I have just completed a 40 hour training course to become a Domestic Violence Counselor. And part of our 'homework' in this course was to share what we learn with our friends. So, my friends, here is a short summary of what I have learned:
28% of homes experience domestic violence. This number is probably lower than it actually is.
1 in 4 women will be or are in an abusive relationship.
45% of women and 75% of men who grow up in an abusive household will pass on the abuse in their adult relationships by either being abusive (battering) or having an abusive partner.
95% of batterers are men. The number of women batterers is on the rise.
A victim usually leaves the batterer 5-7 times before ze leaves the batterer for good. (so be patient with your friends!)
75% of women who are killed by intimate partners are killed in the first 24 hours after leaving them. It is the most dangerous time for victims.
The leading cause of death in pregnant or recently pregnant women is homicide. Battering usually increases and worsens during this period.
Substance abuse is involved in 61% of domestic violence cases, but is NOT the cause of a batterer's behavior (though it may make it worse.)
Domestically Violent relationships happen about equally across all races, all economic classes (though perhaps less physical abuse in circles of higher Edu.) all religious communities, and in straight and queer communities. This touches everyone .
Many people who are in abusive relationships do not recognize them as such. The abuse may take physical form in hitting, bumping, strangling, stalking, punching, neglect (with respect to food, medicine, and more) etc. It may be sexual abuse such as rape, groping and unwelcomed touches. It may be intellectual in the form of restricting what the victim reads, or what information is available to ze. It may be spiritual in the form of forcing or prohibiting the victim to/from attending certain religious services. It may be psychological or emotional, using 'crazy-making tactics'. It may be verbal in the form of obscenities, hurtful comments, and the like. It may be financial in the sense that the batterer controls all the finances and/assets.
And the list goes on.
The law only recognizes physical abuse as domestic violence.
Here are some reasons why it can be hard to leave:
-
the victim loves the batterer
the victim has kids with the batterer
the victim wants to avoid the stigma of divorce (which may be more severe in different cultures)
they are financially unable to leave (the batterer has seized all her assets, or is her source of income)
they feel isolated and without resources or options
their family and community does not support them in leaving
Domestic Violence is about control. It follows what is known as "The Cycle of Violence." First, there is the honeymoon period where everything is great. Next, tension builds (victims and survivors often describe it as a period of 'walking on eggshells'.) Finally, it is broken with a period of violence. After, it returns to the honeymoon period. Basically, he beats you up, then buys you flowers. There is an interim period of building tension, and then he does it again.
As the batterer's career continues, the cycles become more and more frequent . This is why some abusive relationships may begin with cycles that last a year or more to complete, but then progress to a month, a week, a day... It is also why on batterer may beat one partner once a year, but beat his next partner once a month. This cycle is the BATTERER'S cycle, not the victim's.
Batterer's treatment has a 4% success rate. Get out and don't look back.
If you or someone you know is being battered (which may be any sort of abusive relationship, not just physically), please call or refer them to this DV hotline: 909-988-5559
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Dear Friends, DV 101.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15022
The statistic about pregnant women always terrifies me.
A bunch of your statistics are wildly inaccurate. Just to pick an easily dispelled one:
"The leading cause of death in pregnant or recently pregnant women is homicide."
No. No. Not even remotely close.
The leading cause of death of pregnant or postpartum women is medical (12 deaths per 100,000 live births). Homicide is 1.7 per 100,000 births. That's about 1/7 as likely as the leading cause of death. Also, car accidents / other accidents in general are more common than homicide, but I can't dig up the exact number (I keep getting stuff about seatbelt safety for pregnant women).
Citations: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/3/471
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80743.php
"Batterer's treatment has a 4% success rate. Get out and don't look back."
Holy fuck, that one's even further off!
