Category: Domestic violence

Society often places certain stereotypes on individuals based on how they are expected to behave. When an individual perceives themselves in a situation that causes them to stray from the conventional gender roles, this can cause humiliation and embarrassment leading to low self esteem. Therefore, in order to avoid rejection and shame, men remain silent, causing cases of domestic violence where men are victims to remain largely under-reported. In his article “Women’s violence toward men is a serious social problem”, Murray A. Straus illustrates that men are often depicted to be the more violent sex (Straus 58). Men can become just as much of a victim of abuse and domestic violence as women, but in American society men are taught to view themselves as a stronger sex and are therefore, less likely to report abuse, which highlights the social norms and expectations that often prevent male victims from speaking out and ending the cycle of abuse.

Physical abuse can be a source of embarrassment for male victims because it tends to indicate that they are incapable of standing up for themselves, something that every man is expected to be able to do. In his article, “Masculinity in American Culture”, Nick Black cites a study done by social psychologist Prof. Geert Hofstede where he defines masculinity in American culture to include the following attributes: assertiveness, toughness, a focus on material success, ego orientation, the ability to gain money in order to provide, as well as, the ability to defend oneself and protect others. These characteristics further hinder male victims of domestic violence from coming forward since admitting one’s self as a victim of abuse might suggest a lack of toughness or assertiveness that American society expects a man to possess. This in turn, would negatively influence a male victim’s ego and self esteem.

In her article “Domestic Violence: ‘As a man, it’s very difficult to say I’ve been beaten up’”, Emily Dugan introduces Dave who is an example of how gender roles and social perception of masculinity discourage male victims from reporting abuse. When an outsider looks at Dave, they might see a strong, six foot tall man and take him to be a “big brute” who is not likely to fall victim to a woman. Not only is Dave suffering from physical abuse, but he must cope with his failure to live up to the perception of what a man should be; strong and powerful. This perceived failure inevitably causes him to lose confidence in himself and deters him from speaking out because of these feelings of inadequacy. He justifies his reluctance to come forward with the quote, ‘[a]s a man, it’s very difficult to say you’ve been beaten up. It seems like you’re the big brute and she’s the daffodil, but sometimes it’s not like that’ (Dugan 2013). Since in his mind a woman is the more fragile sex, he should be able to defend himself with ease. Failure to do so makes him feel like less of a man.

Stereotypes that depict men as the more violent sex are perpetuated by bias research. In his article “Women’s violence toward men is a serious social problem”, Murray A. Straus illuminates how researchers “omit questions that ask about violence carried out by women” in order to depict women as victims of assault carried out by men (Straus 58). American culture is conditioned to view women as the less violent sex. The researchers do not assume that women can be perpetrators of violence because that goes against everything they’ve been taught. Furthermore, Straus states that when studies do cite cases of domestic violence carried out by women, it appears to be only in self defense. In reality, women were found to be the assailants at an equal or higher rate as their male partners when it came to couples who are dating (Straus 59). These stereotypes encourage the views of women as victims which makes American society less likely to believe that a man could be victimized by a woman. This in turn makes men embarrassed and less likely to report the abuse. Likewise, assaults by women are rare in police statistics because the same stereotypes cause many men to be reluctant to involve the police and admit that they cannot ‘handle their wives’ (Straus 60). To do so, would go against society’s definition of masculinity.

There are many factors that influence how law enforcement reacts to cases of domestic violence in ways that are not beneficial to male victims. In the article, “Women’s violence toward men is a serious social problem”, Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles found that when a woman called the police to report Intimate Partner Violence and the authorities were involved, the man was ordered out of the house in 41.4% of cases. However, when a man called, the woman was ordered out of the house in 0% of cases. When a woman called, the man was threatened with immediate arrest in 28.2% of cases; when a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest in 0% of cases (Straus 62). This illustrates that even law enforcement which should be neutral, is biased when it comes to the possibility of a male enduring abuse from a female. It is this way of thinking that makes many men believe that they are not victims of a crime. Furthermore, when a man does hit a woman back in self-defense, he is likely to be prosecuted more harshly than a woman claiming to defend herself. Since police are more inclined to believe that the man provoked the woman than vice versa. Since law enforcement sympathises with women, they will be more lenient when handling female assailants.

One reason for the dichotomy of treatment between men and women victims by the police is that although women have the capacity to be just as violent as their male partners, women are more likely to sustain physical injuries than men (Fiebert 2012). Therefore, women are more likely to appear victimized, which leads law enforcement officials to be more sympathetic towards them, while enforcing severe consequences onto the male partner whom they automatically assume is the abuser. This again influences the male self image deterring men from viewing themselves as victims (Fiebert 2012). It is ironic that being able to endure pain better and trying to conform to society’s perception of the power and masculinity is the very thing that keeps men chained in a vicious cycle of abuse.

One study conducted by Basile (2005), illuminates how even our justice system is influenced by social norms even though the law is suppose to be neutral. In court setting, “male victims of intimate partner violence were not afforded the same protections as female victims of intimate partner violence” (Basile qtd in Shuler 170). Basile (2005) also found that over 50% of male victims of intimate partner violence refused to testify and female perpetrators with severe injuries had their charges withdrawn 77.8% of the time. Women on the other hand, were more likely to testify if they were more severely injured (Basile 2002). This phenomenon further proves that social perceptions of masculinity have created an unequal judicial system. Most men would prefer to suffer abuse than admit to being victims and to risk the shame associated with coming forward even when a crime has been committed against them. Shuler concluded that this inequality happened even though both male and female plaintiffs were victimized equally by their opposite gender defendants. A low percentage of women found guilty of intimate partner violence has been due to the male victim unwillingness to testify against them in court.

In his article, “Domestic Violence Against Men Is The Most Underreported Crime”, James points out another reason that male victims are less likely than female victims to report abuse is due to the perception that the issue of domestic violence is one that should be dealt with personally and privately. Male victims may feel weak and ashamed of their inability to handle such a private matter on their own. They regard domestic abuse as a ‘private’ problem of no legitimate concern to anyone but themselves. This is a primary reason why many male victims choose not to report the abuse they suffer at the hands of women (James 2014). They want to believe that they have the power to rectify the situation on their own as society expects them to do.

American society believes that one of the essential roles of men is the ability to protect those he cares for. In the same article, “Domestic Violence Against Men Is The Most Underreported Crime”, James points out, many men fear that if they leave the abuser, their children will suffer instead of them as the abuser takes out their anger on the children (James 2014). This could also be a deterrent which discourages men to report abuse. Therefore, many men choose to stay in abusive relationships to shield their children from becoming victims, fulfilling their role as protectors. In the event that a divorce occurs, according to Straus, it is more likely that custody will be granted to the mother who, society is conditioned to view as a nurturer even when that is not the case (Straus 61). In this situation, the man would have no way to ensure the safety of his children. This will not only hurt his ego from not being able to stand up to his wife, but it will also keep him from fulfilling his duty as a man to provide for, and take care of his children.

Men often view themselves as professional, self-sufficient members of society. A big factor that discourages them from reporting abuse is that in doing so, they will irreparably harm their reputation. James provides an example of this in his article “Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren’t Supposed To Know”, when he states, a therapist or similar professional “may fear that clients will doubt his ability to help them with their problems if he can’t even handle his own” (James 2014). In this way public knowledge of domestic abuse may severely damage how the outside world views an individual, destroying not only his self esteem, but his ability to make a living as well, which in turn, effects how he views himself as a man. Therefore, men often chose to preserve their reputations and endure abuse silently rather than risk the shame that may come with seeking outside help.

An additional barrier that keeps male victims from speaking out against domestic violence is the fear that they will not be believed, since in American society men are more often viewed as perpetrators than the victims. Susie Christodoulou illustrates this point in her article, “Hidden male victims of domestic abuse”, by stating, ‘[t]here are many barriers deterring men from reporting abuse. Men keep silent for fear they may be disbelieved or ridiculed, or simply out of a crippling sense of shame’ (BBC.com). The reason for this is that society is reluctant to change its perception of what it means to be an abuse victim. Changing this viewpoint would force American society to reconsider the current definition of masculinity, admitting that asking for help does not make the victims less of a man. This kind of change is often difficult to achieve when the majority is conditioned to believe the opposite. Christodoulou also points out that “[o]ur acceptance and understanding of male domestic abuse seems to me to be 30 years behind the times” (BBC.com). Society isn’t willing to give up the conventional gender roles of men and women even though the role of women has evolved greatly with time. For a man to admit he is the victim of female perpetrated violence, he needs to abandon the image of power which society expects from him and admit to being submissive to his female partner. This in itself can be detrimental to the male ego since a submissive man would not be fulfilling his role in society.

Despite this evidence some would argue that men are not likely to experiance violence at the hands of a women. They believe that men are capable of defending themselves and “controlling” their partners. Failure to do this, would mean that they are the weaker sex and therefore not a “real” man. Since childhood, men have been conditioned by society to be able to endure pain and “take it like a man.” However, research proven otherwise. In the article “Men: The Overlooked Victims of Domestic Violence”, The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has found that almost half (40%) of the victims of severe, physical domestic violence are men in 2010 (Ruth S.). Clearly domestic violence is as much of an issue in male victims as it is in female. Arguing that the main factor for this is weakness would unjustifiably classify all 40% of the victims as not being “real” men. This proves that anyone can fall victim to domestic abuse and it does not automatically title one as “weak.”

Another factor that causes men to stay silent in cases of intimate partner domestic violence is their tendency to minimize the severity of the situation. As Fiebert points out many men tend to rationalize that their situation is not that bad when compared to what others might be going through (Fiebert 2012). Therefore it would be a sign of weakness to involve authorities. They attempt to handle it themselves. Many times, the abuse endured is not just physical. Many men suffer from the emotional side effects of intimate partner violence as well. As Straus points out, “studies show that abused men are at risk for emotional hurt, fear, helplessness, anger, revenge seeking, sadness, shame and humiliation, depression, stress, psychological distress, and psychosomatic symptoms” (62). This could also be very detrimental since many male victims are reluctant to seek mental help. This, in turn, leaves them trapped to relive the cycle of abuse.

As a culture, we are more accepting of violence perpetrated by men against women and less inclined to believe that a male can be a victim of domestic violence. This can lead men to not perceive themselves as victims, and therefore be reluctant to admit that what they are experiencing is a crime. Society must keep in mind that not all wounds are physically visible and sometimes what is internal can cause much more harm than what is apparent to the eye. Although men may appear stronger, that doesn’t mean they suffer any less than women would in the same situation. If members of American society would alter their viewpoints on masculinity and encourage male victims to come forward supporting them by viewing their decision to speak out as strength rather than weakness, perhaps more men will be willing to seek help.

