Effects of Domestic Violence on Children

Effects of Domestic Violence on Children

The tragic reality is that any time a mother is abused by her partner; the children are also affected in both overt and subtle ways. What hurts the mother hurts the children. Children do not have to be physically or verbally abused to be injured by domestic violence. Hearing or seeing the abuse of one parent by the other takes a huge toll on the children. Even if they don’t see the beating, they see the bruises, broken bones, and abrasions. In homes where domestic violence occurs, fear, instability, and confusion replace the love, comfort, and nurturing the children need. These children live in constant fear of physical harm from the person who is supposed to care for and protect them.

While many children experience difficulties resulting from their exposure to violence, many children appear to cope with the experiences and show fewer problems than in comparison to other children. This is likely because the level of violence in families and children’s exposure to it can vary greatly. Further research is needed in order to draw blanket conclusions about the effects of domestic violence on children.

Children who witness domestic violence display various emotional, physical, and behavioral disturbances.

  • Witnessing parental abuse produces feelings of anger, fear, guilt, shame, confusion, and helplessness. When the community fails to offer protection and support, children also feel undervalued and worthless.
  • Children may express these emotions as withdrawal, low self-esteem, nightmares, regressive behavior, or aggression against peers, family members, and property.
  • Child witnesses to domestic violence often suffer physical problems, such as bed-wetting, insomnia, colds and diarrhea.
  • Children often suffer developmental delays in verbal, cognitive, and motor abilities when they live in homes with domestic violence. Learning disabilities are common.

Domestic violence disrupts children’s lives.

  • Children’s living arrangements are often disrupted when a parent is fleeing the abuser. Moving to unfamiliar surroundings can add to the stress.
  • Children and their mother may suffer financially when they flee the abusive parent.
  • School performance may suffer if the child is distracted or tries to remain at home to protect the mother.
  • Many children in families where domestic violence has occurred appear to be “parentified” or “spousified.” They are forced to grow up faster than peers, often taking on the responsibility of cooking, cleaning, and caring for younger children while the mother attempts to deal with the trauma.
  • Children may also be isolated. Typical activities such as having friends over to their house may not be possible due to the chaotic atmosphere. However, school performance is not always obviously affected. Children may respond by being overachievers.
Advertisements

Symptomology of Domestic Violence on Children

Symptomology of Domestic Violence on Children

Ongoing parental conflict and violence in childhood were significant predictors of serious personal crimes in adulthood, including assault, rape, murder, and kidnapping.

 

0-1 Years

  • Withdrawn
  • Sleep disturbances
  • Hyperactive
  • Failure to thrive
  • Eating disorders
  • Physical injuries

 

2-5 Years

 

6-9 Years

  • Suicidal ideation/attempts
  • Cruelty to animals
  • Fire setting
  • Running away
  • Depression
  • Low self esteem
  • Poor social skills

 

10-12 Years

 

13-17 Years

  • Poor impulse control
  • Confrontational
  • Engage in pecking order battering with mothers or siblings
  • Align with abuser to avoid being a victim
  • Dating violence

 

As they grow, children form assumptions about the world in which they live. Is their world consistent and predictable or chaotic and unsafe?

Domestic violence creates inordinate stresses in a child’s life.

 

Every child responds differently to witnessing or directly experiencing domestic violence. This is dependent on their temperament, usual coping mechanisms, developmental stage, and support systems. Some children may respond with internalized symptoms such as regression and social isolation. Others may develop externalized negative behaviors that include nightmares, hyperactivity, aggression, and delinquency.

 

  • Studies suggest that between 3.3 – 10 million children witness domestic violence a year.
  • Children in homes with domestic violence are 15 times more likely to experience child abuse.
  • 50-70% of children exposed to domestic violence suffer from PTSD – more than Vietnam Veterans
  • Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to exhibit behavioral and physical health problems including depression, anxiety, and violence toward peers. They are also more likely to attempt suicide, abuse drugs and alcohol, run away from home, engage in teenage prostitution, and commit sexual assault crimes.
  • Children in homes with domestic violence may “indirectly” receive injuries. They may be hurt when household items are thrown or weapons are used. Infants may be injured if being held by the mother when the batterer strikes out.
  • As children grow into teenagers, they exhibit higher levels of delinquency and violent behavior than those in non-violent homes.
  • Because of the shame of shelter living, moving, changing schools, fitting in with peers, and making new friends, teens face unique challenges. This can result in never learning to form trusting, lasting relationships, or ending up in violent relationships themselves.

