MAITRI

Sexual abuse: Conclusion

2010-07-25T21:17:00.000-07:00

We’ve spent the last few weeks discussing the different forms of sexual abuse that SA immigrant women experience in their marriages – these include marital rape, control of reproductive rights, and using a sexual ‘other.’ But husbands may not be the only perpetrators; Abraham found that some women were doubly abused by their husbands and by other men. One woman was molested by her brother-in-law, and two other women were sexually harassed by friends that they were staying with upon leaving their abusive marriages. In the latter cases, while the men played the role of ‘protector and confidant,’ they also took advantage of the woman’s vulnerability and lack of outside support.

Many women experience sexual abuse in their marriages and their relationships, of course, but immigrant women are especially vulnerable. As Abraham notes, SA immigrant women look within their own community for assistance when they find themselves in an abusive relationship. This is both for reasons of cultural comfort (although the community has not, until recently, proven willing to face up to the issue of domestic violence) and due to their real or perceived experiences of ethnic and gender discrimination in US society. Abraham suggests that one way to help SA immigrant women who find themselves in sexually abusive relationships is to collect their stories to better understand and address the problem.

[For more information, see: Abraham, M. (2000). Sexual Abuse in South Asian Immigrant Marriages. Violence Against Women, 5(6), 612-618.]

The sexual ‘other’

2010-07-11T22:56:00.000-07:00

At the end of the last entry, we briefly mentioned that abusive husbands often have sexual affairs outside of their marriage with the sexual ‘other’ – this is the third kind of sexual abuse (the first two being marital rape and control of reproductive rights). This ‘other’ usually refers to ‘western’ women, who are portrayed as more sexually permissive and accessible than the SA wife. The ‘other’ woman can be a reality, or she can be a threat, which suggests to the wife that if she doesn’t fulfill the husband’s sexual expectations, he will seek his sexual pleasures elsewhere.

Abraham found that in cheating, or threatening to cheat, on their wives, abusive husbands drew on notions of SA sexuality (wherein tradition requires that wives meet their husband’s sexual needs) and Western sexuality (which connoted sexual adventurousness). Several women reported that their husbands made clear their intentions to cheat early in the marriage. One husband flew into a physical rage when his wife accidentally told his mistress that he was married. Another ignored his wife in favor of another woman, leaving her alone and isolated.

One wife described how her husband forced her to watch pornography and then demanded that she perform the same acts that she had seen. This is problematic in two ways – first, of course, there is the rape aspect of this demand; second, generally, pornography objectifies and is demeaning to women. Abraham reviews several studies which suggest that pornography normalizes perceptions of sexual behavior, which makes it harder for women to resist unwanted sexual acts.

There are many consequences to this kind of sexual abuse. Women who were the victim of this kind of abuse felt isolated, abandoned, and a loss of self-esteem Many felt sexually inadequate, and some felt as though they had failed in their role as a wife. Abraham points out that this pits women against the other – the rage that a woman might feel for her philandering husband is now directed against the ‘other woman.’ This kind of sexual competition further degrades women’s self-respect and allows men to remain in sexual control.

[For more information, see: Abraham, M. (2000). Sexual Abuse in South Asian Immigrant Marriages. Violence Against Women, 5(6), 607-612.]

Control of reproductive rights

2010-06-27T22:53:00.000-07:00

Closely related to marital rape, which we discussed last week, is another kind of sexual abuse – the control of a woman’s reproductive rights. In the introduction to the topic of sexual abuse, we had discussed how masculinity in SA cultures is defined largely by male virility and by control of women’s sexuality; this particular kind of sexual abuse involves both aspects of SA masculinity. Several of the women that Abraham interviewed had been forcibly impregnated (which indicates male virility) or forced to have an abortion (which indicates male control of women’s reproductivity).

One woman’s husband refused to use condoms when he raped her, forcing her to have 4 children in 5 years. In doing so, he characterized her as a maternal figure rather than a sexual one. The husband of another woman forced her to have abortions against her desire and religious convictions. In order to ensure that she would not have a baby, he violently battered her when she was pregnant – including punching her with thumbtacks. When, after 3 abortions, she chose to have a baby, he refused to participate in raising the child.

Many women reported that they had been physically battered when pregnant. This is not an uncommon finding – plenty of research suggests that the incidence of domestic violence increases during pregnancy. Several women also reported that their husbands had sexual affairs outside of the marriage (especially during their pregnancies) – a topic we’ll cover more next week.