Works Cited

1. Black, Nick (2014). “Masculinity in American Culture.” Research + Strategy. Retireved hhhhfrom http://www.nickblack.org/2011/03/masculinity-in-american-culture.html. hhhhretrieved 12 April 2015.
2. Christodoulou, Susie. (2011). “Hidden male victims of domestic abuse.” BBC News. 10 hhhhJanuary 2011. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12126783. retrieved 12 April 2015
3. Dugan, E. (2013). “Domestic violence: ‘As a man, it’s very difficult to say I’ve been hhhhbeaten up’.” The Independent, [online] 14 April 2013. March 29 2015. hhhhhttp://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/healthnews/domesthhhhic-violence-as-a-man-its-very-difficult-to-say-ive-been-beaten-up8572143.html
4. Fiebert, Martin S. ‘References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or hhhhMale Partners: An Annotated Bibliography’. Sexuality and Culture. 8 (2012), hhhh140–177. Springerlink. Retrieved June 28, 2014.
5. Gelles, Richard J.; Straus, Murray A. (1988). Intimate Violence: The Causes and hhhhConsequences of Abuse in the American Family. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. hhhh262. ISBN 9780671682965. Retrieved July 5, 2014.
6. James, Tom. (2014). Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren’t Supposed To Know hhhh(2003). “Domestic Violence Against Men Is The Most Underreported Crime.” EGF. hhhhhttp://www.dvmen.org/dv-32.htm. Retrieved 12 April 2015.
7. Robertson, K. and Murachver, T. (2009), “Attitudes and Attributions Associated With hhhhFemale and Male Partner Violence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39: hhhh1481–1512. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00492.x. April 12, 2015.
8. Ruth S. (2015). Domestic Violence Statistics. “Men: The Overlooked Victims of Domestic hhhhViolence.”http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/men-the-overlooked-victims-of-dohhhhmestic-violence
9. Straus, M. A. (2004). “Women’s violence toward men is a serious social problem.” In hhhhRichard J. Gelles & Donileen R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family hhhhviolence, (2nd Edition ed., pp. 55-77). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Introduction:

Empowerment theory and its application to domestic violence provide a valuable framework for understanding and addressing this pervasive social issue. This analytical essay explores the key concepts of empowerment theory and examines how it can contribute to the prevention and intervention strategies in cases of domestic violence.

Understanding Empowerment Theory:

Empowerment theory is rooted in the belief that individuals have the capacity to make choices, exert control over their lives, and effect positive change. It emphasizes the importance of self-determination, autonomy, and the development of skills and resources necessary for individuals to overcome challenges and achieve their goals. When applied to domestic violence, empowerment theory recognizes that survivors of abuse possess inherent strengths and abilities that can be harnessed to break the cycle of violence.

Empowerment-Based Interventions:

Empowerment-based interventions aim to shift the power dynamics in cases of domestic violence by providing survivors with the tools, resources, and support they need to regain control over their lives. These interventions focus on enhancing self-esteem, promoting self-efficacy, and fostering a sense of agency and autonomy. By offering practical assistance, counseling, and access to community resources, empowerment-based approaches empower survivors to make informed decisions and take action to protect themselves and their children.

Collaborative Approach:

One of the core principles of empowerment theory is the recognition of the importance of collaboration and partnership. In the context of domestic violence, this involves the collaboration between survivors, advocates, community organizations, and service providers. By working together, stakeholders can pool their expertise, resources, and support to create comprehensive and survivor-centered interventions that address the complex needs of survivors.

Breaking the Cycle of Violence:

Empowerment theory emphasizes the long-term goal of breaking the cycle of violence by addressing the underlying factors that contribute to domestic violence. It recognizes that interventions must go beyond immediate crisis response and focus on prevention and education. By promoting gender equality, challenging societal norms that perpetuate violence, and advocating for policy changes, empowerment theory aims to create a society that supports healthy relationships and respects the rights and autonomy of all individuals.

Challenges and Criticisms:

While empowerment theory offers valuable insights and strategies, it is not without its challenges and criticisms. Critics argue that the emphasis on individual empowerment may overlook structural factors that contribute to domestic violence, such as socioeconomic inequality and cultural norms. Additionally, there may be practical limitations in implementing empowerment-based interventions, such as limited resources and access to services. It is important to address these challenges and work towards a more comprehensive approach that combines empowerment strategies with broader systemic changes.

Conclusion:

Empowerment theory provides a valuable analytical framework for understanding and addressing domestic violence. By recognizing survivors’ inherent strengths and abilities, empowering them with the necessary resources and support, and fostering collaboration and partnerships, empowerment-based interventions can contribute to breaking the cycle of violence. While challenges and criticisms exist, continued efforts to integrate empowerment theory into comprehensive approaches to domestic violence can lead to more effective prevention and intervention strategies that empower survivors and promote lasting change.

Abstract

This paper explores the obstacles that advocates face while working within domestic violence shelters and how they cope with their experiences and daily challenges. American society relies on domestic violence shelters to provide a safe haven for victims of domestic violence, though their necessity over-expands past the boundaries of a safe place to sleep. For domestic violence shelters to function as an integral part of the human services field, advocates working within the shelters must find ways of rehabilitating victims in order to eventually reintegrate them back into society. This paper will delve deeply into the ways in which advocates face challenges within their roles as well as explain the tools and resources necessary for victims to return to society as survivors.

An Exploration of Advocate Roles and Survivor Needs While Working in Domestic Violence

American society relies on countless programs and resources within the human services field to serve specific human needs that are not being met. Domestic violence shelters are pertinent to the human services field and society as a whole – countless women and children become victims of domestic violence and must rely on shelters and their staff for immediate assistance. The roles of workers within domestic violence shelters require advocates to be resourceful and patient as the magnitude of their role in a victim’s life is based upon helping the victim reintegrate into society as a survivor. While the obvious focus of domestic violence shelters is based upon the victim and their story, we mustn’t forget the intricate roles of the advocates; though they are not the victim, their experiences within their job require skills and resources at both the micro and macro level. Advocates working in domestic violence shelters must traverse through the daily challenges and copious amounts of heartache and stress in order to play their very instrumental role in a victim’s life. As they play their part in other people’s lives within the domestic violence shelters, advocates must find resolutions of challenges and recognize rewards of advocacy, recognize survivor needs and resources all while understanding their role’s impact on survivors to both empower and instill hopefulness.

Challenges and Rewards of Advocacy within Domestic Violence Shelters

Advocates working within domestic violence shelters work tirelessly with victims in order to give them the tools and resources they need to survive. They are not only responsible for victims needs in the present, but also at the macro level of preparing victims for the future and successful reintegration back into society. It is not unexpected though that advocates face mental, social and physical challenges – all which can lead to advocate burnout without proper precautions. In a study considering the experiences of advocates in domestic violence shelters, Merchant and Whiting found that “Challenges fell into three categories: managing shelter shock, letting go of being the hero, and balancing advocate roles” (Merchant & Whiting, 2015). In their study, Merchant and Whiting interviews nineteen participants who were either current or former advocates of domestic violence shelters, which averaged to have worked as an advocate for 5.4 years (Merchant & Whiting, 2015). Including the three major challenges they noted, it was concluded that an important factor in how advocates coped was majorly dependent on how much support they received from their shelter, as “Those in less-supportive shelters expressed more frustration and were more likely to leave the domestic violence field” (Merchant & Whiting, 2015). When shelter cultures were supportive and resourceful, advocates were more likely to stay within their position.

Hearing client stories was a major source of shelter shock as the constant emotions of listening to victims all while managing their endless list of duties proved to be overwhelming. Through interviews with advocates, some noted that they weren’t prepared for the intensity of hearing victims’ stories. Advocates coped with this challenge through supportive co-workers and employers as they noted that “Receiving support from co-workers helped advocates feel less alone, while those who coped privately felt more isolated” (Merchant & Whiting, 2015). It was also found that shelters with positive culture had supervisors who were directly involved with their staff and had a vision for their shelter as “Shelter visions promoted teamwork by providing a common goal while also allowing advocates to identify their niche in the vision” (Merchant & Whiting, 2015). Many advocates faced challenges internally with wanting to be the hero yet were often disappointed with the outcome – many victims of domestic violence either are not ready to leave or there was constant red tape when accessing resources. Most of these advocates reported that once they came to terms with not being a hero for all, they were better able to cope and understand that they weren’t always to blame when a victim returned to their abuser. The most notable challenge that advocates face is the threat of burnout. In a study examining burnout among advocates in domestic violence shelters, it was found that there are three contributing factors associated – emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Babin, Palazzolo, & Rivera, 2012). Merchant and Whiting’s study relates closely with Babin, Palazzolo and Rivera’s findings of the leading causes of burnout. Without proper resolution of their challenges, advocates are at high risk for burnout. Babin, Palazzolo and Rivera’s findings on social support were congruent with Merchant and Whiting’s, as “Perceived informational support and perceived emotional support were positively related to one another, and both types of support were negatively related to all three dimensions of burnout” (Babin, Palazzolo, & Rivera, 2012). Thus, there is a heavy emphasis and need for shelter support in order to reduce the challenges of advocacy. This proves that it is crucial for advocates to have a proper support system in order to help victims be coached, rehabilitated and reintegrated into society with more tools than they had prior to the shelter.

Survivor Needs and Resources within Domestic Violence Shelters

When a victim of domestic violence enters into a shelter, they are seeking more than just asylum. It is pertinent for victims and often their children to gain the tools and necessary skills that will best equip them for re-entering society as a well-prepared survivor. In a study across eight states, victims reported that upon entering a shelter their highest needs fell into the categories of “Safety, Information, Self-Care and Connections, Community Resources, and Children” (Sullivan & Virden, 2017). For advocates to effectively help victims, they must understand these needs and provide tools to accomplish client goals.

Victims entering shelters are often accompanied by their children. In instances such as these it is vital to note that children are also victims of domestic violence and both parent and child may need additional resources such as parent-child therapy. Advocates can provide this training through specialized programs such as Parent Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) (Keeshin, Oxman, Schindler, & Campbell, 2015). A study where researchers examined the use of PCIT, specifically Child Directed Interaction (CDI), found that many mothers living in shelters exhibited parenting behaviors that “Include harsh or abusive parenting practices, including increased use of spanking and other forms of corporal punishment” (Keeshin, Oxman, Schindler, & Campbell, 2015). Through this program, mothers and children were coached on positive communication, enabling them to safely express themselves and strengthen their relationship with one another. The research concluded that “Mothers in our series were able to learn, practice, and utilize the components of CDI” (Keeshin, Oxman, Schindler, & Campbell, 2015), which empowered the parent-child relationship and prepared them for life after the shelter.