Children Witnessing Violence Fact Sheet

Witnessing Violence Fact Sheet

http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/witnessing.shtml
Joanne Davis, Ph.D. and Ernestine Briggs, Ph.D
National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center
Medical University of South Carolina

Introduction
Society has become increasingly aware of the negative impact of child abuse on children’s’ behavioral, emotional, and social functioning. Research has shown that children do not have to be the direct targets of violence to be affected by it. Indeed, the research on negative outcomes associated with exposure to violence has grown exponentially. Children may be exposed to various types of violence including violence in the media (e.g., television or movies), in the school or in the community, and between adults at home.

This fact sheet will focus primarily on children’s experiences of witnessing domestic violence.

What Kinds of Violent Activities do Children Witness?
The violence that children are exposed to in their homes can vary in frequency, duration, degree of reciprocity, and severity (Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998). Although domestic violence is typically thought of in terms of a physical assault, it includes verbal and emotional abuse, sexual assaults, and murder.

Edleson (1999) discussed the different ways in which children can witness or be a part of domestic violence (see also Ganley & Schechter, 1996). These include witnessing the actual violent events occurring, hearing the fight, being physically assaulted while near the mother during a violent incident, being taken hostage in order to force the mother’s situation, and being forced to participate in the violence.

Also, some children ribe coping with the aftermath of domestic violence as particularly stressful. After a violent t, a child may have to aid an injured parent, call the police, witness the arrest or removal of the offending parent, relocate to a shelter and/or cope with a host of persistent family stressors (e.g., poverty, substance abuse, mental and physical illness).

How Many Children are Affected?
Prevalence estimates of children who witness domestic violence vary widely. Some commonly cited figures suggest that 3.3 million children and 10 million teenagers are exposed to domestic violence each year (Carlson, 1984; Straus, 1992). Other studies suggest that approximately 20% to 41% of adults recalled observing domestic violence when they were younger (Henning, Leitenberg, Coffey, Turner, & Bennett, 1996; Silvern 1995). Differences in prevalence rates are a function of several methodological issues including age and geographic location of participants sampled, and retrospective versus prospective nature of the studies examined. Despite the variation in the prevalence
estimates, most researchers would agree that a substantial number of children are exposed to violence in their homes.

Correlates of Witnessing Violence
Children who witness domestic violence (i.e., violence between parents, guardians, or caregivers) are often referred to as the “forgotten” victims since interventions generally target the adult victim or perpetrator (Groves, Zukerman, Marans, & Cohen, 1993). Most of the research in this area sugge that children exposed to domestic violence are at increased risk for emotional, behavior, academic, and social problems (Kolbo, Blakely, & Engelman, 1996; Pfouts et. al., 1982). More specifically, children exposed to domestic violence may exhibit immediate and long-term problems with anxiety, depression, anger, self-esteem, aggression, delinquency, interpersonal relationships, and substance abuse (Carlson,1990; Jouriles, Murphy, O’Leary, 1989; Silvern, et al., 1995; Sternberg, et al., 1993). Moreover, children who are exposed to domestic violence may react in ways that fur augment their risk for negative outcomes. For example, some children run away from violent homes, which increases the risk of substance use, prostitution, homelessness, physical illness or injury, and victimization.

The Association Between Child Abuse and Witnessing Domestic Violence
Children in violent homes are at higher risk for being abused than children in non-violent homes. McKibben, DeVos, and Newberger (1989) found that 40-60% of mothers of abused children were abused themselves by their partner, compared to 13% of mothers of unabused children. In a study investigating the effects of witnessing domestic violence, Hughes et al. (1989) compared children who had ‘only’ witnessed violence, children who were abused and witnessed violence, and those who experienced neither. The investigators found that children who experience both direct abuse and witnessed violence exhibited the most symptoms, and the group that did not experience either exhibited the least.

Revictimization and Other Long-Term Correlates
Women who witnessed domestic violence as children may be at higher risk for being victimized in their own relationships. Experiencing revictimization may also lead to greater difficulties in the women’s functioning (i.e., post traumatic stress disorder, depression) as adults. In a study of 201 battered women, Sonnleitner, Basil, and Van Hasselt (1999) found that women who also experienced or witnessed violence in their families of origin reported greater depression and hopelessness. Silvern et al. (1995) found that witnessing domestic violence was associated with depression, low self-esteem, and trauma symptoms in adult women and trauma symptoms in adult men. Henning et al. (1996) surveyed adult women in the community and found that those who reported witnessing domestic violence as children reported higher psychological distress and lower social adjustment than those who had not witnessed violence.