[For more information, see: Abraham, M. (2000). Sexual Abuse in South Asian Immigrant Marriages. Violence Against Women, 5(6), 605-607.]

Marital rape

2010-06-20T23:04:00.000-07:00

In last week’s blog entry, we discussed the three kinds of sexual abuse that immigrant SA women experience. Let’s focus on the first kind today – marital rape. What are the cultural conditions that lead to this kind of sexual abuse?

Abraham points out that the concept of marital rape in generally absent in SA cultures*. Rinita Mazumdar, a professor who has written about marital rape issues, argues that there are 3 reasons why this is the case – (a) marriage obligates women to fulfill her husband’s needs, irrespective of her own wishes; (b) marriage obligates women to produce children, so she is expected to accept any steps that the husband takes to ensure this outcome; and (c) as a result of marriage, the woman has become her husband’s property, so he is free to treat her as he sees fit. All of these reasons can be, and are, used to justify marital rape.

In SA culture, men are taught to take charge of the sexual interaction. They are socialized to believe that their sexual needs will be met within a marriage, and there is no expectation that women’s needs will be considered or fulfilled. Women, on the other hand, are socialized to fulfill their husband’s desires, even to the detriment of their preferences or desires. They are taught that it is their uncomplaining and undemanding acquiescence that keeps marriages and families together. They are silenced, therefore, by their husbands and by the larger social culture.

Most women have had little experience of sex at the time of marriage; they may only have vague expectations of intimacy based on gauzy ‘suhaag raat’ or honeymoon scenes from the movies. Of the women that Abraham interviewed, 60% reported experiences of marital rape. Often, the sexual abuse began the night of the wedding itself. Men perceived the woman’s quietness or lack of desire for ‘shyness,’ and when the wife said ‘no,’ she was ignored and instead encouraged to ‘open up.’ Furthermore, she was afraid to turn down his advances, in case this aroused the anger of her husband. The women reported little intimacy or closeness with their partner.

Another woman’s experiences suggested that marital rape can also be a punitive mechanism – she reported that she was often raped in retaliation for the fact that she was employed while her husband was not. He appeared to be particularly enraged by her potential access to other suitors, and raped her in order to re-assert sexual control.

In addition to the fear of constant sexual abuse within their marriages, the women were further afraid of enraging their husbands by refusing sex, since they were fearful of calling the police (due to concerns about discrimination) and worried about putting their immigrant status into jeopardy. Essentially, immigrant women who experience sexual abuse within their marriages are doubly entrapped by their traditional culture and by experiences of discrimination in the US.

*Since this article was written, marital rape laws have been passed in Nepal and India.

[For more information, see: Abraham, M. (2000). Sexual Abuse in South Asian Immigrant Marriages. Violence Against Women, 5(6), 598-605.]

Sexual abuse: Social norms

2010-06-13T22:57:00.000-07:00

One aspect of DV that we know little about in SA culture is sexual abuse. The women who call Maitri seeking help rarely identify, and sometimes do not even recognize, sexual forms of violence as part of their DV experience. (Most of them call primarily when they experience physical or emotional abuse). In order to understand why this is the case, Margaret Abraham argues that it is necessary to explore the nature of femininity, masculinity, and sexuality in South Asian cultures, since these norms are transferred to and retained upon immigration to a new country.

In general, anthropologists have observed that SA culture and mythology view women as sexually alluring and powerful beings. This is illustrated in the concept of Shakti, or feminine life force, and in the existence of goddesses such as Kali, who represent female power. In reality, however, women in SA are expected to be submissive, docile, and dependent. Their virginity and chastity are monitored and protected until and during marriage to ensure family honor and the purity of the family lineage. Any sexual transgressions jeopardize the woman’s own standing in society.

Masculinity is constructed largely in terms of virility. Men are socialized to believe that men are sexually aggressive and that women are sexually fulfilling, and that their sexual needs can and will be met within a marriage. This leads them to assume that they have sexual access at all times. (This expectation is supported by many legal, religious and social norms). Another aspect of masculinity is the control of women’s sexuality, since men – fathers, husbands – are held responsible for the sexual purity of their women.

These notions of masculinity and femininity are widely portrayed in the mass media (movies and TV soap operas, for instance), and there is little access to information to counter these gender expectations. There is also limited discussion about sex, and few places to get information about it.

