« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Violence against Women: A literature
review commissioned by the National Group to Address
Violence Against Women
5. Making the links
blame the woman
blame the drink
blame the weather
(Zero Tolerance, 1995)
This slogan, taken from the Zero Tolerance 'Excuses'
campaign, encapsulates some of the most common assumptions
made about what causes violence against women. Alcohol
and/or drug use, poverty, unemployment, mental illness,
stress, poor anger management skills, sexual deviance and
personality disorders are all commonly identified either as
causes of, or triggers for, male violence against women. It
is perhaps to be expected that most people, if asked to
consider violence against women, will focus initially on
the circumstances surrounding an individual act, rather
than violence against women as a wider phenomenon. At an
individual level, all of these factors may play a role.
There is, however, a need to look at the wider picture.
Violence against women is experienced by women of all ages
and social classes, all races, religions and nationalities,
all over the world. It is overwhelmingly perpetrated by
men. Individual characteristics and circumstances alone
cannot explain why this should be the case.
Violence may be experienced as a single discrete event
in a woman's life. However, when the opportunity is
provided, many women describe a continuum of abusive
experiences at different points in their lives, and at the
hands of different abusers. Domestic abuse, sexual
violence, stalking and harassment, child sexual abuse,
pornography, prostitution and all of the combinations of
these, are linked in many ways. Sometimes several of them
happen to the same women. Sometimes several of them are
perpetrated by the same men. The context of what happens
may differ - perpetrated by known men or strangers, at home
or at work, in relationships or out of them - but the
impact on individual women and the consequences both for
them and the rest of society are too similar to ignore.
The consequences of violence against women for women's
health, sense of self worth, economic position and
continued safety are consistent across all forms of
violence against women. The rates of depression, anxiety
and post traumatic reactions are similar whether a woman
was abused by her partner or raped by a stranger. Feelings
of guilt, shame and self blame are commonly experienced by
women survivors of domestic abuse, rape and sexual assault,
childhood sexual abuse, and abuse through pornography and
prostitution. The role that male violence plays in limiting
women's social and economic potential is acknowledged
throughout the literature. At a policy level, there is
perhaps a clearer understanding of the links between male
violence and the poverty of women in the 'developing'
countries of the world; certainly it is acknowledged in
international initiatives to address violence against women
(Spindel, Levy and Connor, 2000).
Common themes also emerge from women's descriptions of
the violence they have experienced, regardless of where,
when and by whom they were abused. Whether they are talking
about physical or sexual assault by a partner, by someone
else known to them or by a stranger, they describe the
abuse of power and control, being degraded and humiliated,
feeling hated and worthless:
"…my father would call me all sorts of names and would
storm around saying 'You're no goddam good. You're a whore.
You're a nothing.'…It's hard to know which was worse abuse,
I think that the 'you're no good, you're a whore, you're
nothing' - that constant theme was almost or as bad as the
sexual abuse because it was constant."
(Incest survivor, quoted in Stanko, 1985:
30)
"I could not leave the house. I was imprisoned for
several days at a time, was unable to cook without the food
being thrown at me, or to wash without my head being held
under water until I lost consciousness. I was unable to go
to the lavatory during the night; he would kick in the
toilet door because I had taken too long. When I fought
back he would rape me sometimes anally and sometimes over
and over again…"
(Domestic abuse survivor, quoted in Bossy
and Coleman, 2000)
Liz Kelly has been one of the most vociferous proponents
of the need to make the links between different types of
violence against women. Talking about the life of Emma
Humphries
30, she gives the clearest possible example of the links
between child abuse and neglect, homelessness,
prostitution, rape, domestic abuse, prison and
addiction:
"Emma's life makes clear the connections between a range
of forms of gender violence. Whilst we may separate them in
law, in the categories we use in research, and in how we
organise institutional responses - in the state and NGO
sectors - they were not separate in her experience. It is
impossible to understand her life, still less imagine how
it might have been different, if we fail to see that it
involved repeat victimisation by the same and
different men, that her attempts to cope
with/escape one form of abuse made her vulnerable to
others"
(Kelly, 2000).
She goes on to describe the myriad ways in which
different forms of violence against women, and children,
are linked. These include their relationship to the
perpetrators of violence, most often men known to women,
regardless of the nature of the assault; tactics of power
and control as a feature of men's violence against women;
the consequences of violence for women's health and self
esteem; high attrition rates across all forms of violence
against women and a consequent sense that men may violate
women with impunity; and inadequate or ineffective
institutional responses, including failure to encourage or
document disclosure (Kelly, 2000).
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has proposed the use
of an ecological model to provide a conceptual framework
for understanding the nature and causes of violence,
including violence against women. Ecological models
consider that behaviour does not take place in a vacuum,
and address the relationship of the individual to their
environment, including interpersonal relationships,
community and societal influences. The WHO report uses this
model to explore risk factors for different types of
violence, including violence by intimate partners and
sexual violence (Krug et al, 2002).
Table 1: Ecological model for understanding violence,
WHO, 2002
At the core of the model is the individual, and the
personal characteristics which make them more or less at
risk of violence. Around the individual are their close
relationships, with partners, family members or others, and
how far these relationships might increase or decrease the
risk of violence. The community in which the individual
lives may contribute to their risk factors - which might
include the physical environment in which they live, but
also issues of social inclusion or exclusion. The outer
layer of the model represents the society in which an
individual lives, and the pervasive influences of that
society, including cultural norms and values, and the
legislative and policy framework which supports them (Krug
et al, 2002).
