While the researchers found that differences in education levels appeared to have little influence, when both partners were working, intimate partner violence increased.
“When both male and females were employed, the odds of victimization were more than two times higher than when the male was the only breadwinner in the partnership, lending support to the idea that female employment may challenge male authority and power in a relationship,” said the researchers.Of course, a key limitation to this study, published in the tellingly entitled Violence Against Women scholarly journal, is that they interviewed only women. I would have liked to have seen the dataset expanded to men, who report near-parity rates of abuse at the hands of women in America and in Canada, and the UK, and see what the effect of spousal employment is on male-female relationship dynamics. I would further like to see the dataset differentiate between physical violence, both minor and severe, and psychological aggression, and measure the associations between each type of violence and employment status. That data would be quite interesting, I think.
Going back to the assertion that female employment may challenge male authority and power, perhaps we may accurately apply power dynamics theory for states and countries to human relationships. Accepting for a moment the debatable feminist postulate that remunerated employment imparts greater power to women in a relationship, the literature, of this is but one example, suggests that power parity--in this case, wage parity--leads to greater, not less, dyadic conflict. Thus by subverting complementarianism and by encouraging equalitarianism, the literature suggests feminists themselves encourage more, not less, inter-personal violence. In other words, and paraphrasing libertarian theorist Harry Browne, feminists break men's and women's legs [with equalitarianism], only to later hand them a crutch [heavy handed and misandrist DV laws], saying, "See, if it weren't for us, you wouldn't be able to walk".