To explore how these norms transferred to the US, and to understand their role in DV, Abraham interviewed 25 immigrant women from South Asia (mainly from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) about their experiences of marital abuse. She focuses on three kinds of sexual abuse and control – (a) marital rape and sexual assault, (b) manipulation of reproductive rights, and (c) construction of a sexual ‘other.’

Over the next few weeks, we’ll talk more about these forms of sexual abuse.

[For more information, see: Abraham, M. (2000). Sexual Abuse in South Asian Immigrant Marriages. Violence Against Women, 5(6), 591-598.]

The ‘model’ minority

2010-05-30T22:03:00.000-07:00

The work of Shamita Das Dasgupta, an iconic figure within the anti-DV world, has been described previously on this blog. In this article, she introduces a special issue of the journal Violence Against Women, which focuses violence against SA women.

She begins by describing the first major wave of South Asian immigrants who came to the US in 1965 as a result of eased immigration regulations. These immigrants were a largely homogeneous group of educated and technically trained individuals. Soon after arriving, they established themselves as an economically and socially successful community, and earned the ‘model minority’ moniker. Preoccupied with living up to this title, these immigrants suppressed all problems within the community, such as substance abuse, violence, and unemployment.

This picture changed over the next two decades. The nature of the SA immigrant community grew more heterogeneous due to the arrival of family members, small business owners, and refugees. Dasgupta reports that the first wave of immigrants was disdainful of the less financially established newcomers. When problems did arise, they quickly blamed any problems within the SA community on the later, ‘other’ immigrants, or they held pathological individuals responsible.

The first major DV related incident in the community occurred in 1981, when a young mother murdered her husband after years of intolerable abuse. The SA community was quick to dissociate themselves from her, and the woman found herself without any support or assistance from her community. It was in response to this shameful episode that the first anti-DV voices within the SA community spoke up.

In the following weeks, we shall discuss several articles about issues pertinent to DV in our community. Since, as Dasgupta says, “Neither the vociferous denial of the community nor the indifferent marginalization of the larger society can invalidate the distinct voices of SA women…”, all of these articles share two features – first, a recognition of the unique and distinct identity of SA women, and second, a recognition of the reality of their experiences.

[For more information, see: Dasgupta, S. D. (2000). Guest Editor’s Introduction. Violence Against Women, 5(6), 587-590.]

International response to DV

2010-05-16T21:20:00.000-07:00

Here are the stories of two women – one, a young immigrant Indian woman in the US, and the other, a woman in Bangladesh; both are in abusive relationships that they would like to leave, but both are let down, variously, by the laws of the country they live in. In Bangladesh, there is a lack of legislation and legal structure that even addresses the issue of DV. The US does have anti-DV legislation, but it is not comprehensive enough to protect victims of DV adequately.

Since individual countries cannot or do not live up to the responsibility of protecting its citizens, Zakia Afrin, a professor of law (and legal consultant for Maitri!), argues that we need to have a globally binding framework that will protect the rights of women who are victims of DV.

Until recently, women’s rights were considered to be covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” It was only in 1993 that the UN General Assembly specifically addressed the issue of women’s rights in the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. Adoption of this resolution obliges states to combat violence against women, and prohibits states from invoking any custom, tradition, or religious consideration in order to avoid that obligation.

In 1999, the UN General Assembly further adopted the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which requires signatories to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women, such as incorporating gender equality into existing legal systems. (The US has not signed this treaty).

It was only in 2006 that the UN Secretary General’s office recognized that “the most common form of violence experienced by women globally is intimate partner violence, sometimes leading to death” and recommended that the “United Nations should take a stronger, better coordinated and more visible leadership role to address violence against women.”

In spite of these increasingly strongly worded statements from the UN, however, Afrin points out there has been no law that explicitly prohibits domestic violence, and only 44 countries have adopted legislation condemning DV. Some observers view this as a failure of the global approach. They argue that international treaties cannot overcome local attitudes towards women, and suggest that DV has to be tackled at the local level. Afrin counters this argument by proposing that international treaties, in fact, have not gone far enough. She shows that such treaties and resolutions can be and have been used to mobilize support for women’s rights at the local level; she suggests that formally recognizing DV as a human rights violation provides a much needed moral force to these movements.

[For more information, see: Afrin, Z. (2010). Domestic Violence and the Need for an International Legal Response. In M. K. Sinha (Ed.), International Criminal Law and Human Rights (359-373). New Delhi, India: Manak Publications.]