Limitations of Research and Future Directions
Although the research on exposure to domestic violence is steadily improving, there are limitations and methodological shortcomings that must be addressed:

  • Frequency, severity, recency, type of violence, and other important characteristics associated with a child’s exposure to violence are rarely assessed and reported by researchers.
  • Child abuse and neglect often are not assessed despite the high risk in this population.
  • Most studies have included children residing in shelters. Although this is an important group to study, the chronicity and severity of the violence they witness may not accurately represent the range of experiences and symptoms reported by children exposed to less severe forms of domestic violence. Also, many of these studies fail to differentiate between children who witness violence and those who experience it.
  • Little attention has been paid to the demographic characteristics and the differential developmental needs of children exposed to domestic violence.
  • Most studies have relied on the reports of the primary caregiver rather than assessing the child’s response directly.
  • Few studies have differentiated between the effects of observing domestic violence and the impact of negotiating multiple transitions and family disruptions that are secondary to leaving an unsafe environment.
  • Few assessment tools have been designed specifically to address the impact of witnessing violence.
  • To date, there are virtually no follow-up, prospective, or longitudinal studies that examine the effects of witnessing violence.

Interventions
When domestic violence comes to the attention of others, interventions are typically focused on the adults. In the past, law enforcement and other social service agencies have not been equipped to deal with the diverse needs of children exposed to domestic violence (Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998).

According to Wolak and Finkelhor (1998), professionals serving the needs of children exposed to domestic violence should be prepared to provide: (1) crisis intervention (i.e., assess for safety; develop a safety plan; file an abuse report; and provide crisis counseling); (2) assessment (i.e., assess current functioning, suicide risk); (3) short and long-term therapy (i.e., gradual exposure, trauma processing, reduction of feelings of responsibility and self-blame).

References
Carlson, B.E. (1990). Adolescent observers of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 5 (4), 285-299.

Carlson, B.E. (1984). Children’s observations of interparental violence. In A.R. Roberts (Ed.), Battered women and their families (pp. 147-167). New York: Springer.

Edleson, J.L. (1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14 (8), 839-870.

Ganley, A.L., & Schecter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A national curriculum for children’s protective services. San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Henning, K., Leitenberg, H., Coffey, P., Turner, T., & Bennett, R.T. (1996). Long-term psychological and social impact of witnessing physical conflict between parents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11 (1), 35-51.

Hughes, H.M., Parkinson, D., & Vargo, M. (1989). Witnessing spouse abuse and experiencing physical abuse: A “double whammy?” Journal of Family Violence, 4, 197-209.

Jouriles, E.N., Murphy, C.M., & O’Leary, D. (1989). Interpersonal aggression, marital discord, and child problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(3), 453-455.

Kolbo, J.R., Blakely, E.H., & Engelman, D. (1996). Children who witness domestic violence: A review of empirical literature. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(2), 281-293.

McKibben, L. DeVos, E., & Newberger, E. (1989). Victimization of mothers of abused children: A controlled study. Pediatrics, 84, 531-535.

Pfouts, J., Schopler, J., & Henley, H. (1982). Forgotten victims of family violence. Social Work, 367-368.

Silvern, L., Karyl, J., Waede, L. Hodges, W.F., Starek, J., Heidt, E., & Min, K. (1995). Retrospective reports of parental partner abuse: Relationships to depression, trauma symptoms, and self-esteem among college students. Journal of Family Violence 10(2), 177-202.

Sonnleitner, M.R., Basil, V.M., & Van Hasselt, V.B. (1999, August). Impact of early exposure to violence on battered women. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M.E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., Dawud, S., Cortes, R.M., Krispin, O., & Lorey, F. (1993). Effects of domestic violence on children’s behavioral problems and depression. Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 44-52.

Straus, M.A. (1992). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and women. Report of the Twenty-Third Ross Roundtable. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories.

Wolak, J. & Finkelhor, D. (1998). Children exposed to partner violence. In J.L. Jasinski & L. Williams (Eds.) Partner Violence: A Comprehensive Review of 20 Years of Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Working with Children Living with Domestic Violence

Grandville : Cent Proverbes

An image of a child being spanked by a man while in the background a woman is being hit by another man with a stick. Image via Wikipedia

 

The published research on children’s exposure to domestic violence focuses largely on two aspects of their experience: the trauma of witnessing physical assaults against their mothers, and the tension produced by living with a high level of conflict between their parents (e.g. Rossman, Hughes, & Rosenberg, 2000). As important as these factors are, they are in fact only two aspects of many complex problems that typically pervade the children’s daily life. The bulk of these difficulties have their roots in the fact that the children are living with a batterer present in their home. The parenting characteristics commonly observed in batterers have implications for the children’s emotional and physical well-being, their relationships with their mothers and siblings, and the development of their belief systems.

