Domestic violence is domestic violence, be it perpetrated by a man or a woman, regardless of the target, man woman, or child. It is never acceptable, nor should it be. However, the statistics show that domestic violence is much more likely to be by a man toward a woman, rather than the other way. In fact, 85% of victims of domestic violence are women according to Bureau of Justice statistics quoted at http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf .

This may be due to higher levels of natural aggressiveness in males, larger physical size and strength (on average) of men vs. women, or the way men and women are raised and socialized. Regardless, violence is violence, and should be stopped, and punished as appropriate.

As for your sub-text question, self-defense is a right recognized and enshrined in our laws. To the extent that the damage being done to the original attacker is proportionate and reasonable given the level of threat and/or injury that attacker has directed toward the victim. Again, the gender of the attacker and of the victim have nothing to do with this right to self-defense. However, if a woman slaps a man, while this can probably be prosecuted, it would be difficult to claim this as causing the man to fear for his life to the point that he severely injures or kills the aggressor. Justified self-defense is not the same as the victim of the initial aggression striking back in anger for revenge. It must be the result of a realistic fear of further injury to the original victim should s/he not protect her- or himself. The danger must be imminent and not easily avoidable by stepping back or leaving the premises.

I agree that violence is violence. I'm not sure how good the statistics are for men being abused by their women since men are not likely to report such scenarios. The same is true for male rape victims. I think they are less likely to come forward than female rape victims. Being re-victimized by the system that is suppose to help you just makes people not want to speak out.

I think the numbers are lower than may be the realities in both situations. It certainly isn't more acceptable. But Opher has an excellent point about imminent danger. Males are usually larger than women and are often not in direct physical danger like women in similar situations, unless she has a weapon of some kind. In that case, there would be cause for self defense. But otherwise, no.

I have to say that violence is violence whether it is a man hitting a woman or a woman hitting a man. I do not believe that a man should hit back though when a woman hits him. Most of the time a woman will just slap or try to hit a man and they usually don't throw much of a punch. A man, however, can floor a woman with one hit. I do agree that self-defense is fair and square. The violence does need to be charged no matter which way it it though. :-)

Acceptable? No. Under reported? Of course. Men are less likely to report abuse than women. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and that doesn't make it acceptable. I think that more than physical abuse, most abuse from a woman to a man is emotional and verbal. Women can be very aggressive, and most times they show this through their words.

Domestic violence in any form is completely unacceptable.

I agree with all of the answers. The truth is women don't pose as much threat for men as men to women. If a men slap you, he can seriously injure you. Unless a woman is very athletic, if she slaps you, you usually just get a red cheek and a bruised ego. Women also usually prefer verbal abuse than physical, if they are being abusive at all. Men also have their pride. Their pride will be severely injured if they report that they have been "hit" by a woman. This causes underreported violence by women to men.