Pauline Hanson: Domestic Violence Is a Two-Way Street

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has attracted criticism after saying domestic violence is "wrong, but it is also a two-way street".

Her statement was immediately described by critics as victim-blaming and as an attempt to minimise male violence against women. Yet the central proposition—that intimate partner violence frequently involves violent behaviour by both partners—is supported by a substantial body of peer-reviewed research.¹

That does not mean every abusive relationship is mutually violent. It does not mean that victims are responsible for another person's actions. It also does not mean that men and women necessarily experience identical consequences.

It means that domestic violence cannot be accurately understood through a simplistic model in which men are always perpetrators and women are always victims.

What the updated PASK research found

The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, known as PASK, is one of the largest organised reviews of intimate partner violence research.

The expanded project contains more than 5,000 pages and incorporates more than 4,000 peer-reviewed studies. Its purpose is to collect and summarise evidence concerning prevalence, perpetration, victimisation, motivations, bidirectional violence, risk factors, consequences and possible interventions.²

DVAA recently published an overview of the major 2025–2026 PASK update and its importance for evidence-based domestic violence policy.³

The updated PASK review of physical intimate partner violence examined 246 studies published between 2011 and 2022, producing 517 prevalence estimates from industrialised English-speaking countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.⁴

It reported:

• An overall physical IPV perpetration prevalence of 12.9%.
• Female perpetration of approximately 15.5%.
• Male perpetration of approximately 10.6%.
• Female victimisation of approximately 14.8%.
• Male victimisation of approximately 11.8%.

The researchers concluded that substantial gender symmetry remained evident, while women reported somewhat higher rates of both physical perpetration and victimisation.

These figures also reinforce an important point that is often lost in political debate: most men and most women do not report committing physical violence against an intimate partner.

Domestic violence is serious, but it is not normal male behaviour or normal female behaviour. Most people, regardless of sex, never physically abuse their partners.

Most violent relationships involve violence by both partners

The clearest support for Hanson's "two-way street" observation comes from PASK's updated review of bidirectional and unidirectional intimate partner violence.⁵

The researchers examined 64 studies published between 2012 and 2022, producing 72 separate prevalence estimates. They found that 52.8% of the intimate partner violence identified across the samples was bidirectional.

In other words, in a majority of violent relationships, both partners had reportedly used physical violence.

The pattern appeared across different populations:

• 50.9% in large population samples.
• 49% in community samples.
• 59.9% in university samples.
• 59.4% in clinical samples.
• 44.8% among adolescents.

The previous PASK review reached a similar conclusion, finding an average bidirectional rate of approximately 57.5%.⁶ The updated research therefore did not overturn the original conclusion. It broadly confirmed it.

Domestic violence is not always a two-way street—but statistically, physical partner violence is more commonly bidirectional than exclusively one-way.

Women account for more unidirectional violence

The updated PASK review also produced an important finding about relationships in which only one partner was violent.

Across the reviewed samples:

• Female-to-male unidirectional violence represented approximately 31.4% of violent relationships.
• Male-to-female unidirectional violence represented approximately 16.9%.

Female-to-male one-way violence was therefore nearly twice as common as male-to-female one-way violence in the samples reviewed. This pattern appeared across large population, community and adolescent samples.

A major American study by Whitaker and colleagues reached a comparable conclusion. After analysing information concerning 18,761 heterosexual relationships, the researchers found that approximately half of violent relationships were reciprocal. Among the nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of cases.⁷

These results do not prove that women "strike first" in every bidirectional relationship. Directionality and initiation are not identical concepts, and many studies do not reliably establish the exact sequence of every incident.

The evidence nevertheless contradicts the claim that women's physical violence is rare, insignificant or almost entirely defensive. Women's perpetration is a substantial part of the domestic violence problem and must be included in any serious prevention strategy.

Bidirectional violence can develop through escalation

Mutually violent relationships can develop through different pathways.

