This study, which involved the examination of men’s retrospective accounts of their relationships with their fathers, had two goals: to investigate differences in demographic variables and paternal relationship variables between men who self-reported intimate violence and those men who did not, and to determine if certain dimensions of fathering could predict intimate violence. The study involved a sample of 145 men ranging in age from 19 to 61 that came from 2 distinct groups: male spouse abusers court ordered to batterers’ treatment and men who had children attending a public Montessori high school in a medium size Midwestern city. Questionnaires consisted of a demographic data form, The Conflict Tactics Scale, The Fatherhood Scale, and Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale. Logistic regression was used to determine if a set of independent variables predicted the probability of violence or non-violence in intimate relationships. Analysis of the data found that there were significant demographic differences between the two groups in terms of age, education, marital status, and the father’s educational level. The violent group was younger, less educated, less likely to be married, and earned less income than the non-violent group. In terms of parental involvement, the violent group reported a significantly greater occurrence of negative parental emotional engagement than the non-violent group. A statistically significant difference was found between group with high positive paternal emotional engagement and self-esteem and the group with low positive paternal emotional engagement and self-esteem. The logistic regression found that seven predictor variables correctly classified 86 percent of the violent men and 72 percent of the non-violent men. The seven variables included witnessing marital violence, paternal child abuse, low self-esteem, and education. These findings, though not indicating a cause-and-effect relationship, indicate that low self-esteem and negative paternal involvement are predictors of men's physical aggression against female intimates. Study limitations and implications for clinical work, including individual, group, and family therapy, are discussed. 5 tables and 39 references