Domestic violence victims have also expressed a high need for self-care and community. Many women who have experienced domestic violence and/or sexual assault may have little to no knowledge of what a safe sexual relationship should be. Advocates who are able to provide resources such as a Pleasure Centered Education Program (PCEP) can not only educate victims on sexual relationships, but also empower them for future relationships. Women in these programs are able to explore what a positive sexual relationship should look like. Many participants within the study on PCEP reported that “They felt more powerful and in control of their bodies and sexuality when armed with increased knowledge about their sexual anatomy and appropriate expectations for pleasure” (Tambling, Neustifler, Muska, Reckert, & Rua, 2012). Programs such as PCEP help victims with not only self-care and information but community as well. Women participating in this study concluded that they felt a higher level of community as they were able to speak openly and confide in one another (Tambling, Neustifler, Muska, Reckert, & Rua, 2012). Most notably though, women who had more access to these programs and were provided a safe experience with the advocates were more likely to report that they gained a sense of hopefulness and empowerment.

Impacts of Advocate Roles on Survivors: Empowerment and Hopefulness

The programs previously discussed shed tremendous light on how survivors gain security and empowerment through group settings such as the Pleasure Centered Education Program as well as the Parent Child Interaction Therapy. Both studies showed results of women feeling more positive and hopeful after having access to the resources such as these programs and the help of advocates to give them the tools they need to survive and live a life of hopefulness. As advocates rely on emotional support from their coworkers and supervisors, the more positive their training and support are results in a higher reward value. In a study on vicarious resilience within domestic violence advocacy, researchers found that while it was important for shelter supervisors to provide proper trauma prevention training for advocates, it was more crucial to “Educate themselves in order to explicitly address vicarious resilience in trainings and develop organizational practices that facilitate growth” (Frey, Beesley, Abbott, & Kendrick, 2017). Researchers found that when advocates were able to grow personally and professionally through the success of their clients, they were better equipped for the challenges of advocacy. This in turn created a cycle – a victim becomes empowered and hopeful through the empowerment and hopefulness that the advocate exerts and vice versa. Additionally, in Sullivan and Virden’s study, they concluded that “Survivors’ increased hopefulness and confidence in their abilities were predicted not just by how helpful staff were but how they were treated while in shelter” (Sullivan & Virden, 2017). This proves the importance and impact of advocates on survivors, as their treatment of clients has the ability to both empower and instill hopefulness upon them.

Conclusion

Advocates working within domestic violence shelters face endless challenges both personally and professionally. It is often that advocates must navigate through the personal stress and crisis their position entails, all while at risk for burnout. Only through proper resources, training and shelter support and culture are advocates best equipped to overcome the challenges within their roles. Their job is to not only help victims survive through safety, but also through providing tools and resources for them to best prepare for life after leaving the shelter. It is noteworthy that while many advocates are working one on one with clients, the small groups of advocates working together are often reliant on one another to build each other up and work as a unit. It is not without a supportive and communicative group that they function to provide safety to the many victims that they serve. As advocates in domestic violence shelters work tirelessly in this realm of the human services field, their importance to society is significant. With the proper support, advocates are able cope with and recognize the challenges and rewards of advocacy to best meet the needs of survivors, and to empower not only themselves, but also their clients.

References

1. Babin, E. E., Palazzolo, K. E., & Rivera, K. D. (2012). Communication Skills, Social Support, and Burnout among Advocates in a Domestic Violence Agency. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 147-166. doi:10.1080/00909882.2012.670257
2. Frey, L. L., Beesley, D., Abbott, D., & Kendrick, E. (2017). Vicarious Resilience in Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Advocates. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practive & Policy, 9(1), 44-51. doi:10.1037/tra0000159
3. Keeshin, B. R., Oxman, A., Schindler, S., & Campbell, K. A. (2015). A Domestic Violence Shelter Parent Training Program for Mothers with Young Children. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 461-466. doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9698-6
4. Merchant, L. V., & Whiting, J. B. (2015). Challenges and Retention of Domestic Violence Shelter Advocates: a Grounded Theory. Journal of Family Violence, 467-478. doi:doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9685-y
5. Sullivan, C. M., & Virden, T. (2017). An Eight State Study on the Relationships Among Domestic Violence Shelter Services and Residents’ . Journal of Family Violence, 32, 741-750. doi:10.1007/s10896-017-9930-7
6. Tambling, R. B., Neustifler, R., Muska, C., Reckert, A., & Rua, S. (2012). Pleasure-Centered Education Program: A Comprehensive Approach to Pleasure-Oriented Sexuality Education in Domestic Violence Shelters. International Journal of Sexual Health, 24, 267-289. doi:10.1080/19317611.2012.715119

Introduction:

Domestic violence is a pervasive problem that affects individuals across all socio-economic backgrounds, races, and genders. It is not merely a private matter, but a social justice issue that demands our attention and action. This persuasive essay will argue that domestic violence is indeed a social justice issue, highlighting the importance of recognizing it as such and advocating for systemic change to address its root causes.

Body:

Intersectionality and Power Dynamics:

Domestic violence intersects with various social identities such as gender, race, class, and sexuality, making it a complex issue that cannot be separated from broader social justice concerns. It is essential to acknowledge the power dynamics at play, as domestic violence disproportionately affects marginalized individuals and perpetuates systemic inequalities. By recognizing domestic violence as a social justice issue, we can address the interconnected systems of oppression that contribute to its prevalence.

Structural Inequality and Institutional Responses:

Domestic violence is deeply rooted in structural inequalities, including economic disparities, gender norms, and cultural beliefs that perpetuate violence and inequality. Victims often face barriers when seeking help, such as lack of financial resources, limited access to legal assistance, and inadequate support systems. By framing domestic violence as a social justice issue, we can advocate for systemic changes in institutions such as law enforcement, healthcare, and social services to provide comprehensive support and protection for survivors.

Breaking the Silence and Challenging Norms:

Addressing domestic violence as a social justice issue encourages society to break the silence surrounding this pervasive problem. By openly discussing and raising awareness about domestic violence, we challenge the cultural norms and beliefs that enable its continuation. It prompts individuals to question and challenge harmful stereotypes and attitudes that perpetuate gender-based violence. Recognizing domestic violence as a social justice issue creates space for dialogue and education, fostering a societal shift towards empathy, support, and prevention.

Empowering Survivors and Promoting Healing:

Treating domestic violence as a social justice issue places survivors at the center of the discourse. It acknowledges their experiences as valid and empowers them to seek justice, healing, and support. By amplifying their voices and advocating for their rights, we contribute to the larger social justice movement, promoting inclusivity, equity, and empowerment. It is our responsibility as a society to provide comprehensive resources, services, and legislation that address the unique needs of survivors and ensure their safety and well-being.

Conclusion:

Domestic violence is undoubtedly a social justice issue that demands our collective attention and action. By recognizing and addressing the intersectional nature of domestic violence, we can challenge the power dynamics, structural inequalities, and cultural norms that perpetuate violence and inequality. Through comprehensive support systems, legal reforms, and societal shifts, we can create a world where domestic violence is eradicated, and survivors are empowered to heal and thrive. It is essential to approach domestic violence through a social justice lens to foster a society that is equitable, inclusive, and free from violence.

In recent years, particularly in the last decade, society has gradually become more aware of domestic violence cases in relationships and families. Society has started recognising the extent to which domestic violence impacts an individual’s mental and physical health and the overall impact it has on the well-being of a family. Domestic violence is a complex behavioural issue that may include physical acts of violence, emotional abuse and sexual abuse (Hegarty, Hindmarsh & Gilles, 2000). Worldwide, 30% of women report they have experienced some form of sexual or physical violence by a partner in a relationship at some point during their life (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2017). The conflict theory is related to social status, political power and economic wealth and when applied to family situations it is helpful in understanding why and how stability and instability develop within a family context (Hamon, 2016). The feminism theory refers to the observation of gender and how it relates to power within a social structure, it also includes race, nationality, race and sexual orientation (Ferber & Nelson, 2009). This paper will explore the topic of societies impact on individuals who have experienced domestic violence and how the conflict and feminism theories relate to this health issue.

Societies impact on domestic violence victims can be viewed as overall positive, with the awareness and support increasing as time moves forward. According to the World Health Organization, family and domestic violence are prominent public health and social problem which affects approximately one in three women globally (Coomber et al., 2019). In Australia, domestic violence affects one in six women and one in sixteen men (Coomber et al., 2019). Up until the Family Law Act 1975, spouses were unable to obtain a divorce from violence occurring in the marriage (Easteal, Young & Carline, 2018). When looking at domestic violence in China, women are primarily the individuals who experience abuse and almost 90% of violent attacks cases are from their husbands (Lancet, 2016). Domestic violence in China was also only accepted as grounds for divorce in 2001 but still remains a private and discrete matter with little police acknowledgement or protection (Lancet, 2016). By making divorce easier for family violence victims, it has been undoubtedly beneficial. There are many helplines and organisations for individuals experiencing domestic violence to contact such as 1800RESPECT, Lifeline, White Ribbon Australia, Reach Out Australia and Relationships Australia. By community, organisations and governments providing these services to domestic violence victims, it is an example of how proactive the Australian society is about preventing cases (Easteal, Young & Carline, 2018). Awareness among workplaces, schools and communities have also increased rapidly in the last fifteen years which has ultimately helped the movement of decreasing domestic violence (Easteal, Young & Carline, 2018). Communities and health providers previously did not realise the impacts family violence had on children and the extended family of the victim (Bancroft, Silverman & Ritchie, 2011). The effects of this abuse occurring on children are prominent, it may cause anxiety, depression, PTSD and behavioural issues if children witness incidents (Bancroft, Silverman & Ritchie, 2011). There may be a variety of effects on extended family depending on how much they are involved in the victim’s life, they may be required to financially support the victim post-separation and provide accommodation (Bancroft, Silverman & Ritchie, 2011). Not only will the extended family be affected financially but also emotionally, individuals may also experience stress and anxiety when trying to support a family member through an abusive situation.

