To be clear, I don’t think Republicans are for violence against women. I just think they’re stuck in an old way of thinking about it, which is that it’s unfortunate but not serious enough of a problem that it requires challenging institutionalized sexism to stop it. A lot of them particularly object to the idea that domestic violence is the result of the abuser’s belief that he gets to control and dominate their partner, because that opens up an uncomfortable discussion about their own belief that men should be the “head” of their households. As I’ve noted before, many conservatives prefer the evidence-free theory that domestic violence is a “couple” problem that requires counseling oriented towards reconcilation (which usually requires spreading blame for problems around, which is not helpful, because abusers tend to seize on that as “proof” that their victims are in the wrong and deserve to be pushed around). So they resist efforts that make it easier for someone being battered to leave.
(The fact that Jovan Belcher and Kasandra Perkins were win couples counseling before he murdered her is reason enough, I think, for people to pause at the notion that this is a preferable solution to separation. I’m skeptical that most abusers can change, but if they have a chance at all, they have to start by letting go of the idea that their partner owes them a relationship. I struggle to see how that belief gets challenged unless he practices not having a relationship with her. If that sounds harsh, it’s time to consider why we are conditioned to have so much sympathy for men who hit women.)