Facts about DV

2010-05-09T18:41:00.000-07:00

First, let’s begin with some statistics about the Asian population in the US:
• 31% of domestic violence homicides from 1993 – 1997 in California’s Santa Clara County were Asian, although Asians comprised only 17.5% of the county’s population.
• Studies variously report that between 10% and 50% Asian and Pacific Islander women report experiencing stalking, or attempted or completed physical assault or rape, by an intimate partner.
These figures are lower than the corresponding reports by women of other ethnicities, but it appears highly likely that this is a result of under-reporting.

• Although nearly all Asian and Pacific Islander women agree that rape is a serious problem in society, 1 in 5 believes that “rape does not happen between two people who are in a relationship.”

And now, let’s look specifically at statistics about the South Asian population in the US:
• Between 20% and 40% of SA women reported physical or sexual violence by their partner.
• Nearly 1 in 6 SA women reported injuries so severe that they required medical services.
• Nearly 1 in 15 SA women experienced abuse by their in-laws. Where there was intimate partner violence, the figure rose to 1 in 6.
• 11.3% of SA women reported seeking counseling support services for DV.
• 3.1% sought a restraining order, which is substantially lower compared to women of other ethnicities.
There appears to be no significant difference between women who have had arranged and ‘love’ marriages.

SA women, when compared to:
• women from many other Asian communities (Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodian), were much more likely to feel that DV was not something to be suffered in silence, and much more likely to support an abused woman calling a friend or the police for help.
• Hispanic and African-American women, were much more likely to disclose DV to a family member (usually the father or brother). Having done so, however, they were much more likely to be advised “to stay in the marriage.”

• Compared to SA women who had not experienced DV, SA women who had experienced DV were much more likely to report poor physical health, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. They were also more likely to report discolored vaginal discharge, burning during urination, and unwanted pregnancies, all of which indicate the presence of marital rape and sexual violence.

[All figures from Facts & Stats: Domestic Violence in Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Homes by Mieko Yoshihama, Ph.D. and Chic Dabby. Report issued by Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence and APIA Health Forum, September 2009]

Working with children exposed to DV

2010-05-02T18:17:00.000-07:00

Here’s the concluding entry of our 3-part series on children and DV. Over the last two blog entries, we’ve discussed what it means for children to be exposed to DV, and what the effects of such exposure are. How can we use this knowledge to working with children who’ve witnessed DV?

Here are a few simple things you can do:
• Leave your assumptions at the door: As we’ve seen, children respond to DV in a variety of ways – some are aggressive, some are withdrawn, and some may not show any effects at all – so don’t have any expectations about how the children will behave. Don’t get impatient or frustrated when things don’t go the way you expect them to.
• Ask the child what feels comfortable or uncomfortable: To begin healing, children need a safe place with an adult they can trust. Try to modulate your voice or body language to suit the child – specifically, be wary about how loud you are or how much physical contact you have.
• Let them take their time opening up to you: Trust is a major factor when working with children exposed to domestic violence. Many children don’t want to talk about their experiences; let them be until they’re ready.
• Listen to them with respect: When they do start talking, let them know that someone cares, and that you are interested in their stories, ideas, and opinions. Listen to what they have to say with a neutral ear and open heart – don’t make judgments about the child or his or her parents.
• Use books, games, art, etc. to get them to open up: Children may need other ways to express their feelings when they are unable to process their experiences verbally. Using other forms of media can also be therapeutic. Here are some drawings done by children who have stayed in Maitri’s transitional home...

This is by a 4-year old resident of the home, who drew this flower to decorate her new room:

This one was drawn by a 9-year old resident, who's being greeted by the transition home coordinator upon her arrival at the home with her suitcase:

A 10-year old resident drew this picture of herself going out with her volunteer mentor:

This self-affirming drawing is by a 8-year old at her first Art Therapy session:

Effects of DV on children

2010-04-18T18:21:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago we introduced and defined what “exposure to DV” meant to children. This week, let’s have a look at the effects of that exposure.