 

The Batterer’s Parenting Style

  • Authoritarian
  • Under involved
  • Undermining of mother’s authority
  • Undermining of mother’s parenting in multiple ways
  • Limited sense of age-appropriateness
  • Use the children as weapons
  • Good under observation
  • Tend to see children as personal possessions
  • Rarely improve post-separation (typically get worse)
  • High risk of child abuse

 

Batterers’ Risk to Abuse Children

Physical Abuse

  • 50-70% of batterers abuse children
  • 7 times more likely than an non-batterer
  • Correlated with level of physical abuse of partner
  • Other indicators: level of control, substance abuse, rigid belief-system, abused as a child

 

Sexual Abuse

  • 2-5% of batterers will sexually abuse children
  • 6 times more likely than a non-batterer
  • Correlated with presence of violence towards partner but not with severity
  • Other indicators: high entitlement, self-centered, use of children to meet his own needs, manipulative, seeing the children as personal possessions, substance abuse

 

Psychological Abuse

  • Generally present to some degree

 

From: MCADSV New Service Provider Training Manual and Resource Guide who cites:

The Parenting of Men Who Batter, and The batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact of Domestic Violence on Family Dynamics by Lundy Bancroft, © 2002. Published in Court Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, 44-39.

Anti-Oppression Theory

(from CALCASA‘s Support for Survivors training manual)

SEXUAL ASSAULT and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A TACTIC OR TOOL OF OPPRESSION.

Sign for

Sign for "Colored" waiting room, Georgia, 1943. Image via Wikipedia

Most frequently, sexual assault is used by men to dominate women and by adults to dominate children. Sexual assault has also been used as a weapon of oppression against people of color, people with disabilities, and lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people and gay men. Because sexual assault is a weapon of oppression, we must understand oppression if we hope to end sexual violence. This chapter examines oppression, explains how different forms of Oppression work together, and explores the ways that oppression may stand in the. way of efforts to end sexual violence.
Oppression and What Keeps it Going
Oppression is the systematic and pervasive mistreatment of individuals on the basis of their membership in a disadvantaged group. Institutional and interpersonal imbalances in power contribute to this mistreatment. Oppression involves the systematic use of power to marginalize, exploit, silence, discriminate against, invalidate, deny, dismiss, and/or not recognize the complete humanness of those are members of a disadvantaged group.

In the United States, there are systems of oppression based so race, class, gender (and gender identity) sexual orientation, religion, ability, age, body size, and citizenship. Privilege is given to those who are white, male, middle-class or “well off” economically, heterosexual and not transgender, Protestant, able-bodied and of able mind, middle-aged, thin, and a U.S. citizen. This means that some groups of people are oppressed, and some are not. For example, men, as a group, are not oppressed. Men do not face systematic and pervasive mistreatment because they are male. An individual man may face oppression based on another identity characteristic such as race or disability. We all have multiple identities, because we all have a gender, race, class, sexual orientation, and so on. This means we can be privileged because of one identity while at the same time facing oppression because of another.

Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination support oppression and keep it going. Stereotypes are generalizations about groups of people. They do not take into account the differences within groups. Like stereotypes, prejudice is based on incomplete or inaccurate information. Prejudice is a preference or bias toward or against a group. Both stereotypes and prejudice have negative or detrimental effects. They assert that groups of individuals are all the same (that is, “Those people are….,” “That group can’t….,” “They all act…”). They fail to recognize uniqueness, which is an important part of every person’s humanity. It is true that prejudice and stereotypes are only attitudes, but these destructive attitudes, opinions, feelings, and ideas shape our actions and contribute to discrimination.

Discrimination is active; it is preferential or biased treatment based on stereotypes, prejudice, and/or historical practices. It results in unequal access and/or representation. Oppressive systems and ideologies — such as racism and white supremacy, sexism and male supremacy, and classism and capitalism — are maintained through discrimination. Institutionalized oppression involves enforcing discrimination in such a way that the status quo is maintained (for example, when all the secretaries are women and all the supervisors are men) and inequality is made to seem legitimate (for example, when it is said that the workplace is structured this way because women who apply for supervisory  positions lack the skills to hold these jobs but do possess the skills to be secretaries).

When oppression is enforced through everyday interaction between individuals, this is interpersonal oppression. Interpersonal oppression may take place in a variety of ways. For example, a shop clerk might follow Black customers, expecting them to steal and making them uncomfortable. Interpersonal oppression may occur among friends and relatives as well as among strangers. For example, family members may psychologically and/or physically abuse elder or disabled relatives. Interpersonal oppression is often supported by institutional oppression. For example, if a lesbian teen is harassed by her classmates because she is a lesbian, this is interpersonal oppression. If school authorities allow or condone the harassment, that is institutional oppression.

Discrimination can take many forms, including unfair hiring practices, white flight (from cities to suburbs) and residential segregation, the educational “tracking” of students (college track, not college track), and even violence. In fact, many people refer to violence (and the threat of violence) as a weapon of oppression because it protects oppression.

