I’m not buying the whole “no abuse is mutual” thing. They are trying to say there is only a primary abuser and a reactionary person.
I’m not talking out of my ass, I’ve lived it. My abuser ex husband was much bigger than me and I never hit back. Both because I don’t believe in violence and any retaliation could’ve triggered him to give me a death blow. I eventually pressed formal charges and got away. My parents, on the other hand, were equal in size and equally violent to each other. I can’t say anyone was the primary abuser and the other reactionary. It’s very chicken or the egg who ever hit first, but they both sure fed on it mutually and were both violent asses. I saw my mom hit more and my dad rarely reciprocated, but can’t confidently say behind closed doors my dad didn’t start the cycle because both of them were happy to hit me and my dad hit me more. It’s a miracle they both calmed down in old age and are still together. It’s a miracle I still talk to either of them.
I’m still active helping other women survivors at DV shelters. Yes, women are more likely to face one sided abuse. But I think it’s just not true that it can’t be mutual, and it’s harmful to pretend it can’t be. Then you are going to have one side of two violent people thinking they’re purely a victim and not working on what is wrong with them when it comes to thinking hitting is ever ok not in immediate physical threat. Not working on that can lead to them hitting others again (even children) because they felt excused before. It also ignores that some people together are plain toxic, even if they wouldn’t be that way with other spouses. They can be mutually toxic.