Secondly, conflict theory relates to domestic violence in Australia by affecting minority groups such as refugees, migrants and individuals with disabilities. Through much research, immigrant and refugee women have been identified as particularly at risk for domestic violence (Reese & Pease, 2007). Domestic violence continues to affect women with a disability by socially oppressing individuals with silence and isolation (May 2016). Social, economic, religious and cultural differences all play a role in the experiences and perceptions of refugee families (Reese & Pease, 2007). While some research has been conducted to document how Australian women perceive domestic violence initiatives and interventions, the impact on racial minority women has yet to be fully investigated. Racial minority women primarily from developing countries were discovered to have the highest prevalence of domestic abuse compared to Australian women (Bhuyan, Valmadrid, Panlaqui, Pendon & Juan, 2018). One of the first theorists to apply intersectionality to violence against women was Professor Kimberle Crenshaw (Bhuyan et al., 2018). Professor Crenshaw argued that domestic violence services traditionally designed for middle-class white women would be of limited use for women from culturally diverse backgrounds (Bhuyan et al., 2018). Crenshaw also suggests that the notion domestic violence affects all women equally is an idea embedded within a form of white privilege. While it is clear that women from various classes and ethnic groups can be victims of men’s violence, it can often be implied that violence against women is the exact same across class, cultural and ethnic groups (Rees & Pease, 2007). The Exploring Domestic and Family Violence in Refugee Communities organisation was part of the motion to not stigmatise the class and race of victims from violence (Rees & Pease, 2007). This strategy can be considered to be a false sense of unity among women and as a consequence, the experiences of women of colour and women from low-income households have been neglected in health services and support (Rees & Pease, 2007). Women are much more likely to be in both dangerous intimate relationships and dangerous social positions due to the environment they have been raised in or currently live in (Rees & Pease, 2007). Women who also have a disability also continue to experience violent situations by perpetrators thriving off the power, control and abuse (Mays, 2006). Depending on the level of disability the victim may contain, perpetrators of domestic violence may actually go un-documented due to the perpetrator often being the primary carer (Mays, 2006).

Thirdly, the feminist theory relates to domestic violence by primarily affecting women but also how men who experience domestic violence not having as many support options. Domestic violence against women perpetrated by men in a current or ex-relationship setting has been recognised as one of the most concerning public health issues in the world and is a major factor in relation to causes of injuries and mental illness among women and children (WHO, 2017). On average one woman a week is murdered by her current or ex-partner, and 1 in 3 women have experienced some level of violent abuse from a partner at some point in their life (Bryant & Bricknall, 2017). Both men and women are more likely to experience violence at the hands of men. Approximately 95% of victims from violence, regardless of gender, experience violence from a male perpetrator (Bryant & Bricknall, 2017). With the women’s movement in the 1960s causing more action and awareness, domestic violence began being viewed and constructed as a social and health issue (Dixon, 2014). It is long understood that gender inequality is a problem, yet evidence to link gender inequality and violence against women has rarely been discussed (Wall, 2014). A key goal in the prevention of violence against women is to achieve gender equality which would ultimately reduce gendered violence (Wall, 2014). When considering the term gender equality, it does not necessarily mean that women and men are exactly the same or that there should not be differences, the main objective is for both genders to have equal rights, responsibilities, opportunities and access to the same resources (Wall, 2014). Women often sustain more serious injuries compared to men when being assaulted by a man due to the biological factor of men generally being larger and stronger than women (Wall, 2014). The work of feminist advocates in raising awareness for partner violence and other violence against women has enabled the issue to be viewed as a prominent public health issue and aim for prevention of the problem (Wall, 2014). The other spectrum to this issue also considers how men are often overlooked by police and support services when experiencing domestic violence (Wall, 2014). For men experiencing violence from a female partner, individuals are often not heard or considered, and emotional support is not as often given compared with women (Wall, 2014).

In conclusion, it is evident domestic violence is considered a major public health issue within society. When factoring in societal effects, the conflict theory and the feminist theory, it is clear domestic violence is not only a health issue but also a social issue. Although society in recent years has a better understanding of domestic violence and how it affects individuals, there are still issues that need to be addressed in relation to minority groups and the conversation of gender equality. Domestic violence remains a complex behavioural issue that may include physical, emotional and sexual abuse primarily among women but also affects men. While society has come a long way in the way domestic violence is approached, it is still a concealed and hidden subject among various members of society. Improvements can still be made in society by including and considering minority groups from different ethnic backgrounds and individuals with disabilities.

Violence against women constraints the enjoyment of women’s human rights everywhere. It is a manifestation of power and control and a tool to maintain gender inequalities, disrupting the health, survival, freedom of women around the world. A 2013 analysis conducted by World Health Organization (WHO) , indicates that ‘30 percent of women worldwide have experience either physical and or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime. The prevalence estimates of intimate partner violence range from 23.2% in high income countries and 24.6% in the WHO Western Pacific region to 37% in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region, and 37.7% in the WHO South-East Asia region. Globally as many as 38 percent of all murders of women are committed by intimate partners. Statistics in Sri Lanka shows that, 17% of ever-married women aged 15-49 have suffered from domestic violence from their intimate partner and 2% of ever-married women who suffered from domestic violence, experiences in any form of domestic violence daily. Intimate partner violence are mostly perpetrated by men against women.

Violence against women assumes a totally different dimension in the case of domestic violence. Domestic violence has been historically considered to fall within the private domain, and outside state authority. Therefore, it took a long period with a great deal of hesitation to enter into people’s homes to understand and intervene in situations of domestic violence. It took a number of women’s deaths in dreadful circumstances, and persistent lobbying by early feminists for a long period of time for legislators to accept that domestic violence does indeed exist, and that there is a serious need to have legislative protection for women.

Wife beating, for instance, has been seen throughout history in varying cultures. As stated by Lord Denning in Davies v Johnson in UK ‘…by the common law a husband was allowed to beat his wife so long as he did it with a stick no bigger than his thumb’ clearly indicate the male dominance over the women. Anglo-American law also allowed a husband to be ‘master’ of the household and subject his wife to corporal punishment or chastisement so long as he did not inflict permanent injury upon her. Even when the right to beat one’s family members was repudiated by the authorities, men who assaulted their wives were often granted formal and informal immunity from prosecution so as to preserve family harmony and privacy. Catharine MacKinnon in 1979 first introduced dominance theory (or radical feminism) which focuses on this imbalance power relation between men and women provided reason for domestic violence as ‘the inequalities women experience as sex discrimination in the economic, political, and familial arenas result from patterns of male domination’.

Today a clear understanding of domestic violence can be derived from the Convention on the Elimination of the all forms of Violations Against Women (CEDAW) and General Recommendation 19, which explicitly states that it prohibits gender-based violence. General Recommendation 19 addresses violence against women including sexual harassment and emphasizes that discrimination under the CEDAW is not restricted to action by or on behalf of governments. Feminist movements around the world have had a great success in domestic violence lawmaking agenda. This was reiterated by Radhika Coomaraswamy, the first U.N. Special Rapporteur on violence against women, by stating that the violence against women movement is ‘perhaps the greatest success story of international mobilization around a specific human rights issue leading to the articulation of international norms and standards and the formulation of international programmes and policies.”

The multiple faces of domestic violence are sometimes obscured in the name of culture and custom. Although domestic violence is globally prevalent problem, it has special significance in Asia and crimes against women in the name of family honour or notion of male honour crimes, such as dowry deaths highly prevail in India and Bangladesh. Dominant social and cultural norms in Sri Lanka tend to privilege the family unit over a woman’s right to bodily integrity. Indeed, such violence is often seen as a normal part of married life or as a temporary disruption in an otherwise peaceful household. This discourse about violence, is part of a broader discourse around the family where, a good wife is one who listens to and obeys her husband, remains silent in his presence, avoids socialising outside the family and attends to household chores and child care. Violence is to be endured silently and not be disclosed to the public.

The development of legal provisions to combat domestic violence in Sri Lanka can be seen in the Women’s Charter of 1993 and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 2005. When Sri Lanka’s Parliament unanimously passed The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) almost 15 years ago, following a six-year advocacy process by a coalition of women’s NGOs, it was generally recognised as a key milestone in women’s engagement with the law. Prior to its enactment the only “legal’ remedy available for a survivor was to make a police complaint, which was rarely taken seriously.

The Act did not create a new offence, but it did provide for the issue of Protection Orders by a Magistrate’s Court against perpetrators of ‘domestic violence’. Domestic violence is defined in the Act as acts of physical violence, which constitute offences against the body already recognized under the Penal Code, as well as emotional abuse – defined as a pattern of cruel, inhuman, degrading or humiliating conduct of a serious nature directed towards an aggrieved person.

Over the years, there is a stagnation in reporting Domestic Violence in Sri Lanka (as indicated in the table below). Most of the reporting only happens when medical assistance in sought due to a grave physical injury, as a result of domestic violence. However, it should be noted that these numbers do not reflect the ground realities, where the number of unreported incidents in much higher.

Sri Lanka, realizing the loopholes in the legislation and the intrinsic weaknesses in the law enforcement has commenced a process to access the existing legal provisions, and propose new amendments to the Domestic Violence Act which would serve the requirements of a modern society. A committee has been appointed and a set of recommendations have been proposed. Regardless of the pressing need for updated legal provisions, a sluggish approach has been followed by the stakeholder agencies in incorporating such recommendations into domestic law.

Around the world, protection orders have proven to be some of the most important tools for protecting women and children from domestic violence. Many new laws in Asia have developed different protective orders to safeguard women and children. These orders include ex parte restraining orders. Ex parte temporary restraining orders can include a preliminary injunction against further violence and/or prevent the abuser/defendant from disturbing the victim/plaintiff’s use of property, including the common home and orders to vacate.

The PDVA allows ‘any person’ who suffers or is likely to suffer domestic violence to seek a protection order from a Magistrate’s Court. The court is empowered to summarily issue an Interim Protection Order valid for 14 days. A Protection Order (PO), valid for 12 months can then be sought on the basis of evidence presented before the court. These orders can bar the aggressor from committing further acts of violence as well as make a number of other prohibitions including entering or occupying a shared residence or a specified part of it; entering the aggrieved person’s residence, workplace, school, or place of shelter, prohibits prevention of the aggrieved person from entering or remaining in the shared residence; prohibits or lays down conditions with regard to contacting children; prohibits preventing use or access to shared resources; prohibits contact or attempt to contact aggrieved person; prohibits acts of violence against ‘Other Persons’ (relative, friend, social worker or medical officer) assisting the aggrieved person; prevents following the person or engaging in conduct detrimental to the safety, health or wellbeing of the aggrieved or Other Person; prevents selling, transferring, alienating or encumbering the matrimonial home thereby placing the aggrieved person in a destitute position.

In Indian law also provides for a protection order prohibiting the respondent from committing any act of domestic violence, aiding or abetting the commission of acts of domestic violence, entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person, attempting to communicate in any form whatsoever, alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent any property held jointly or separately by them.