In some cases, one partner initiates violence and the other retaliates. In others, both partners have poor emotional regulation, destructive communication habits or a willingness to use physical aggression during conflict. Violence may be connected with anger, jealousy, revenge, stress, coercion, self-defence or attempts to obtain a partner's attention.

PASK's review of perpetrator motivations found considerable overlap between men and women. Commonly reported motives included anger, retaliation for emotional hurt, jealousy, stress, difficulty communicating feelings and attempts to stop a partner from doing something. The evidence did not support reducing all male violence to power and control while automatically treating female violence as defensive.²

This does not excuse retaliation. A person who is assaulted should attempt to disengage, seek assistance and use only such force as is reasonably necessary to protect themselves.

However, a realistic prevention model must recognise how an initial shove, slap, punch or thrown object can lead to retaliation and escalating violence.

When female aggression is dismissed as harmless because the victim is male, society may be ignoring the beginning of an escalation that ultimately causes serious harm to both partners.

Men are more likely to cause physical injury

Recognising female perpetration does not require pretending that every act has an identical physical effect.

Men are, on average, larger and physically stronger. As a result, an assault committed by a man may be more likely to cause serious injury than a comparable assault committed by a woman.

Whitaker and colleagues found that men were more likely than women to inflict an injury, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.3. The same study found that reciprocal violence was substantially more likely to produce injury than nonreciprocal violence, regardless of the perpetrator's sex.⁷

PASK's review of the consequences of partner abuse similarly found that physical violence generally had more harmful physical consequences for female victims, although the size of the difference depended partly on the severity and nature of the violence.⁸

This is why the discussion requires nuance.

Women may report higher prevalence of physical perpetration, and women account for a considerably greater proportion of unidirectional violence in PASK's reviewed samples. At the same time, men's greater average physical strength means that male violence is more likely to produce serious physical injury.

Both facts can be true.

Domestic violence is not exclusively gendered

Calling domestic violence "gendered violence" can obscure more than it explains.

Men can be perpetrators. Women can be perpetrators. Men can be victims. Women can be victims. Violence also occurs in same-sex relationships, where the male-perpetrator/female-victim explanation is plainly inadequate.

Gender may influence the type, severity and consequences of violence, but sex alone does not determine who is abusive or who requires protection.

A credible domestic violence system should assess:

• Who used violence.
• Who initiated particular incidents.
• Whether the behaviour was unilateral or bidirectional.
• Whether someone acted in immediate self-defence.
• The frequency and severity of the conduct.
• The presence of coercion, threats, stalking or controlling behaviour.
• The risk of escalation and serious injury.
• The safety and wellbeing of any children.

Authorities should investigate the facts rather than assigning roles according to sex before the evidence has been considered.

Prevention must address violence by women

For decades, many domestic violence campaigns have concentrated almost exclusively on teaching men and boys not to abuse women.

Men should unquestionably be taught emotional regulation, nonviolent conflict resolution and respect for their partners. Male perpetrators must be held responsible for their conduct.

But women and girls must receive the same message.

Slapping a boyfriend is domestic violence. Punching a husband is domestic violence. Throwing objects, scratching, biting, kicking, threatening someone with a weapon or deliberately provoking a physical confrontation cannot be dismissed because the perpetrator is female.

Given the higher female perpetration prevalence and the disproportionate share of female-to-male unidirectional violence reported by PASK, preventing women's violence should become a much more prominent public-policy priority.

Programs should teach women and men how to:

• Regulate anger and intense emotions.
• Leave an escalating argument before it becomes physical.
• Communicate without threats or intimidation.
• Recognise that "minor" physical aggression is still abuse.
• Avoid retaliatory violence.
• Seek help before destructive relationship patterns become entrenched.

PASK specifically identifies conflict escalation, communication and emotional regulation as important areas for intervention in bidirectionally violent relationships.