In doing anti-rape and anti-domestic violence work, it is important to have a clear understanding of oppression and how it functions in the United States. Oppression, a political term often used in the anti-violence movement and other progressive U.S. social movements, must maintain its sharpness, its clarity; otherwise,  it will be stretched to meaninglessness (that is, everyone calling them selves oppressed, regardless of their actual positions of privilege).

Oppression is an abuse of power by a dominant group. Other interactions among people may be hurtful or unfair but not oppression. As a social movement, our goal is to challenge abuses of power—more precisely sexual assault and domestic violence, a specific power abuse—and we require language that can articulate why abuses of power occur.

Making the Connections

Audre Lorde writes, “There is no hierarchy of oppression.” What does this Black lesbian feminist, poet-activist mean? Ultimately she is saying that she will not choose between her identities or favor one identity over another. Any movement that fails to recognize her multiple identities or that asks her to recognize only her Blackness or her gender or her lesbian identity is a movement in which she refuses to participate. In fact, Lorde argues that such a movement holds the seeds of its own failure and destruction.

If we look deeply, we will see that violence – in the form of sexual assault, battering, lynching, genocide, and other hate crimes – is a tactic of all forms of oppression. Thus, violence is one area where all forms of oppression intersect. And, in fact, acts of bias violence, or hate violence often involve more than one form of oppression. For example, lynching – most obviously an expression of racism – often included bizarre sexual mutilation of the victim. It seems clear that the white male perpetrators of such violence where expressing not only their racist ideology of white supremacy, but also their sexist fantasy of masculinity.

By the same token, rape – most obviously an expression of sexism – also involves other forms of oppression. When women, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, are threatened with rape when they show affection toward other women, we see homophobia (and transphobia) acting in concert with sexism. This all-too-common occurrence is a manifestation of these forms of oppression interacting with and bolstering each other. Suzanne Pharr, who co-chaired the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and its Lesbian Task Force, calls homophobia a weapon of sexism and connects homophobia and heterosexism to sexual and domestic violence perpetrated against women:

How many of us have heard battered women’s stories about their abusers calling them lesbians or calling the battered women’s shelter a lesbian place? The abuser is not so much labeling a her a lesbian as he is warning her that she is choosing to be outside society’s protection (of male institutions), and she therefore should choose to be with him, with what is “right.” He recognizes the power in woman-bonding and fears loss of her servitude and loyalty: the potential loss of his control. The concern is not affectional/sexual identity; the concern is disloyalty. The labeling is a threat. . . . Our concern with homophobia, then, is not just that it damages lesbians, but that it damages all women. We recognize homophobia as a means of controlling women, and we recognize the connection between control and violence.2

The intersection of oppressions also affects how acts of bias violence are perceived. The feminist legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw notes that rape is “racialized.”3 In the United States, rape has been historically racialized in the image of the white female victim and the Black male rapist, and our social problem of rape has grown to be racialized in the rapist as a man of color. This does two things. First, women of color are absolutely invisible in this equation. Women of color come to be seen as “unrapeable.” Second, white men are protected by this mythology. They are let off the hook; they are not seen as perpetrating rape. But we know that 90% of sexual assaults occur between individuals of the same race and socioeconomic class.4 We also know that in 84% of all rapes, the survivor knows their rapist.5 Such a racialized image of rape obscures these facts as well as the everyday attacks that white women experience at the hands of white men. Therefore, this racist mythology harms, not only women and men of color, but also white women. Here, racism and sexism work together to hurt everyone but white men. Donna Landerman clearly articulates why it is of utmost importance that the anti-violence movement be anti-racist:

From both an ideological and practical point of view, it is essential for the anti-rape movement to investigate racism and incorporate an anti-racist perspective, because racism in major ways both causes and defines rape. If we are to successfully aid women who have been raped, prevent rape, and eventually eliminate rape, it is necessary to understand and attack rape in all its forms and at all its roots. Racism and cultural and class oppression are some of those roots of rape, and lead rape to take different forms in the lives of women of various races, cultures, and classes. 6

Angela Davis insightfully links rape to the capitalist class structure. She asserts that:

those men who wield power in the economic and political realm are encouraged by the class structure of capitalism to become agents of sexual exploitation. Their authority (within this capitalist structure) guards them against punishment in all circles except one: they may not violate a woman of their own standing… With this single exception, the man of authority can rape as he will, for he is only exercising his authority. 7

The highly publicized William Kennedy Smith rape case, which involved a rich and influential man for a well-known political family and a less-affluent woman, shows that there is validity to what Angela Davis argues. But it may be inaccurate to say absolutely that economically privileged men cannot rape women of their economic class with impunity. Nonetheless, the power of Davis’s analysis is her awareness that capitalism is connected to violence against women.