This model attempts to integrate several different
perspectives on violence against women, suggesting that
there may not be one single 'cause' but rather a whole
range of variables which can increase or reduce a woman's
risk factors for experiencing violence. This is undoubtedly
true, but it must be acknowledged that risk factors are not
the same as causes. Specific acts of violence against women
may have their roots in a combination of factors including
the personal history and circumstances of women who are
victims of violence and the men who perpetrate it, and the
nature of the relationship between women and the men who
are their partners, family members, neighbours and
colleagues. However, violence against women must be seen in
the context of the structural inequality of the wider
society within which it takes place, as exemplified in the
attitudes, cultural norms and institutions of that
society.
If, as has been suggested, violence against women is
both the result of gender inequality and the means by which
it is perpetuated, (see, for example, Brownmiller, 1976;
Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Radford et al, 2000), then
initiatives to challenge and prevent violence against women
must be located within broader initiatives to address
gender inequality. In 1998, a Canadian government report
noted that although "significant progress toward the
elimination of violence against women" had been made over
the previous 20 years, there was still a need for "the
development of policies that address the general issue of
women's inequality" (Status of Women Canada, 1998: 21). The
publication in the following year of a strategic framework
on violence against women reaffirms this commitment to
tackling gender inequality as a central component in
preventing violence against women. The principles of the
framework are simple and clear, the message is unequivocal
- "Living free of violence is a right, not a privilege.
Violence against women is a violation of human rights."
(F/P/T Status of Women Ministers, 1999).
Canadian policy on violence against women has been held
up as a model of good practice, beginning with the
establishment of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against
Women in 1991, and the subsequent publication of
Changing the Landscape - ending violence, achieving
equality in 1993. This report, which incorporated the
views of survivors, activists and policy makers, provided
clear evidence of the links between different forms of
violence, and between violence against women and other
aspects of gender inequality. Together with the
groundbreaking prevalence survey on violence against women
which was also published in 1993,
Changing the Landscape set an enviable baseline
against which to measure all subsequent policy and practice
developments (Hague, Kelly and Mullender, 2001).
Alongside the increased focus on policy development,
five research centres were established
31, with a remit to "promote, coordinate and communicate
the results of Canadian research about violence",
specifically violence against women (Health Canada, 1999:
6). Adopting a 'participatory action research model', what
the Canadian research centres have excelled at is
developing partnerships with policy makers and community
organisations. This approach has helped to ensure that
research is conducted which supports the development of
practice, which in turn supports the goal of preventing
violence against women. Working as an alliance, the centres
have avoided duplicating work, and have been able to share
good practice. For academic partners, membership of a
research centre has allowed them to maintain a focus on the
realities of frontline work, and to see the application of
research results. The opportunity to build relationships
with practitioners and policy makers has been seen as
positive, as has the opportunity to engage in
interdisciplinary projects. Frontline workers are able to
influence the research agenda, learn something about the
process of designing research, and "leave the crisis and
talk about ideas", an opportunity which should not be
undervalued (Health Canada, 1999: 15).
It would be reasonable to assume that these parallel
developments in policy and research would ensure that the
broad agenda on violence against women would be maintained,
but this does not appear to be the case. Most of the
research listed on the Health Canada website focuses
primarily on domestic violence, with little on other forms
of violence against women (Denham and Gillespie, 1998;
Hague, Kelly and Mullender, 2001). How far this is a
reflection of what is happening in practice is debatable
(Hague, Kelly and Mullender, 2001).
In England and Wales, an attempt to adopt a more
inclusive approach to policy on violence against women have
been made by the Home Office, with the publication of
Living without fear - an integrated approach to
tackling violence against women. The document
acknowledges that much work has already been developed in
response to domestic abuse, and recommends building on
existing partnerships in order to develop responses to
other aspects of violence against women (Home Office,
1999).
Although the report calls for an integrated approach to
violence against women, the format of the report maintains
distinctions between domestic abuse, sexual violence and
sexual harassment, and predictably, perhaps, focuses mostly
on domestic violence. The strongest focus on sexual
violence is to be found in the chapter on justice, although
even then, it is primarily in the area of statistics that
there appears to be more information available on sexual
offences than on domestic violence. This may be a
reflection of the difficulties of extracting domestic
violence related data from Home Office statistics at the
time.
It would seem that, even where there is willingness and
a degree of political and professional commitment, it is
hard for policy makers and researchers alike to maintain a
broad perspective on violence against women. This is also
reflected in the provision of services to women, with few
services, either voluntary or statutory, working from a
broad perspective. It would be easy to attribute this to
the greater prevalence of domestic abuse, and consequently
a greater demand for a response from the public sector.
Commenting on the "narrowing agenda" in Canadian public
policy, Hague et al note that there has been a distinct
move away from talking about and working to prevent 'woman
abuse' and towards a focus on 'family violence'. They
question whether this is in some way perceived as a 'safer'
position, and in relation to the research agenda "one in
which more marginal experiences and forms of violence
against women are seldom prioritized" (Hague, Mullender and
Kelly, 2001: 32).
Reviewing some of the Canadian initiatives confirms that
making the links between different forms of violence
against women makes sense, but requires considerable
commitment. Strategies which address violence against women
in all its forms must be monitored to ensure that they stay
focused on the 'bigger picture'. More than that, there
would appear to be a need to 'monitor the monitors', to
ensure that the agenda is not inadvertently narrowed.
The 'lens' through which the problem of violence against
women is viewed plays a part in how it is addressed. In
Canada, the health department leads on violence against
women. The Westminster initiative is located within the
Home Office Crime Reduction Programme. The recent
relocation of the Violence Against Women Unit into the
Equalities Unit ensures that the work of challenging
violence against women will be incorporated within a
broader framework for tackling gender inequality. Making
the links between different forms of violence against women
will hopefully remain a priority.
« Previous | Contents | Next »