Teaching women not to initiate physical violence is not victim-blaming. It is perpetrator accountability.

It may also protect women. When female aggression initiates or contributes to a violent exchange with a substantially stronger male partner, the woman may face a greater risk of physical injury. Preventing the first act of violence can therefore reduce victimisation as well as perpetration.

Hanson's statement should begin a better discussion

Pauline Hanson's comments should not be interpreted as meaning that every victim could simply leave, that leaving is always safe or that a victim is responsible for being abused.

No person is responsible for another person's decision to commit violence.

However, Hanson's central observation that domestic violence can be a "two-way street" is consistent with the most comprehensive research available on physical intimate partner violence.

The updated PASK evidence indicates that:

• Physical IPV is committed by both women and men.
• Women report higher physical perpetration prevalence than men.
• Most identified violent relationships involve violence by both partners.
• Female-to-male one-way violence is substantially more common than male-to-female one-way violence.
• Men are more likely to cause physical injury.
• Bidirectional violence presents a particularly serious risk of escalation and harm.

Acknowledging these findings does not diminish female victims.

It means recognising every victim, confronting every perpetrator and designing policy around evidence rather than gender-based assumptions.

Violence has no gender. Accountability should have no gender either.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Pauline Hanson mean by domestic violence being a "two-way street"?

Pauline Hanson argued that domestic violence is not exclusively male-perpetrated and that women can also be aggressors. She used the phrase "two-way street" to describe intimate partner violence as often mutual or bidirectional between partners.

Is domestic violence really bidirectional?

Yes. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK), the largest review of intimate partner violence research to date, found that physical partner violence is most commonly bidirectional — meaning both partners use violence — rather than one-sided.

What does the PASK research actually say about male and female perpetration?

PASK found broadly comparable rates of physical perpetration by men and women in intimate relationships, with women accounting for a larger share of one-way (unidirectional) physical violence in many community samples.

Are men or women more likely to be injured in domestic violence?

Men are more likely to cause serious physical injury on average due to size and strength, and women are more likely to be hospitalised or killed. However, both men and women are victims, and injury data does not erase female-perpetrated violence.

Does acknowledging bidirectional violence excuse abuse against women?

No. Recognising that domestic violence is often bidirectional does not diminish female victims. It means every victim is counted, every perpetrator is held accountable, and policy is built on evidence rather than gender-based assumptions.

Why does the "two-way street" framing matter for policy in Australia?

Australian domestic violence policy and funding still largely assume a male-perpetrator, female-victim model. Bidirectional and female-perpetrated violence are under-recognised, leaving male victims and their children without adequate services, legal protection, or public awareness.

References

1. Pauline Hanson's "two-way street" domestic violence comments spark backlash — 7NEWS. ↩

2. Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) — domesticviolenceresearch.org. ↩ ↩²

3. DVAA overview of the 2025–2026 PASK update. ↩

4. Lysova, A., Hanson, K., and MacKay, J. Rates of Male and Female Physical Victimization and Perpetration in Intimate Relationships: A Comprehensive Review. Partner Abuse, Volume 16, Issue 1, 2025. ↩

5. Lysova, A., Hanson, K., and MacKay, J. Bidirectional and Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence. Partner Abuse, Volume 16, Issue 1, 2025. ↩

6. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Misra, T., Selwyn, C., and Rohling, M. Rates of Bidirectional Versus Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review. Partner Abuse, 2012. See also Desmarais, S., Reeves, K., Nicholls, T., Telford, R., and Fiebert, M. Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships: Rates of Male and Female Perpetration. Partner Abuse, 2012. ↩

7. Whitaker, D., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., and Saltzman, L. Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence. American Journal of Public Health, 2007. ↩ ↩²

8. Lawrence, E., Orengo-Aguayo, R., Langer, A., and Brock, R. The Impact and Consequences of Partner Abuse on Partners. Partner Abuse, 2012. ↩