The Silent Stereotype: How Sexism Fuels Denial of Male Victimhood in Relationships
Monday, July 7, 2025.
In a culture hyper-aware of injustice—where microaggressions can spark think pieces and emoji use is a political act—you’d think we’d be past the idea that only women can be victims of abuse.
But a new study in Psychology of Men & Masculinities suggests otherwise.
The researchers didn’t just find implicit bias—they built a scale to measure it. It’s called the Intimate Partner Violence Myths Toward Male Victims (IPVMM) scale, and its message is clear: we’re still not taking male victimization seriously—and sexism is to blame (Russell, Cox, & Stewart, 2024).
What We Believe About Male Victims—And Why It Matters
Let’s start with the basics: men can be victims of intimate partner violence (IPV).
They can be punched, stalked, humiliated, gaslit, and emotionally shattered. But unlike their female counterparts, male victims are often dismissed, mocked, or disbelieved—sometimes by their friends, often by institutions, and always, it seems, by public opinion.
The myths go something like this:
“He must have deserved it.”
“A real man wouldn’t put up with that.”
“It’s probably mutual.”
“She’s half his size—how bad could it be?”
These aren’t just idle thoughts. They’re belief systems. And now, thanks to the IPVMM, they’re measurable.
Sexism Toward Men: The Real Driver of Denial
The study asked over 500 U.S. participants to complete the new IPVMM questionnaire, along with measures of sexism toward both men and women. What emerged wasn’t subtle.
The strongest predictor of myth acceptance was sexism toward men—especially the patronizing kind.
You know the type. “Men are natural protectors.” “Men should be strong.” “Men don’t cry.” These may sound like compliments in a Father’s Day card, but in practice, benevolent sexism binds men in armor they’re not allowed to take off—even when they’re bleeding (Glick & Fiske, 1996).
Hostile sexism toward men played a role too—those classic “all men are pigs” takes that reduce masculinity to violence and impulse. People who endorsed both kinds of sexism were significantly more likely to downplay or deny male victimization.
Gender Roles, Abuse Histories, and the Self-Protecting Mind
Support for traditional gender hierarchies—the “men lead, women follow” worldview—also correlated with myth endorsement. Not surprisingly, individuals who admitted to perpetrating abuse were more likely to believe these myths.
But here’s the kicker: being a victim of partner violence didn’t predict lower myth acceptance.
That’s a gut punch to the idea that suffering automatically produces empathy.
Instead, it suggests that victims themselves may be too steeped in gender norms to fully recognize their own abuse—especially if that abuse doesn’t fit the Hollywood script of battered wives and raging husbands (Mahalik et al., 2003).
A Cultural Blind Spot—Reinforced by “Polite” Bias
Participants, on average, scored above the midpoint on the IPVMM scale.
That means most people were slightly more likely than not to believe in at least some myths about male victims.
Even more telling?
These myth scores were significantly higher than scores on similar scales measuring myths about female victims.
The bottom line is we’re much more willing to believe a woman who says she’s abused than a man.
And yet, there was no gender difference in who held these beliefs. Men and women endorsed the myths at similar rates.
This goes against older research showing men tend to hold more sexist and victim-blaming views (Chapleau et al., 2008), suggesting either a cultural shift—or that respondents were engaging in a bit of strategic self-editing.
Social desirability bias—the urge to seem like a good person on a survey—might have blurred some truths (Fisher, 1993). But if anything, it suggests the real levels of myth endorsement could be even higher.
What the IPVMM Tells Us—and What It Doesn’t
The IPVMM scale, built on 18 belief statements adapted from previous research and designed to spotlight male-specific myths, passed reliability tests with flying colors. It captures a single psychological construct: the denial or minimization of male victimization.
But the study has limits.
The sample was mostly White, recruited online, and not representative of all age, race, or class backgrounds. The design was cross-sectional, meaning it captures a moment in time, not a trajectory. We don’t yet know how these beliefs form—or how they can be changed.
Where We Go From Here?
The researchers call for broader applications of the IPVMM: in courts, clinics, social work training programs, and even among police officers. I’m inclined to agree.
Do professionals tasked with protecting victims hold the same biases? If so, victims don’t just face disbelief at home—they encounter it in every system built to help them.
I think better designed future studies should explore how myths play out:
In same-sex relationships
Among trans and nonbinary individuals
Across cultures, religions, and generations
And in different professional settings
Because if you can't recognize a victim, you can't protect them. And if your definition of victim only wears a dress, you’re not seeing half the picture.
Why This Study Matters—And Why It’s Not Enough
This research gives us a flashlight in a very dark cultural basement.
But flashlights don’t fix things. We need to confront how deeply gender expectations distort our empathy.
Believing in male victimization doesn’t undermine support for female survivors. It strengthens it—by insisting that abuse is wrong, whoever it targets.
A real feminist ethic doesn’t play favorites with pain.
And a truly just society doesn’t require men to bleed silently to be believed.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2008). Male rape myths: The role of gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507313529
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1086/209351
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Mahalik, J. R., Burns, S. M., & Syzdek, M. (2003). Masculinity and perceived normative health behaviors as predictors of men's health behaviors. Social Science & Medicine, 64(11), 2201–2209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00430-3
Russell, B., Cox, J. M., & Stewart, H. (2024). Intimate Partner Violence Myths Toward Male Victims: Exploring Gender, Sexism, and Participant Perpetration and Victimization. Psychology of Men & Masculinities. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000447