We are unable to tell why there are such strong
gender differences in the
effects we estimate, though we suspect it is related to emerging evidence that boys are more sensitive to
adverse shocks that occur when they are young than are girls.
Because laws which are facially neutral may «unintentionally have a disproportionate or
adverse effect on a group or individual» (at para 36), the Federal Court of Appeal proceeded, where the trial judge did not, to consider «whether the provisions of the ITA, while not directly discriminating on the basis of
gender and family status, did so indirectly and unintentionally» (at para 36).
Although research findings on prevalence are inconclusive, they generally find that women and men report similar levels of violence when the contexts, motives and consequences are not considered.6 When they are considered, studies assessing IPV perpetrated by men compared to women often report
gender differences regarding the types of violence, reasons for the violence, context in which the violence occurs and consequences of the violence.6, 7 For example, studies assessing differences in IPV find men's violence against women to be more severe, threatening and controlling8 — 10 and involve longer - lasting victimisation, fear of bodily injury or death, more injuries and more
adverse health
effects.5, 11, 12 It has also been found that women tend to use physical violence out of anger, not being able to get the partner's attention or in self - defence and retaliation, 11 whereas men often use it as a means to exercise coercive control.13, 14