The protection order also includes a residence order directing the respondent from removing himself from the shared household, restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering the shared household, and restraining the respondent from alienating the shared household. In P. Babu Venkatesh and Others v. Rani, for instance, the magistrate granted a residence order and permitted the police to break open the lock of the shared household. The husband contended that the house was not a shared household as it was owned by his mother and not by him and therefore the residence could not be passed in favor of the wife. The High Court of Madras dismissed the husband’s contention on the basis that the husband had transferred the rights to his mother with the sole purpose of dispossessing the rights of his wife. This is a good example of recent judicial intervention to uplift the position of women by eliminating the subordination nature of women.

A key feature of the Indian domestic violence law is Protection officers serve as key stakeholders in the implementation of the law which cannot seen in the Sri Lankan Act. Pre-litigation, the protection officers assist the aggrieved person, and post-litigation the protection officers carry out the orders of the court and thus assist both the courts and aggrieved persons.

Section 23, defines domestic violence as follows; ‘“domestic violence” means (a) an act which constitutes an offence specified in Schedule I (or) (b) any emotional abuse, (either of which is) committed or caused by a relevant person within the environment of the home or outside and arising out of the personal relationship between the aggrieved person and the relevant person’. This is a very narrow interpretation comparing with the Indian Act and which needed to early attention of the law makers in Sri Lanka.

In both the Indian and Bangladeshi laws, economic abuse covers customary practices including the demand for dowry. The law provides concrete mechanisms through which victims and other family members, including children, can be protected. For instance, the law allots the victim a share of the abuser’s property and salary, medical damages, and further allows her to remain in the family household. Sri Lanka should introduce such laws to in the family.

Domestic violence has long been a phenomenon which occurred behind closed doors and women suffered silently and impacts every aspect of a woman’s life and affects her role as a citizen.

Even when cases are filed, there is an implementation gap. For the 1% of women who have the courage to take their attackers to court, where they are confronted with the fact that familial ideology continues to operate and manifest, even in court proceedings. In protection order proceedings, familial ideology manifests itself in different ways; the trivializing and minimizing violence, the dismissal of violence as a private matter to be dealt within the family unit and not a matter to be resolved through a court of law, or as a matter to be endured for the sake of children and the family. It is also manifested in notions relating to the exceptionalism of domestic violence, and the liability of women to make false claims and therefore requiring some form of corroboration.

Because of the feminist’s movement of using of international human rights conventions as lawmaking tools, domestic violence is now considered a human rights violation by many countries in Asia. Specialized police stations and special law enforcement mechanisms have been created and a multi-disciplinary approach to domestic violence now requires both governments and nongovernmental organizations to work in partnership. The unfortunate reality however is that civil society remains disengaged in the enforcement of the law. As a result, although women’s groups actively participate in legal reform and the monitoring of the legislative process, there remains a gap between laws on the book and law in action and feminists are marginalized from monitoring the implementation of the law. In order to fulfill the potential of the law, rights must be claimed and rights violations redressed through implementation of laws. The lack of the enforcement of laws is a flaw that affects the effectiveness of domestic violence laws in Asia.

Within the family, men, as “heads of the household,” control women. Domestic violence is domination in an extreme form. This dominance is tolerated, since the criminal justice system imposes lenient sentences on people who perpetrate violence against women. Dominance theorists have demonstrated the ways that laws, most of which have been drafted by men, assist in reinforcing male domination. For instance, in most states, a rape victim must prove she did not consent, even where violence occurs.

According to Dominance theory, men are privileged and women are subordinated, and this male privileging receives support from most social institutions as well as a complex system of cultural beliefs. Law is complicit with other social institutions in constructing women as sex objects and inferior, dependent beings. Dominance theorists cite the lack of legal controls on inadequate responses to violence against women as examples of the ways laws contribute to the oppression of women. Therefore, the penal provisions in the Act appear to be drafted so as to minimize harm and protect the social image of an abuser. This seems to substantiate the feminist argument that patriarchal values underlie legal provisions.

In the Sri Lankan context, while the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act must be hailed for introducing legal recognition regarding domestic violence and for the introduction of protection orders, has many shortcomings commencing with the inadequate definition of domestic violence.

Although criminal sanctions are an important tool and reflect the notion that violence is considered a crime and not just a private offense, a human rights based approach that focuses on interventions, prevention, and reparation will be better than criminalization. The laws examined above attempt to combine those approaches on paper. Global domestic violence norms have now been vernacularized by many Asian countries. The time is now right to translate those values into practice.

Over the summer of this year, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had an interview with the Russian Justice Ministry to get more insight on domestic and sexual violence in Russia. When asked, the Russian government acknowledged that violence exists in Russia, but it also exists everywhere else in the world. Even though violent behavior is not enforced, the Russian government does not see domestic and/or sexual violence as a serious threat within their country. They believe physical violence is an issue of “exaggeration” and that Russian women, in particular, feel inclined to raise the severity of physical abuse to garner attention for themselves [6]. However, according to Levada Center an independent polling agency, they found that roughly “one-third of Russian citizens have experienced domestic violence among their own families or acquaintances” [6]. Crimes against domestic and sexual violence are often decriminalized, causing many preparators to deal with little to no punishment. The cases of Valeriya Volodina, Margarita Gracheva, and the Khachaturyan sisters are important examples of domestic abuse in Russia. The purpose of this paper is for the Russian government to prioritize domestic and/or sexual violence by thoroughly regulating and reinforcing domestic and/or sexual violence laws to give justice to the victims traumatized by their preparators.

According to a 2010 United Nations report, nearly “14,000 women die in Russia each year at the hands of their husbands or other relatives”[5] with thousands of more victims suffering from domestic and/or sexual violence. One of those victims includes Valeriya Volodina, a woman who had been assaulted, stalked, and even kidnapped by her ex-boyfriend. Volodina was forced to have an abortion after her former partner had “punched her in the face and stomach when she was pregnant” [5]. She had her identity papers stolen and also a GPS tracker had been planted into her purse by the same partner. Volodina had reported all of these incidents to the police numerous times over two years, but the police never acknowledge nor opened a criminal investigation against her former partner who committed all these acts of violence against her. After seeking help from outside the country, Volodina finally receives help from the ECHR and was the first Russian case to win a fight against domestic violence. The issue of domestic violence has been a problem the judicial system has ignored for many years and the Russian government has not helped the cause either. “In February 2017, President Vladimir Putin approved a law to decriminalize most forms of domestic violence, downgrading punishments for first-time offenders.” [4]. As a favored leader among many Russian citizens, Putin has never addressed the issue of domestic violence even though it affected nearly one-third of the country’s population. As an upbringing leader who has helped restore the country after the fall of the Soviet Union, who has helped the economy grow, and who has helped Russia to transition into a new modern era, he has not addressed issues that affect people on a smaller scale. Russia’s current policy on domestic violence and Putin’s contribution will be furthered analyzed as we discuss the other two domestic crime cases.

Among the many victims affected by domestic and/or sexual crime lies another famous case, the story of Margarita Gracheva. Given more background information on the matter, “In December 2017, Margarita Gracheva’s husband drove her into a forest, where he chopped off her hands with an ax” [2]. Not surprisingly, when Gracheva reported her husband to the police about his psychotic and abusive behavior before the incident, the authorities did not take her seriously, ignored her requests, or did nothing to help her out. Many reported cases of domestic violence end up the same, which makes it a serious issue when people feel uncomfortable or unsafe in their own homes. Domestic and/or sexual violence in Russia is frequently “viewed as a private, family matter” [2]. Many people believe, what occurs within a family household is private business and has nothing to do with the authorities. This is not only false, but it creates an environment that prevents people from seeking help when they truly need it the most. Back in February 2017, when Putin had passed a law decriminalizing first-time domestic abuse offenders, many more people have fallen victim to domestic violence. First-time violent offenders did not have to worry about being sent to jail, instead, they would have to pay off a small fine for their crimes. It was already difficult for perpetrators to be caught and convicted of a crime, but the newly passed law would now make it nearly impossible. It could take months or even years (Valeriya Volodina’s case) for the victim to convince the authorities they suffered physical/mental damaged from their abuser. Hiring a lawyer and having a court hearing would also stray people away from reporting their abuse, because it was expensive, draining, and time-consuming. The government’s lack of attention, a corrupt judicial system, a lack of punishment for crime committers, and fear of the victim’s life are some of the reasons why Russia needs to reevaluate its policy on domestic violence.

The last and more recent case on domestic and/or sexual violence discussed in this paper will focus on the Khachaturyan sisters. The story about the Khachaturyan sisters involves “three teenage sisters who killed their father after suffering years of physical and sexual abuse” and are faced with murder charges against their dead father [1]. They claimed that their father had beaten them and sexually harass them daily, and they could no longer tolerate his behavior and actions towards them. Similar to Margarita Gracheva, the girls did not have anyone they could turn to because their perpetrator was a family member, and many believed the problem was a family issue rather than acts of violent crimes. This news has sparked a lot of controversy in terms of issues among murder, domestic violence, and self-defense coming from young murderers. It has also “sheds light on the plight of domestic violence victims in Russia” as the case is an indictment that something needs to change, in terms of resolving domestic violence in Russia [7]. This case brought more awareness of domestic violence, but it also sprung many concerns regarding the government. Many people still believe that the Khachaturyan sisters should be held accountable for their actions and should be punished for it. This is a contradiction because their father was never held responsible for what he had done to both his wife and daughters. He never received the punishment he deserved. Only until he had broken the spirits of all his daughters, giving them the incentive to release be from their pain and suffering did he finally got what he deserved. Protests were held fighting against the government to make changes to the judicial system regarding domestic violence because it is one of the few ways people can learn about the negative aspects of society. That’s why groups like the Pussy Riots and other artistic people use their influence to spread awareness of events against society norms. To save thousands of victims from domestic and/or sexual violence in Russia, there need to be changes made on policies for domestic abuse.

It is acknowledged that domestic and/or sexual violence can affect anyone regardless of their gender. During the same interview with the ECHR, the Justice Ministry says “that men, not women, are the unsung victims of domestic violence” [6]. Male victims are indeed are less likely to report about their experiences, but most of the prejudice lies against women. Furthermore, Russia “has no domestic violence law and does not treat domestic violence as a stand-alone criminal offense” [3]. This caused police and other judicial authorities to treat victims (like Valeriya Volodina and Margarita Gracheva) with hospitality and prevented them to register or have an open investigation on their perpetrators. Russian law does not provide any domestic crime protection orders to victims. It would be essential to offer this service to victims so that it would keep men or women safe from experiencing reoccurring violence by their family members of acquaintances [3]. However, with the Russian government turning a blind eye against domestic violence victims and refusing to take further actions to protect its citizens we may see shortly protests fighting for policy changes for domestic violence.

