face other pressures. Some women lose their jobs either due to frequent illness or because their husbands will not let them go. In the event of separation, they often leave their familiar social environment out of fear of the abuser or by fleeing to a women's shelter. A 2024 conducted study by the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence found that 57% of women who are homeless cited domestic violence as the primary reason for their homelessness. This percentage escalates to a staggering 80% if the woman has a child in her care (Blueshield 2024). Women who have worked as stay-at-home spouses lose their economic livelihood. After separation, they often end up on welfare. Violence against women therefore always means a risk of poverty for those affected. They often must start all over again, make countless visits to the authorities and run errands, move house, change kindergartens, and retrain. Brzank states that the burden domestic violence places “for following generations becomes obvious, including the consequences for family and social relationship structures, for victims’ occupational situations, productivity loss, high risk for poverty, homelessness and the interdependencies on health status” (Brzank 2009 p.333). Women without independent residence status must deal with immigration authorities and are at risk of deportation, making them vulnerable to stay in violent relationships with high dependency. 

Male violence also has a significant economic cost to society. The handbook “Parliaments United in Combating Domestic Violence against Women” of the Council of Europe assumes an average value of about 40 Euros per capita and year (Hagemann-White, Kaltenbrink, Rabe 2006). For the Federal Republic of Germany, the consequential costs of male violence thus amount to approximately 14.5 billion euros per year.