Capitalism is based on competition rather than cooperation and therefore promotes conflict. In addition, capitalism has exploitation of one group of people by another “built in,” because profits can be achieved only by the exploitation of workers and/or consumers. Capitalism treats workers like objects to be used just as many perpetrators of violence treat women and children like sexual objects to be used or consumed. Modern capitalism, in its advertising, also treats women like sexual objects to be used to sell products. Capitalism teaches those who are or who aspire to be of the owning class to dominate, exploit, and use workers. These are the same dynamics that the anti-rape and anti-domestic violence movement has identified as contributing to sexual and domestic violence. And arguably it is capitalism that encourages us to believe that poor and working-class men are more likely to perpetrate sexual violence than economically privileged men. Classism works to the benefit of those at the top of the hierarchy, protecting them from being held accountable for the sexual violence they perpetrate against women of their economic class and against those women who have less economic privilege.

All of this demonstrates that considering sexism and male supremacy as the only important forms of oppression involved in sexual assault and domestic violence is not only inaccurate by self-defeating. This is, in part, because we cannot neatly separate sexism from homophobia and transphobia or sexism from racism or from classism.  Over time, forms of oppression have become intertwined. Movements that fail to take this into account cannot fully succeed and may cause more harm. I think Kimberlé Crenshaw, writing about the anti-rape movement, says it best: “This movement inadvertently participates in exclusionary politics because some of us fail to comprehend the anti-violence movement as an anti-oppression movement.”8

Thinking about all of the different forms of oppression and how they work together can feel overwhelming and depressing. With so many forces against us, how can we hope to make a difference? Although the task is challenging, it is not impossible. From the anti-lynching movement in the United States to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, history is filled with examples of women leading and contributing to successful collective efforts at social change. Working with and learning about other activists can be educational, inspirational, and transforming.

Oppression and the Anti-Violence Movement

Because oppression is, by nature, pervasive, it is not surprising that social change organizations – including the anti-rape and anti-domestic violence movement – are sometimes hampered by oppression. Obviously, those in power seek to hold on to their power, so the oppressive forces against which social change organizations struggle often strike back. “Backlash” is an example of that. Less obviously, but still importantly, social change organizations sometimes have internal problems rooted in one form of oppression or another.

As social change agents of the anti-violence movement, we recognize the prevalence of oppression in our communities, whether it be sexism, racism, hatred of immigrants, heterosexism and transphobia, Antisemitism, anti-Islamic sentiment, or some combination of these or other forms of oppression. And we recognize the existence of a backlash, a reactionary response to our social change work. This backlash stems from the unwillingness of institutions and individuals to give up power and privilege.

Often it is easier for us to see oppression “out there,” beyond our social movement or our agencies. But oppression is insidious and does find its way into our organizations. For example, a white-dominated organization might neglect the needs of survivors of color, or a primarily heterosexual agency might ask its lesbian staff members to “act straight.” Like many other institutions, anti-rape and anti-domestic violence agencies may be inaccessible to people with disabilities or unfair in their treatment of workers.

One example of resistance to institutional  and interpersonal oppression within social change organizations is the work of the Ann Arbor Coalition for Community Unity. This Michigan-based  coalition formed in 1994 in the wake of a poorly handled serial rapist investigation and committed itself to simultaneously addressing sexism and racism. During its work, it issued a statement to feminist agencies in the Ann Arbor area that stressed the importance of addressing abuses of power within women’s agencies. Here is an excerpt from a letter written by the women of the coalition:

Audre Lorde told us that when we, as women, fall back on the same tactics that the patriarchy uses to control us, tactics of sexism, racism, silencing, and dismissal, we become self-defeating as a movement. Instead of working to end the conditions that create and perpetuate violence against women, we enable them. Every time we silence other women’s criticism of our work, or punish dissent, we commit an act of violence. Violence, after all, is the abusive or unjust exercise of power. And when we perpetuate this kind of emotional and spiritual violence against women within our movement, we condition women to accept the physical and sexual violence we are fighting daily.9

We have to meet all forms of oppression in our communities and in our movement head on in order to progress and to ultimately end rape and domestic violence. This means that we cannot write enough about how racism, classism, heterosexism and transphobia and other forms of oppression reinforce sexism. This means that we cannot educate enough about how violence is rooted in oppression. And this means we must act!

Notes: (the books cited are older, yes, but are classics)

1. Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (Trumanberg, NY: The Crossing Press, 1984), 20.

2. Suzanne Pharr, Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism (Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press, 1988).

3. Kimberlé Crenshaw, “The Marginalization of Sexual Violence Against Black Women,” National Coalition Against Sexual Assault Journal 2, no. 1 (spring 1994): 1-6, 15.