The cases of Valeriya Volodina, Margarita Gracheva, and the Khachaturyan sisters are huge steppingstones in bringing domestic policy change in Russia. In each scenario, there was a lack of cooperation from the police and notable prejudice among women. This is shown when authorities refused to help the victims and refused to be involved in what was considered “family matters”. Then we had President Putin, who implemented a law where first-time domestic violence committers did not have to serve jail time. Instead of helping domestic violence victims from capturing their preparators, this allowed the abusers to continue to behave violently and not be punished for their wrongdoings. Russian society has not changed their ideas upon domestic violence and does not take the topic seriously. They are in the mindset that when a man gets violent with a woman, it means they love them but that is far from the truth. It is nearly impossible for domestic and/or sexual victims to seek the help they need because of how messed up the Russian government is. There is no haven for the victims, as they are put through a vicious cycle of getting physically/mentally abused from their perpetrator and not able to escape from it. That is why the Russian government needs to prioritize domestic and/or sexual violence by thoroughly regulating and reinforcing domestic and/or sexual violence laws to give justice to the victims traumatized by their preparators. If the Russian government continues to turn a blind eye against domestic violence victims and refusing to take further actions to protect its citizens, we may see shortly protests fighting for policy changes for domestic violence. No matter who the future leader of Russia will be, the issue of domestic violence needs to take into consideration the safety of its citizens. If there is no change to the current Russian system, it can be speculated that protests for human rights will cause havoc in the country until something is done.

Works Cited

1. Bennetts, M. (2019, June 27). Protests in Russia as sisters face jail for killing the abusive father. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/27/russia-protests-as-sisters-face-jail-for-killing-abusive-father.
2. Berkhead, S. (2019, December 17). Russia Faces Up to Its Dark Domestic Violence Problem. Retrieved from https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/12/06/russia-faces-domestic-violence-a68488.
3. Gorbunova, Y. (2019, July 31). The Chilling Inaction on Domestic Violence in Russia is Endangering Women’s Lives. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/29/chilling-inaction-domestic-violence-russia-endangering-womens-lives.
4. Higgins, A. (2019, July 12). Russia’s Police Tolerate Domestic Violence. Where Can Its Victims Turn? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/world/europe/russia-domestic-violence-european-court-of-human-rights.html.
5. Reuters. (2019, December 17). Russia Failed to Protect Woman Who Suffered Years of Domestic Abuse, European Court Says. Retrieved from https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/07/10/russia-failed-to-protect-woman-who-suffered-years-of-domestic-abuse-european-court-says-a66345.
6. The Moscow Times. (2019, December 17). Russia’s Domestic Violence Problem Is ‘Exaggerated,’ Justice Ministry Says. Retrieved from https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/11/19/russias-domestic-violence-problem-is-exaggerated-justice-ministry-says-a68233.
7. Three sisters’ case highlights domestic violence problem in Russia. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-07-24/three-sisters-case-highlights-domestic-violence-problem-russia-0.

Abstract

Every woman has a right to live , and right to live with dignity and freely express herself! In the present times, various crimes against women are prevalent in India ,including be it domestic violence, cruelty, desertion, or stalking, rape, harassment, extortion or other crimes. Vision is to spread legal and cyber awareness among all sections of our society, particularly children who are leaders of tomorrow ! The aims to contribute to the social cause of spreading legal awareness and cyber knowledge through capacity building in order to manifest the dream of Digital India. It has a customised value based training program to meet the awareness needs of every section of our society and state of art workshops, interaction modules and e-learning programs. The Foundation has empowered , motivated & touched the lives of several people including students, teachers, law enforcement, professionals, corporate groups and NGOs through capacity building programs.

Introduction

Women are regarded with high respect in our Indian society. Earlier women too faced certain problems like child marriages, practice of Sati ,exploitation of widows, Devadasi systems , Pardah systems ,ect. Which are almost disappeared now with technological advancements , universalisation of education ,socio-political movements, modernization and similar social developments changed the approach of people towards women to a certain extent. It increases the morale, status , self-confidence, individuality, personality, self-respect, talent, capacity and efficiency among women. Equal right, responsibility and more opportunities for women to experience and exposed for varied environment. Even though our legislations provides equal opportunity and rights to women and they are also positively responding to the changed socio- political situations but even then they are facing certain problems. Violence against women isn’t a women’s rights issue, it’s a human rights issue. More ladies are killed each year by domestic violence. The term used to define this exploding problem of violence within our family is Domestic Violence. Violence against women means any act of violence that results in or is likely to result in body, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women. The violence against women are steadily developed in the country. Defines domestic violence as any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent, which includes threat or actual abuse.

Most of the world’s population is being gradually killed off by the other half. How did we get to the point in our current society where almost 1/2 of ladies face domestic violence. Whereas fifty million girls are killed in a womb. In India, approximately fifty thousand dowry related death occured. In india more than 1000 rural women of reproductive age revealed that both male and women consider wife beating acceptable and that forty percentage of all wives have been beaten by their husbands.

Worldwide, thirty percentage of all women who have been murdered by their intimate partners. Around two-third of married Indian women are victims of domestic violence and 70 per cent of married women in India between the age of fifteen and fourty nine are victims of beating, rape or forced sex.

Increasing Crimes against Women: Violence against women happens because women and men are not equal.

• Orthodox and idiotic mindset of the society that women are bodily and emotionally weaker than the men.
• Gender inequality at the national level in education,
• Access to employment,
• Economic and property rights,
• Freedom to marry and divorce
• Partners torches
• Where male authority over women’s behaviour

This violence is towards someone who we are in a relationship with,

• Be it a wife, son , husband
• Mother, daughter, father,
• Grandparent or any other family relative.

The most common causes for

• Women battering and stalking
• Dissatisfaction with the dowry
• Exploiting women
• Arguing with the partner, neglecting children
• Refusing to have sex with him, not cooking properly or on time,
• Indulging in extra marital affairs, going out of home without telling the partner,
• Not looking after in-laws
• Infertility in females also leads to their assault by the family members.
• The greed for dowry, desire for a male child and alcoholism
• Young bride – bringing home the amount of demanded dowry.
• Women in India also admit to hitting or beating because of their suspicion about the husband’s sexual involvement with other women.

Domestic Violence of women in employment:

• Related to family(Family disorganization)
• Stress and personal care
• Resistance to misconduct of senior and officers
• Economic dependence
• Job insecurity
• Low wages

Domestic Violenceof under-privieged sections of community

• Lower status –unholy, lowinferior , social stigma
• Educational disabilities
• Civic disabilities
• Religious disabilities
• Economic disabilities
• Political disabilities

In urban areas there are many more factors which lead to various in the beginning and later take the shape of domestic violence. In a family wife getting high salary when compare to partner , abusing and neglecting in-laws, her absence in the house till late night, being more forward socially etc. Working women are quite often subjected to coercion sex and assaults by employees of the organization. At times, it could be voluntary for a better pay and designation in the office.

Violence against young widows has also been on a rise in India. Most often they are cursed for their husband’s death and are difficult to get proper food and clothing. They are not allowed for second marriage in most of the family, especially in rural areas. There have been cases of molestation and rape attempts of women by other family members or someone in the neighbourhood. Sometimes, married women are even sexually coerced by their husband themselves against their will. They are brutally beaten and tortured for not conceiving a male child. Incidents like, ripping off a woman’s womb for killing the female foetus when she disagrees for abortion have also come to light especially in rural areas. Female foeticide and infanticide continue to be a rising concern.

Legally the age of marriage is usually lower for females as compared to males. In many countries, the minimum level of marriage with parental consent is considerably decreased. Some of the countries allow marriage at sixteen and below with parental consent.

Dowry Related Violence

The practice of dowry has persisted and driven many women to suicide. The causes of death in the women who died were: Burns 46 percen, drowning 36 percent, 25 percent of them were childless and 22 % mother had only female children.

Death due to dowry related problems is increased today. More than 5000 women’s are killed every year by their in-laws and life partner, who burn them in “accidental” kitchen fires if their ongoing demands for dowry before and after marriage are not met.

Every day five women are burned and many more burns cases go unreported. The reason of such type of violence like dispute highest property, physically injure, emotional abusing by family member , conflict arising during a religious ceremony, jealousy, financial status of other family and inter-caste marriage etc. This form of violence is common in many states like, Punjab, Haryana,Andhra Pradesh etc.

The effective interventions to end violence against women

Increasing women’s agency and mobilising women to come together to know and claim their rights is critical in combating violence. This includes providing women-only safe spaces, supporting ladies to become financially independent, providing training on rights and supporting women to take leadership positions. In the countries and projects studied all of these contributed to shifts in gender roles at the individual, household and community levels.

• Challenge attitudes, norms and behaviours
• Empower women and girls ,
• Community-based
• Promote self-led change
• Make a long-term commitment to communities
• Gain support of traditional and religious
• Leadership include men and women
• Increases awareness and understanding of the issue among government officials
• Supports women’s access to comprehensive services.

Nearly half of the women leave their family immediately after first few atrocious attacks and try to become self-dependent. Their survival becomes difficult and painful when they have to work hard for earning two meals a day.

• Many such women come under rescue of women welfare organizations like:
• Women Welfare Association of India (WWAI),
• Affus Woman Welfare Association (AWWA),
• Woman’s Emancipation and Development Trust (WEDT).

Violence Against women what has been done Domestic legal remedies in India

Article14 : Guarantees to all citizens equality before law and equal protection of laws.

Under Article 15(3): For the advancement of women and children state is empowered to make special provisions eg: reservation of seat ,employments

Article 21:Guarantees right to life ,that means to live with human dignity.

Under 73rd amendment: women have been given 1/3rd reservation in Gram Panchayat and local bodies.

Criminal Procedure Code 1973: Under this a legitimate wife can claim maintenance ,if her husband is living with another women and he has neglected to maintain her Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 :Under this Act, women have been given special rights .If any unnatural death take places of bride within 7 years of her marriage , it is presumed to be dowry death unless proved otherwise . The punishment is imprisonment of not less than 7 years and it can get extended to the remaining period of life

Factories Act 1948: To protect women labours, it is the production given to women labourites that they should not be employed near hazardous machines

Hindu law: Under Hindu law women have given –which were denied to her earlier and right in the ancestral property and father’s self acquired property

Maternity Benefit act 1961-2019

• As per this Act , before the delivery women should be given 6 weeks holiday and after the delivery 6weeks
• In case of abortion she should be given 6 weeks holiday with pay
• After delivery for the production of child ‘s health and until the baby in 15 months old she should be allowed to feed baby twice a day during working hours

Minimum Wages Act 1948.

