Emergence of South Asian Women’s Organizations

There have been two main approaches to the issue of domestic violence – the family violence perspective and the feminist perspective. The family violence perspective was common until the 1970s. According to this viewpoint, domestic violence was considered to be an individual and private problem. It was believed to arise from personal character flaws in both men (those who suffered violent socialization, substance abuse, or lack of self-control) and women (those who possessed masochistic tendencies and were provocateurs). Additionally, DV was also believed to occur in conditions of external stress (unemployment, poverty, etc.). The notion that violence is learned and cyclical was central to this perspective.

The rise of the women’s movement in the 1970s challenged this prevailing understanding of DV, and in doing so, changed the perception of DV from a private problem to a social one. According to feminists, DV was not the result of individual character flaws; it was, instead, a reflection of traditional patriarchal structures that deemed women as unequal and inferior, reaffirmed the status of men, and kept women out of the public sphere. Furthermore, DV arose from the cultural acceptability, and even desirability, of male aggression, and the general acceptance of violence against women. This reframing of the DV issue led to the rise of shelters for women, increase in public awareness and support of battered women, and legislation to protect women.

The mainstream women’s movement, however, excluded the experiences of immigrant women and women from developing countries, and little attention was paid to the structural factors that legitimize violence in these groups. In response, women from the developing world started addressing women’s issues in their own countries in the 1980s. In addition to domestic violence, they also emphasized other forms of violence against women, such as female infanticide and dowry deaths. They too fought for legislation that would protect women, and their battle expanded to include women from the developing countries in the Western world.

The 1980s saw the rise of South Asian Women’s Organizations (SAWOs) in the US. Although South Asian organizations had previously existed in the US, they were mainly cultural, religious, and social in nature. Their leadership was dominated by men, and their activities reinforced the social and family structure of the home countries. Feeling that their unique needs and experiences were not addressed by either mainstream organizations or South Asian organizations, immigrant women founded the earliest SAWOs in the US.

To rectify the shortcomings of the mainstream women’s movement and the limitations of many South Asian organizations (and to better understand the role performed by SAWOs), Abraham proposes an ethno-gender framework. She suggests that it is insufficient to examine gender or ethnicity alone; the intersection of the two is an additional, and important, factor in the understanding of DV. [According to this perspective, gender refers not only to biological sex, but also includes expectations of appropriate role performances, attitudes, and behaviors. Similarly, ethnicity does not refer only to race or ethnic group membership, but also to the origins, history, language, and customs of these groups. Abraham emphasizes that gender and ethnicity are both social constructs, and as such, the expression of either (or both) depends on situational contexts.]

Abraham points out that SAWOs, by their very existence, testify to the importance of the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Next week, we shall discuss these organizations further.

[For more information, see: Abraham, M. (1995). Ethnicity, Gender, and Marital Violence: South Asian Women’s Organizations in the United States. Gender & Society, 9(4), 450-468].