The recidivism rate is about 1/3. That means the success rate is about 66%, or sixteen-and-a-half times what you quoted. What you may have misunderstood is the effect of treatment programs versus non-treatment, which is about a 5% decrease in recidivism. This conference proceeding has a summary of the statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/violence-against-women/workshops/batterer-intervention.htm
At least a few more of those are probably off, but I think I made my point already. You should probably go back to DV high school.
Those were the numbers that they gave us at training!
sorry if they are off, and thank you for correcting them, but those are definitely the numbers I was given last week.
Okay, I should probably have been ranting at the program rather than at you, although I think that's even sadder ... a training organization really should have taken the time to get their statistics right. Unfortunately, a lot of nonprofit organizations tend to exaggerate/just plain fuck up statistics to make the problem they want to address look large and simple so people are more likely to contribute money and time.
Just to provide a bit more information: gender differences in DV are not nearly that pronounced. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm However, women are more likely to be injured than men. This one is a common and problematic misconception - it creates barriers to getting help for abused men (especially men with disabilities, who are often targeted), abused queer women in same-sex relationships, and trans people (who experience a frighteningly high amount of DV, but are often denied services), among others.
The statement that substance abuse never caused DV is commonly, but not universally, accepted. This is a paper by DV experts who argue that substance abuse should be considered one of the possible causes of domestic violence. http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/YoungCookms.singlespace.pdf
Naught -
Alcohol is present in about 60% of crimes but it doesn't CAUSE crime. Substance abuse does not CAUSE DV, perpetrators do. Let's stop looking for reasons to excuse men's violent behaviour towards women. Let's not forget that this is not a personal problem so much as a political issue. Women are not safe in their own homes, or in a patriarchy.
As for recidivism, are they working on police or partner reports? because we know they do vary. If men aren't charged, but women live in fear is it really a 'success'? There certainly does seem to be some reluctance to charge men who breach domestic violence orders, and again we have the problem of under reporting breaches to contend with as well. http://www.theage.com.au/national/wife-bashers-to-face-behavioural-program-20090623-cved.html
And please stop with the 'watm' *sigh* women are NOT more likely to be perpetrators of DV, if you look at crime statistics you will see that homicide and assault statistics for men are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than those for women. It is not an equal situation, or even one in which they are both as bad as each other but it's just men's superior strength results in women more likely to be injured. MEN are hurting, assaulting and killing WOMEN in numbers far greater than women are doing so to men.
In Australia male violence is the greatest cause of death, injury and mental illness for women aged between 15 -45. This is not equivalent for men. Gender differences are VERY pronounced and pretending otherwise prevents people understanding this problem as a gendered issue. Male violence needs to be addressed and pretending that women are just as bad is not helping men or women.
Again - not all DV experts agree with you about substance abuse (not just alcohol, FYI). I don't see how it "excuses" it. Abusing substances and then beating someone up is at least as bad as not abusing substances and beating someone up. The relevant question here is about what we should do about it and how to identify/treat batterers with connected substance abuse issues. These people often get sent to batter's intervention programs instead of substance abuse treatment programs, and if there's a connection then the programs should in some cases be linked. There's a lot more written on this than what I linked.
Probably both have been done. See section IVa of this report: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-592065/Can-a-leopard-change-his.html I unfortunately do not have access to the first report they cite (Tolman and Edleson), but it a comprehensive review of research based on victim reporting and finds 53%-85% success rate.
You are confusing violence (in general) with Intimate Partner Violence. In fact, your entire third paragraph said nothing at all about IPV, just violent crime in general. The review I linked contains a huge number of studies on this topic, many of which are available online. I suggest you look at some of them if you aren't convinced.
Now, statistics aside - let me try to explain why your attitude about domestic violent is problematic. People who do not fit your "model" of what IPV should look like find it harder to accept that they are victims, and find it harder to get help from the police, from DV shelters, and from friends. Here are some specific stories - maybe these will convince you that all victims of IPV need to have their voices respected and are deserving of help and compassion.