• Women have been given right to claim minimum wages fixed by the Government .Even though women agrees to work for less than the minimum wages she should not be allowed to do it.
• To product dignity of women in work places, in the case of vishakha and others vs state of Rajasthan the Hon’ble supreme court has cast duty upon employer to see to t that women work in free and peaceful environment.
• In case where women are arrested on the allegation having committed an offence they should be examined by women police only and arrested women should be kept in separate room.
• Apart from passing from various laws the government has also extended certain facilities. They are:
• In district levels legal services authority has been set-up to extend free legal facilities for needy women.

National Commission for Women

Has been set-up, which makes various recommendations to government for maintaining security of women at all places and bringing necessary constitutional amendments. It also deals with women adults, and family counselling centres.

Police and Health Care

Some specific police plays a major role in handling the domestic violence cases. They want to be treated domestic violence cases as seriously as any other crime. Special training are need to handle domestic violence cases should be imparted to police force. They should be provided specific information regarding support government agencies, network of judiciary. Gender training should be made mandatory in the trainings of the police officers.

There should be a selected wing of police dealing with women’s issues, attached to all police stations and should be excluded from any other duty. Authorities should take steps to identify the Domestic Violence as a community health issue. A crisis support cell needs to be established in all Government and nongovernmental hospitals with a special trained medical social worker for provide good services.

Specific training must be organized for health professionals in order to develop their skills to provide basic support for domestic violence women. Documentation on the prevalence and the health consequences of domestic violence should be undertaken by the concerned government departments, counselling centres, NGOs and health care institutions. Anodal agency should also be set up for the annual consolidation of the documented work and publish the same for wider publicity among the masses for increasing awareness.

Conclusion

In this good topic of “Domestic Violence in India”, we can focus the very importance of life of such a topic. The different causes which can spark the violence within the walls of homes need to be analysed carefully and a wise study of the factors causing the violence are control a family to suffer from domestic violence. The domestic violence may have a far wider and deeper impact of life event than what has been covered in this topic. What is required is to see closely the association of the factors provoking a particular form of domestic violence. If these factors can be controlled more than one form of violence can be controlled from harming an person or our society and India would be a much better place to live in.

References

1. John and Lorena Bobbitt. [Last accessed on 2014 Oct 05]. Available from: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt
2. Kumar S, Jeyaseelan L, Suresh S, Ahuja RC. Domestic violence and its mental health correlates in Indian women. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:62
3. Allahabad (India): Ekta Law Agency; 2007. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Diglot Edition.
4. International Institute for Population Statistics (IPPS) an Macro International; 2007. National Family Health Survey15. Vol. 1. Mumbai (India): (NHFS-3), 2005-2006.
5. Nambi S. 1st ed. Chennai: Manushanthi Mental Healthcare Pvt Ltd; 2011. Forensic Psychiatry (Psychiatry and Law) Indian Perspective. Psychosocial and Legal Aspects of Domestic Violence
6. Washington (USA): ICRW; 2001. The International Centre for Research on Women. Domestic Violence in India II: Exploring Strategies, Promising Dialogue. ICRW Information Bulletin; pp. 1–8
7. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2005. World Health Organisation. WHO Multi-Country Study on Women/s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women: Summary Report of Initial Results on Prevalence, Health Outcomes and Women’s Responses
8. Koenig MA, Stephenson R, Ahmed S, Jejeebhoy SJ, Campbell J. Individual and contextual determinants of domestic violence in North India. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:132–8
9. Neeraja .KP, Textbook of Sociology for Nursing students. Jaypee brothers,first ed,2010

Community Systems

In the week two case study involving Jane (2019), one could see that one community system that influenced the outcome of her and her children’s case was religious. Jane, who met her husband through a Christian talk radio show, was a victim of coercive control, which involves using psychological techniques to subordinate women into second-class status (Stark, p. 26, 2017). Her husband used their Christian belief system as an excuse for his use of coercive control, domestic and sexual violence. Jane’s husband even had the backing of their pastor, who although did not agree with her husband, Dan’s practices, explained that she would still need to remain loyal to her husband.

One would like to believe that religious institutions, especially one so beloved and influential in Western society such as Christianity would have in modern times reformed to the point of universally condemning domestic and sexual violence in all forms. However, this is sadly not the case. According to an article by Fortune, Abugideiri and Dratch (2010), faith is heavily interwoven into culture, and thus addressing domestic violence must be treated with cultural competency. If not addressed, religious values will put up “roadblocks” for many (Fortune, Abugideri and Dratch, p., 2010). With that being said, the misuse of religious texts can be harmful as well, even if being used in the context of cultural competency. For example, misinterpretations of these texts can cause guilt among those trying or wanting to seek help, thus putting up further roadblocks. Even worse, those who seek help from entirely religious groups can lead to one be even more confused as how to handle their plight, as commonly used texts in these groups such as “get closer to God” and “pray harder” are vague and commonly misconstrued and can be seen almost as justifications for the abuse (Fortune, Abugideiri, and Dratch, p.2, 2010). The misinterpreting of biblical texts, although not specified, was used in the Jane (2019) case.

In the Jane (2019) case, the Christian community that she was a part of was overall not well-suited to help her and her children escape their circumstances and should have been handled differently. Once the pastor was made aware of the abuse, he should have reported it to the proper authorities, but instead he chose to side more so with Dan, which would have possibly caused Jane to feel more trapped. If the pastor would have been totally unwilling to report the case to authorities, he should have at least been willing to recommend that the couple see an actual marriage counselor. An article by Sokoloff and Dupont (2005) discusses feminist approaches to domestic violence. The article, to quote, states that “violence against women is a consequence of socially constructed and culturally approved gender inequality” (Yllo, 1993). This article affirms that all women face inequality in cases of violence, whether they be LGBT, straight, White, or of minority status because of all women’s basic status in society as being unequal to men. Although Jane has the advantage of being White and financially well-off, her gender made it more accepted to be abused, at least from the male figures in her life.

In the case study of Monique (2019), Monique is a married woman with three young children. Her husband, James, was emotionally and physically abusive. However, Monique chose to stay with him because she was financially dependent upon him. When her and her children were able to escape the situation, hardships still remained within Monique’s life, as she did not have and really tight community support system. Although social workers were able to place her children with her mother so that she would still be able to remain close with them, life was difficult for her at the shelter. Being a woman of color, Monique faced racism from a fellow resident at the shelter, with the other woman spouting racist rhetoric towards Monique. Although Monique brought the issue to the attention of shelter directors, the woman was not specially punished or talked to about the incident. Instead, the shelter director chose to call a group meeting among all the shelter residents to discuss the importance of an inclusive environment within the shelter. However, the racism did do stop for Monique, putting up a roadblock for her escaping domestic violence, as she would be kicked out of the shelter for physically retaliating against the resident for further racist rhetoric. This exemplifies how although women in general face extraordinary roadblocks in escaping domestic violence, women of color face even more roadblocks.

According to an article by Crenshaw (1991), both race and gender are important in understanding the extraordinary case in violence against women of color (Crenshaw, p.1, 1991). Crenshaw (1991) goes on to further explain that “race, gender and class constitute the primary structural elements of the experiences of many Black and Latina women in battering shelters” (Crenshaw, p.3, 1991). The article goes on to further explain that these multiple identities can make these women more vulnerable, and the resources for helping these women are often vastly underfunded (Crenshaw, p.4, 1991). The Monique (2019) case was a perfect example for explaining how the subject’s identities as a Black woman put her at extra level of vulnerability, with her minority status making her a target within the shelter, a place that should be a sanctuary for her.

Interpersonal Relationships

The Jane (2019) case showed one how strong interpersonal relationships can led to a more successful outcome in seeking help for domestic and sexual violence and staying away from the perpetrator. Jane, although has an unspecified relationship with her family, has a strong relationship with her friends, who encourage her to get help for the abuse inflicted upon her earlier on in the case. Although Jane initially refuses because of fear, her friends still choose to stay by her side. Her friends eventually take the matter into their own hands. When the oldest child is at a family friend’s summertime birthday party, markings are discovered on her back. It is at this point that the family friends chose to intervene on behalf of Jane and her children, reporting the incident to child services, who then opened an investigation into the incident. It was after the investigation that Jane was able to seek help and gain further support from the Family Justice Center, which was able to help Jane permanently separate from Dan.

The Monique (2019) case shows a strong contrast to the Jane (2019) case in terms of interpersonal relationships aiding in positively intervening in the cases of domestic violence. Monique did not appear to have the strong support network the Jane did, with no references to positive friendships being made. However, her family relationships were discussed, and they were not positive. Monique had a strained relationship with her mother as a result of her not believing Monique when she disclosed her sexual abuse at the hands of an uncle when she was younger. This relationship led to Monique not being able to stay away from James, as when living with her mother became unbearable, she winded up in the shelter, later on returning to James as the living situation at the shelter, as discussed earlier, became unbearable as a result of the unresolved racist tropes spouted at her.

Structural Systems

The Jane (2019) case shows that even when the justice and court systems helps the victim separate from the perpetrator in a seemingly positive outcome, there were flaws within the system, such as the monitor for the supervised visits with the children becoming close with Dan, and thus becoming lax on the rules regarding proper protocol for the supervised visits. This allowed for Dan to contact Jane unsolicited after the visits before she could leave. On one occasion, he even kissed her, which caused Jane to fear for her own safety. She decided to then get a protection order for herself, which was promptly granted. At this, she would no longer have to be present for the supervised visits. Monitors would take the children to the visits at that point, in which they noticed sexual behavior among the children. From there they open another investigation, and Dan would be charged with child sexual abuse.

The Monique (2019) case showed a stark contrast to the Jane (2019) case in terms of support from the justice and family system. After Monique left her mother’s house, she was left to find shelter to reside in at the suggestion of her caseworker. After being kicked out of said shelter, she was left on her own to find a stable place to live, away from James. This shows that the caseworkers involved in Monique’s case were not as hands-on, and that the system was far less forgiving with Monique. Even though Monique’s children were not stated to have had suffered any abuse at the hands of James, she was not allowed to keep her children, or the same amount of chances to keep her children that Jane was.

Jane (2019), who knew that her children were being psychically abused by her husband, was allowed to keep her children. Once the sexual abuse of the children came to light, Jane even admitted that she had a sneaking suspicion of the sexual abuse but was still able to keep her children. This reveals the inherent biases in the justice system, with the children of the more financially well-off and Caucasian female being allowed to keep their child while the children of the poor, African-American mother were taken away.