4. Angela Davis, Women Race, and Class (New York: Random House, 1981).

5. Mary Koss, “Date Rape: The Story of an Epidemic and Those Who Deny It,” Ms Magazine (October 1985).

6. Donna Landerman, “Breaking the Racism Barrier: White Anti-Racism Work,” in Reweaving the Web of Life: Feminism and Nonviolence, ed Pam McAllister (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1982).

7. Angela Davis, “Rape, Racism and the Capitalist Setting,” Black Scholar 9, no. 2 (1978): 24-30.

8. Crenshaw, “Marginalization of Sexual Violence Against Black Women,” 6.

9. Ann Arbor Coalition for Community Unity; Open Letter to Women’s Community-based Organizations in the Ann Arbor Area, 1996.

Being an Ally by Susan Mooney

Being an Ally (from CALCASA‘s “Support for Survivors” training manual; altered to fit the YWCA)

The most effective advocates are those who can assist survivors in understanding their individual experience in the larger social context of oppression. Women who were able to see a connection between society’s reactions to their experiences of victimization and the status of women in general founded the anti-rape and anti-domestic violence movement. This chapter assumes that you have previously explored the connections between the multiple forms of violence against women and sexism and the connections between sexism and other forms of oppression: racism, heterosexism and transphobia, ableism, classism. The focus here is on how you as an individual can use your awareness of oppression to be an effective counselor and a powerful agent for social change in your community.

We first explore what an ally is and then how being an ally relates to your work as a sexual assault counselor. Included are tips and challenges for the long journey that awaits you.

What is an Ally?

“Epiphinal moments, in many ways, occur only when one is primed for them.”1 A good ally is ever on the prowl for an epiphinal moment, ever mindful of our status in the world and ever watchful for opportunities to use our privileged status to effect social change and interrupt oppressive behaviors and actions. The process of learning how to provide support to survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, intervene when you witness injustice, and contribute to creating a world that does not tolerate sexual violence is the process of developing skills as an ally.

Allies are persons who seek opportunities to use their knowledge, personal commitment, access to resources (financial and otherwise), and willingness to overcome fear to promote the well-being of a marginalized group or an individual within that group, of which the ally is not a member. It takes courage to act for the benefit of others, particularly if the act requires acknowledging your own status or giving up privilege.
Each of us is a complex person with many facets to our identity; we both need allies and can be an ally to others. For example, a heterosexual woman of color can benefit from the actions and commitment of her white allies; at the same time she can be a powerful ally to lesbians, gays, bisexual people, and transgender people. How and when to be an ally can be confusing and complex, but remember that the more you practice, the more you understand, and the better your skills become. Each of us has within us the ability to act as an ally to others, and your participation in the volunteer training can be a huge step toward increasing your ability to act as an ally.

Being an effective ally to survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence requires that you are an ally in every area of their lives. Survivors do not experience sexual assault or domestic violence in isolation from the accumulated total of their life experience. Being a good advocate means you have to understand that a woman experiences of racism, homophobia and transphobia, classism, sizeism, and ableism, combined with sexism, all inform the experience of sexual assault and the process of healing from the experience of victimization. Your commitment to understanding the totality of a woman’s life will make you a more effective advocate. Your dedication to changing the social conditions within which sexual assault and domestic violence exists is an essential component of being a an advocate.

How does being an Ally Relate to your Work as an Advocate?

The more you practice and develop your skills as an ally working to end oppression, the more effective a advocate you will become. Try to think in terms of the ripple effect:
When you drop a stone in a bucket of water, many ripples are produced; they travel out, hit the side of the bucket, start traveling back to the center, and begin crossing and affecting one another’s paths. Eventually the water settles down, but the arrangement of the water in the bucket is forever changed. The ripple effect of your work as an ally is much the same: every act affects the complex social conditions that allow sexual assault to occur and the conditions that influence a survivor’s healing process.
Now let’s apply that image to an example (see below): a heterosexual woman who answers the hot line at the rape crisis center is also involved in PFLAG:

IMPACT OF PFLAG CAMPAIGN RIPPLE EFFECT
In the process of preparing for the PFLAG campaign, the advocate becomes more aware of the emotional and social impact homophobia has on lesbians, gays, bisexual people, and transgender people. The advocate receives a hotline call from a lesbian survivor of same-sex violence. The counselor’s ability to assist the survivor as she sorts through the effect of internalized homophobia on her reaction to her assault is enhanced by increased awareness.
PFLAG campaign includes presentation to law enforcement on hate crimes against lesbians, gays, bisexual people, and transgender people, during which a couple of officers show that they are very sensitive to the issue. The advocate’s ability to assist the survivor in realistically assessing the potential outcome of reporting the assault to the police is enhanced. The counselor has increased access to officers who are more likely to respond to the survivor’s experience sensitively.
The law enforcement officers who are sensitive to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues notice that the majority of officers in attendance are not educated on these issues. Working with the rape crisis center to assist the lesbian survivor makes the officers aware that their department’s response to incidents of same-sex violence can be improved, and they work as allies with the rape crisis center to get more training included in courses at the police academy.
The advocate passes out leaflets at the local mall as part of the campaign and talks to dozens of people, one of whom she tells about her work at the rape crisis center, A lesbian survivor of child sexual assault calls the hotline; she is willing to make the call because her friend tells her about her conversation with the advocate at the mall so she thinks the rape crisis center will be a safe place for her.
The advocate mentions to the crisis line coordinator that she is involved in the campaign, and the rape crisis center ends up endorsing PFLAG’s campaign. A number of lesbians in the community notice this relationship and call the rape crisis center to inquire about volunteering.

Domestic Violence Power and Control Wheel

The Power and Control Wheel was developed from the experience of battered women in Duluth who had been abused by their male partners. It has been translated into over 40 languages and has resonated with the experience of battered women world-wide. (http://www.theduluthmodel.org/wheelgallery.php)

The Power and Control Wheel

Using intimidation: making her afraid by using looks, actions, gestures, smashing things, destroying her property, abusing pets, displaying weapons.

Using emotional abuse: putting her down, making her feel bad about herself, calling her names, making her think she’s crazy, playing mind games, humiliating her, making her feel guilty.

Using isolation: controlling what she does, who she sees and talks to, what she reads, where she goes, limiting her outside involvement, using jealousy to justify actions.

Minimizing, denying, and blaming: making light of the abuse and not taking her concerns about it seriously, saying the abuse didn’t happen, shifting responsibility for abusive behavior, saying she caused it.

Using children: making her feel guilty about the children, using the children to relay messages, using visitation to harass her, threatening to take children away.

Using male privilege: treating her like a servant, making all the big decisions, acting like the “master of the castle”, being the one to define men’s and women’s roles.

Using economic abuse: preventing her from getting or keeping a job, making her ask for money, giving her an allowance, taking her money, not letting her know about or have access to family income.

Using coercion and threats: making and/or carrying out threats to hurt her, threatening to leave her, to commit suicide, to report her to welfare, making her drop charges, making her do illegal things.

FAQs about the Wheels (from http://www.theduluthmodel.org/wheelgallery.php)
Why was the Power and Control Wheel created?
In 1984, staff at the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) began developing curricula for groups for men who batter and victims of domestic violence. We wanted a way to describe battering for victims, offenders, practitioners in the criminal justice system and the general public. Over several months, we convened focus groups of women who had been battered. We listened to heart-wrenching stories of violence, terror and survival. After listening to these stories and asking questions, we documented the most common abusive behaviors or tactics that were used against these women. The tactics chosen for the wheel were those that were most universally experienced by battered women.

Why did you call it the Power and Control Wheel?
Battering is one form of domestic or intimate partner violence. It is characterized by the pattern of actions that an individual uses to intentionally control or dominate his intimate partner. That is why the words “power and control” are in the center of the wheel. A batterer systematically uses threats, intimidation, and coercion to instill fear in his partner. These behaviors are the spokes of the wheel. Physical and sexual violence holds it all together—this violence is the rim of the wheel.

Why isn’t the Power and Control Wheel gender neutral?
The Power and Control Wheel represents the lived experience of women who live with a man who beats them. It does not attempt to give a broad understanding of all violence in the home or community but instead offers a more precise explanation of the tactics men use to batter women. We keep our focus on women’s experience because the battering of women by men continues to be a significant social problem–men commit 86 to 97 percent of all criminal assaults and women are killed 3.5 times more often than men in domestic homicides1.

When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the context of that violence tends to differ from men. First, men’s use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional avenues, while women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Secondly, many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered. Their violence is primarily used to respond to and resist the controlling violence being used against them. On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.

Battering in same-sex intimate relationships has many of the same characteristics of battering in heterosexual relationships, but happens within the context of the larger societal oppression of same-sex couples. Resources that describe same-sex domestic violence have been developed by specialists in that field such as The Northwest Network of Bi, Trans, Lesbian and Gay Survivors of Abuse, www.nwnetwork.org

Making the Power and Control Wheel gender neutral would hide the power imbalances in relationships between men and women that reflect power imbalances in society. By naming the power differences, we can more clearly provide advocacy and support for victims, accountability and opportunities for change for offenders, and system and societal changes that end violence against women.

The wheel makes the pattern, intent and impact of violence visible.