This article discusses the problems queer women have with IPV. In particular, look at Christy's story on page 2. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_200110/ai_n8980189/
I recall a study someone else linked her about IPV in the trans community. Suffice to say, there's a lot of it, and I'm sure you must have heard about DV shelters turning away trans women.
I can't find a site that just has it instead of burying it in a bunch of crap, but this is what Maegan Woods wrote about her childhood.
TRIGGER WARNING
"As a child I grew up watching my mother commit multiple acts of violence against my dad. The earliest incident I remember occurred when I was four, and my mother continued to be violent up until April of 2003.
"No one would help. Teachers, parents of friends, anyone I tried to talk to about what was going on at home basically told me I didn't understand, and that my mother couldn't possibly be the violent party. The few times the police came to our home, they would always be ready to arrest my father, sometimes getting so far as to put the handcuffs on him, and it was up to me to scream as loud as possible that it was my mommy and not my daddy so they wouldn't take him away and leave me with her.
"Sometimes when my mom would attack, Pops would try to defend himself, just to get her off him, stop hitting him, whatever. Every time he defended himself, whether he left bruises or not, Mom would go get a restraining order. She didn't have to show bruises or prove she was in danger or anything, just saying she was 'afraid' was enough.
"I grew up in this sort of environment and I learned the only way to survive was to watch every argument they had and be ready to interject myself as a distraction if I could before violence happened. I grew up paranoid and feeling like the safety in my house was something only I was responsible for. If Mom became violent, it meant I FAILED. That feeling would hit me like a bucket of cold water, but there wouldn't be any time for feeling sorry for myself. My next task was to try to break it up, screaming, threatening, pleading, whatever. I had to make sure no details escaped me because if the cops got called they'd just believe my mom without question, and it was MY job to make sure the truth at least got heard."
Naught, the reason I spoke about male violent crimes in general is that it seems quite the anomaly that men would be the perpetrators of so much violence and yet suddenly, in the home women turn into equal participants in violent behaviour.
This is just not the case Naught, for DV or criminal violent behaviour. Men are the main perpetrators AND victims of violence.
Male violence is a widespread social issue and while I completely agree that ALL victims of DV deserve help and assistance, to ignore that men are the predominant perpetrators is naive at best. Services are aimed towards women because they are overwhelmingly the victims of abuse.
Do you think breast cancer PCA's are problematic because they don't mention male breast cancer? It may affect men's ability to seek medical treatment, after all. Or do you think that targeting the primary demographic likely to suffer from breast cancer is probably a sensible course of action.
While Meagan's story is an awful example of a violent and dysfunctional family, it is not the norm for the woman to be the perpetrator, the plural of anecdote is not data.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/3/471
You do realise that in this article you linked to in refute of the statement "The leading cause of death in pregnant or recently pregnant women is homicide." the conclusion is "Homicide is a leading cause of pregnancy-associated injury deaths." I think those sentences both mean the same thing.
Now I'm not quite sure because it would seem quite ridiculous if it were the case, but did you just back up the statement you were supposedly refuting?
I'm a bit confused here Naught.
Might I suggest you think more carefully before posting?
The leading cause means the highest.
A leading cause means one of the highest.
When THE leading cause (medical) is 7 times more likely than the 3rd highest cause (homicide), this is a very significant difference.
And yet male violence IS a leading cause of death for pregnant women, you said that statement was "not even remotely close" Do you still stand by that critique? It seems evident that male violence as a cause of death for pregnant women is not quite as remote as you are suggesting.
Yes, I stand by it. It is 1/7th the rate of the leading cause. That is significant. I'm not quite sure what you're saying - that being off by a factor of 7 is remotely close? It's especially relevant when what we're talking about is a percentage - homicide is less than 15% of the mortality rate.
If I told you that the air in your room was mostly Argon, I'd be full of shit. If I told you that Judaism was the most common religious affiliation in the United States, I'd be full of shit.
If it was, say, 90% as likely as the leading cause, then yes, it would be remotely close. But that is not the case.