In addition, the justice system did fail to handle Monique in the kindest of ways. When the neighbors called the cops over a domestic disturbance, Monique ended up being arrested instead of James, who had a scratch on his face from Monique, while Monique had no visible markings. It is actually not so uncommon that victims become arrested as well. According to an article by Osthoff (2017), even in cases where victim’s lives are being threatened, it is still possible that the victim will still be arrested for defending themselves. At this point, the article goes on to further explain that the victim will no longer necessarily be seen as a victim, since they have become a perpetrator of a crime themselves (Osthoff, p.29, 2017).

In addition, Monique’s status in society as a woman of color made the case against her in the justice system even more severe, With the statistics backing that women of color were more likely to be arrested than their Caucasian counterparts. According to an article by Jacobs (2017), the arrest rates of Black woman are 2.8% higher than that of White women (Jacobs, p. 59, 2017). Women of color are also less likely to seek help from informal supporters, making their support network even smaller, as thus more likely end up in the worst possible scenario when trying to escape domestic violence (Cuevas and Cudmore, p. 25, 2017). Opening up to even informal supporters could help these women’s cases by there being a record of the violence, thus if the women ever have to resort to self-defense, they will have the evidence on their side, so they could possibly avoid jail time.

In conclusion, the case studies of Jane (2019) and Monique (2019) show that intersectionality are key in explaining victim’s success in escaping domestic and sexual violence and staying independent. The victim’s status as women in society put up barriers for them in this violent situations, and Monique’s status as a poor, woman of color put up even more barriers, and exposed biases in the structural systems, such as the justice system. The flaws in community systems, such established shelters and religious, Christian communities prove that any community destined for and intended for positivity can be flawed. In addition, interpersonal relationships can be key in either making or breaking success in leaving an abusive relationship.

Works Cited

1. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color: Crenshaw, 1991.
2. Current Controversies: Coercive Control: Stark, 2017.
3. Domestic Violence at the Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender: Sokoloff and Dupont, 2005.
4. A Commentary on Religion and Domestic Violence: Fortune, M. M., Abugideiri, S., & Dratch, M. (2010). Retrieved July 25, 2019, from https://www.faithtrustinstitute.org/resources/articles/Commentary.pdf/?searchterm=sacred texts
5. In the Field: When Victims of Battering Are Charged With Crimes: Osthoff, 2017.
6. Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Among Underserved and Understudied Groups: The Roles of Culture and Context: Cuevas and Cudmore, 2017.
7. The Violent State: Black Women ‘s Invisible Struggle Against Police Violence: Jacobs, M. S. (2017). William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice, 24(1). Retrieved July 25, 2019, from https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1462&context=wmjowl.

The recent release of the HBO series Big Little Lies, which plot centres around the domestic violence of a wealthy husband and wife, has been accompanied by a great amount of social commentary. The series highlight domestic violence but does not quiet expose the key root cause. This brief paper analyse how the concept of masculinity constructs the root causes of domestic violence. To support this argument, this paper highlights relevant examples from the show and discusses two major points: (1) the presence of masculinity, and (2) the effects of masculinity on individuals and relationships, particularly on women and children.

Introduction

Every year, the number of women as victims of domestic violence has not decreased. In fact, it is indicated that about 1 in 3 (35%) of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner (WHO, 2017). When a wife becomes a victim of domestic violence, they tend to believe that their children are not at risk. As portrayed in the series Big Little Lies, one of the characters become a constant victim of domestic violence, Celeste, has been convinced that her abuse has not affected her children. This is however not true, because one of her son has been witnessing their assaults for some time, which leads him to imitating the abuse on his schoolmate and intimidate her out of telling on him. When children watch their parents be abused while growing up, it sends a message that the idea of abuse is a proper way to interact. “Because witnessing domestic violence can terrorize children and significantly disrupt child socialization, many researchers have begun to consider exposure to domestic violence to be a form of psychological maltreatment” (McGee & Wolfe, 1991; Peled & Davis, 1995; Somer & Braunstein, 1999).

After the series aired in 2017, Big Little Lies has gained a lot of supporter. It has received and won numerous of awards, some of them includes 2018 Golden Globe’s “Best Television Limited Series”, and three “Best Performance by an Actress.” Big Little Lies has successfully grab people’s attention with its murder mystery along with its issues upbringing such as masculinity, domestic violence, and female empowerment. It does not become a surprise that most screenplay chooses men as the main character, but this shows’ main characters are filled with A-list Hollywood actresses, which each characters helps each other in getting through life instead of going against each other. This has capture people’s heart because they are sending the message that it is important for women to stand together to make the world a safer place and redefine the use of power and abuse.

Issues on domestic violence have been explored by many researchers, along with its causes and effects. Researchers agree that there are a few factors that could influence men’s violent behaviour towards their intimate partner. One of the factors is closely related to the concept of masculinity. Omar (2011) and Abumere (2013) discusses that masculinity is a concept that includes behaviours, languages, and practices that exists in specific cultural and locations. They also added that the understanding of masculinity is shaped by patriarchy; which is the idea that men are more highly valued than women. Gregory (2001) added that the rules of being masculine can cause males to experience intense shame when they feel like they do not live up to the “masculine” standards, and when this happens, they may lash out to prove their manhood. Umberson (2003) collected data samples from non-violent men and men with a history of violent to uncover what triggers men’s violent behaviour. She found that the act of violence occurs when men could not contain and control their emotions. In addition to this, Gregory (2001) found that the feeling of abandonment, desperation, and shame could also trigger males to get violent towards their female partners.

In examining domestic violence, researchers also talk about batterers’ response on their own violent action. Based on the data from Family Violence Diversion Network from Southwestern United States, Gregory (2001) found that batterers tend to put the blame of their violent actions on female partners by detailing their behaviours and personalities. This leads to females blaming themselves, thinking that they deserve to be abused, and making excuses for their violent partners. Omar (2011), Anderson (2001), and Gregory (2001) agree that violence, aggression, and domination are ways to show that they have the upper hand, and they are more superior to their partner. While female partners become the first-hand victim, children are also at risk. Johnson (1995) found that children are being used to make female partners feel guilty when they’re about to leave the relationship.

From previous researches on masculinity and its relation to domestic abuse against women, researchers have analysed how the idea of masculinity has set to become a vital factor of domestic violence against women. However, very few researchers have discussed and critically analysed the effects of domestic abuse in the series Big Little Lies from the female character Celeste and her children. Under Raewyn Connell’s concept of masculinity, this paper covers two section of analysis. The first part provides a close reading on the literary work and the masculinity conveyed through the character Perry. The second part will then analyse the impact of masculinity on women and children through the female character Celeste and her children. In order to explore this issue, textual analysis research is the methodology that will be used for this research paper.

Masculinity

Connell (1995) define masculinity as follows: “masculinities are “configurations of practice”, this means that men act out masculinity based on shared understanding of how “real men” behave”. According to Connell, masculinity has three elements. First is the social factors an individual come across. Second is the gender relation that allows both men and women to understand the concept of masculine. Third is the impact of these gender relations applied socially. Abumere (2013) build on this definition, stating that masculinity is a concept that includes behaviours, languages, and practices that exists in specific cultural and locations. Through these definitions, it can be briefly concluded that masculinity is neither biologically determined nor ascribed, because it is something that is frequently carried out through actions and interactions with others, and masculinity itself is learned through those interactions.

Masculinity is often defined in relation to its opposite, femininity. The notion of masculinity does not exist in isolation from femininity and vice versa. Masculinities are not solely about men; women also produce the meaning and perform the practice of masculine. Even so, masculinity is about the differences from femininity, differences in power between men and women, which in many society, the female gender is positioned in subordinate position to the male.

There are a few kinds of masculinities studied by researchers, but the most prominent one is Hegemonic masculinity. Connell defines Hegemonic masculinity as “ .. the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of legitimacy of patriarchy which guarantees (or is taken guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.” Connell speaks of Hegemonic masculinity as not only men relations to women, but also of men in relation to other men. Hegemonic masculinity suggests that society allow masculinity as dominant and superior to femininity, proposing that men have rights to certain roles and positions that disadvantage women. These definitions of masculinity are created and maintained through literature, and this research paper will specifically focus on an American TV series Big Little Lies.

One issue that has gained a lot of attention in film, television, and other forms of popular culture is domestic violence. In Big Little Lies, one of the main characters, Celeste, is known as to have the perfect life– she is beautiful, rich, and married to the perfect husband, Perry. Perry is seen as a loving husband who treats Celeste like a goddess. In an attempt to analyse the character Perry, it is only suitable to use Connell’s concept of masculinity. Like Perry, studies have shown that masculine identities are constructed through acts of violence and the ability to control their partners (Anderson, 2001). Perry’s violent act could be seen since the very first episode. Perry found out about his twin’s classmate, Ziggy and his choking incident on a girl. Perry told Celeste that the twins should stay away from Ziggy, but Celeste called him out as ridiculous because she simply believes Ziggy is not capable of such violence. After being called out, Perry forcefully grab Celeste’s arm.

Perry needs to establish that he is more superior to his wife, and he feels the need that in order to gain status, he can do it by being violent towards her. Perry’s attempt seem to be successful because the next day when they are driving the twins to school, after Perry’s sweet words and apology, Celeste admits that she was wrong and Perry was right about Ziggy. Once they arrive at the school, Perry learns that he does not get to meet the teachers because Celeste has already done it at Orientation day without him. Perry is outraged, accusing Celeste of out casting him. Gregory (2001) stated that the feeling of abandonment and desperation could trigger males to get violent towards their female partners. This could be proven through Perry in a number of scenes, including their counsel session. In his defence, he has a lot of anger because he is afraid of losing Celeste. He feels insecure that his wife has not been happy with him and she could leave him in a heartbeat. In his confession, he admits that he is terrified of Celeste leaving him, thus leading him to get violent at times.

Perry has done a lot of damage to Celeste, either physically, verbally, and psychologically. In between their fights, Perry often sees sensuality when they get violent. In episode two minute 00:12:52, after Perry slaps Celeste and shoving her against the closet, he apologizes and starts to unbutton his pants to have an intercourse. At first Celeste is reluctant to the idea of having an intercourse amidst a fight but Perry holds her down and forces her until she gives in.

They went on for a few minutes then she walks out of the room as soon as they finish. As seen from this scene, it is difficult to determine whether it could be considered consensual or marital rape because she sheds a tear and asking to let go while also engaging in the coitus, and as seen in Figure 1, she unbuttons Perry’s pants without being forced to.