Naught, the study that YOU linked to confirmed that dv IS considered a "leading cause of death". I recommend not linking to a study that directly refutes your own argument. :-)
The statement that DV is A leading cause of death in pregnant women, is factually correct. It is not "wildly inaccurate" at all.
Please also note that the original claim was "pregnant or recently pregnant women" and studies have shown that the risk of DV is often greatest after delivery. You are comparing ONLY pregnancy stats and not the post partum period. This may be the reason for the discrepancy.
Just to clear this us for you - A leading cause means of the most common causes of death. If DV is the third most common cause of death it is one of the most common causes of death. Just because it is not as common as THE leading cause does not refute the fact that murder by a male partner is A leading cause (among the most common causes of death).
No one has said that MOST pregnant women die due to male violence, like you are suggesting with your ridiculous analogies, that would be very silly indeed. But a leading cause doesn't mean most, for example cancer is a leading cause of death but that doesn't mean 80% of people die from cancer.
Violence against women is a serious social issue. I don't think that your comments refuting factual evidence with, ironically, wildly inaccurate claims of the severity and impact of this issue are particularly helpful. It might do you good to attend DV school yourself :-)
Do you seriously not understand the difference between A leading cause and THE leading cause? The statement that homicide is A leading cause of death in pregnant and recently pregnant is factually correct. The statement that homicide is THE leading cause of death in pregnant and recently pregnant women is wrong, and is off by a large margin.
Now, let's see which of those two statements was in the OP. "The leading cause of death in pregnant or recently pregnant women is homicide." Read the article before "leading." Now read it again. What is it? Is it "the" or is it "a?"
As to your other objection, pregnant vs. pregnant and recently pregnant - you are simply wrong. Please reread the link. http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/3/471
Specifically, see: "Objectives. We identified risk factors for pregnancy-associated homicide (women who died as a result of homicide during or within 1 year of pregnancy) in the United States from 1991 to 1999."
Note: "during or within 1 year."
Anyhow, I think you should probably skip the DV classes and work on your reading comprehension and numeracy.
A leading cause. THE leading cause.
Either way, men are murdering their pregnant partners. In numbers high enough to be significant. To be a trend. Yes, it is possible that pregnant women die in car accidents more frequently than they are murdered by their husbands but to me, that doesn't make it any less horrifying or significant.
If I said that some pregnant woman that I knew was murdered by her partner, would you say that that happens very infrequently and isn't significant? Nope.
No matter what the numbers are, they are far higher than most of the non-feminist community is aware. They are infinitely higher than what I thought they were before my ex beat the crap out of me. And that's the real problem. And the point of this post.
Deconstructing the figures does nothing but distract from the point that this person is making.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HAPPENS MORE THAN MOST PEOPLE THINK. IT HAPPENS IN WAYS PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE. A LOT OF WOMEN ARE IN DANGER OR IN PAIN.
no matter how many women are going through it, the fact that any are is devastating.
Don't you think it would work better to give the actual (still high) numbers than the incorrect numbers? If beckeck tried to educate someone who did not already know DV was a major problem, and they thought to google one or two of the more easily checked statistics, they might well dismiss all of the statistics as nonsense.
Also, I never said it was infrequent and not significant - just that it was not as frequent as claimed.
I would also say it's a major problem that some feminists - people who want to work to do stuff like decrease the rate at which pregnant and postpartum women die, and lower domestic violence - don't have a clear understanding of the problem. Knowing useful and correct statistics is helpful. Just to give an example:
Black American women are at 11 times the risk for pregnancy-related homicide as white American women. (15.8 per 100,000 live births). That's far, far higher than it should be.
The leading cause of death overall for pregnant and postpartum women, as I mentioned, is medical causes (12 per 100,000 live births). What I didn't mention is that around 40% of those deaths would be completely preventable with proper prenatal and medical care. That means that the US has more preventable medical deaths per capita than most first-world nations have counting all causes.