Some of the common symptoms that children exposed to DV show include:
• Aggression: towards parents, siblings, classmates, etc.
• Sleep difficulties: such as difficulty falling and staying asleep, nightmares, sleep-wetting, etc.
• Anxiety: which can be specific (such as fear of abandonment) or general (diffuse, without particular cause)
• Stress-related ailments: such as headaches, stomachaches, rashes, etc.
• Developmental regression: in terms of toilet training, cognitive and language development
• Increased distractibility, withdrawal, or apathy, all of which can lead to -->
• Difficulties in school
• Deterioration in parent-child relationship
• [Also, there can be long-term problems: including, but not limited to, higher levels of adult depression and trauma symptoms, increased tolerance for and use of violence in adult relationships]

Children, of course, don’t necessarily recognize that their headaches or nightmares are a result of their exposure to DV. They experience DV in a different way. They often suffer from:
• Chronic worries: that the adults they depend on can’t take care of the family
• Embarrassment or shame: They may believe that they were responsible for it; and they may feel shameful, especially if they were warned not to talk about the DV to others
• “Parentification”: refers to children who ‘grow up too fast’ because they end up raising younger siblings or protecting parents
• Ambivalence towards parents: since children might feel anger (towards the father for perpetrating the violence, towards the mother for not fighting back), guilt (for not doing enough to stop the violence), fear (that they will be abused or abandoned), worry (whether they are still loved), etc. They may feel a preference for one parent over another, and then may feel guilty for ‘choosing.’ This ambivalence can get further compounded by parents who use their children as a bargaining chip or threat.

Are all children equally affected? Not quite. Children have a wide range of reactions to exposure to DV; sometimes the effects are clear, and sometimes they are subtle. Not all children are completely traumatized. Generally speaking, the children who are most affected are those who are:
• younger, since they are less able to make sense of the events
• exposed to DV frequently, and over a period of time
• from families that have other risk factors such as poverty, substance abuse, and mental health problems
• not protected by their parents
• not supported by other caring adults in their lives, including family members and teachers
Girls and boys tend to be equally affected, although they express their symptoms differently – the former internalize (depression, anxiety, isolation), while the latter externalize (aggression, acting out).

In next week’s (final) installment on this topic, we’ll look at how to use this information to work with children who’ve been exposed to DV.

Note: If the information in this blog entry looks a lot like a PowerPoint presentation, it’s because it is from one! A few weeks ago, I had a chance to talk about this topic with a group of people who were attempting to start a program for children who had been exposed to DV. The entries from last week, this week, and next week are all adapted from that presentation.

Children and DV

2010-04-04T23:08:00.000-07:00

The emphasis of this blog is clearly on DV in the South Asian population. But there are some aspects of DV that have been widely studied in the larger community (the effect of DV on children, for instance) that we don't know enough about in the SA community. So this entry (and the next) is going to be an exception to the SA-focused norm, because I believe it would be instructive to understand these topics so that we may apply those lessons to working with children in the SA community.

To begin with, how many children are affected by domestic violence? Many. Clinical workers have found that half of all women who are victims of DV have children under the age of 12.

Before we launch into a discussion of specific effects of DV exposure on children, here are 3 important things to remember about children and DV -

1. DV is generally considered the most toxic form of violence: Compared to, say, community violence. This is because when there is violence outside the home, parents perform the role of emotional protectors, buffering the children from outside violence. When there is violence inside the home, however, children have no protection or buffering from the violence.

2. Being a witness to DV can affect a child as severely as direct violence: Most people assume that being a victim of violence is worse than being a witness to violence. But children who are witnesses have the same kind of symptoms, and show them for the same duration, as those children who are direct victims.

3. Finally, there is no age at which a child is immune to the effects of DV: It appears to affect younger children more than older children, but at no age does a child escape the effects of DV exposure. Clinical workers have found that even infants are attuned to violence in the home - they have eating and sleeping disturbances, and cry harder when their caregiver moves away from them.

But what do we mean by exposure to DV? Have a look at this figure:

In this pyramid, as you can see, from the bottom to the top of the pyramid, the severity of the violence increases, and the number of children exposed to that particular form of violence decreases.

The presence of marital conflict, yelling and shouting is normative in many families and does not necessarily indicate the presence of violence in the family. But the next level, which includes verbal threats and intimidation, crosses the boundary into domestic violence. Many parents mistakenly conclude that children must only be protected from physical violence, but children are highly attuned to this verbal form of violence, and can start showing the symptoms of exposure to DV. Children are most harmed by, and require the most help for, exposure to the highest levels of violence, which involve physical violence, and serious or fatal injuries.

This was an overview of the topic of children and DV; next week, we'll get more specific - what is the impact of DV exposure on children?

Books [sort of] about DV in the SA community

2010-03-21T20:33:00.000-07:00

Although the following books are not specifically about DV, they all chronicle the experiences of south Asian women in the US, and in doing so, they touch upon issues related to DV. The last two books are mainly about migration, but they nevertheless inform and enlighten readers about the experiences of immigrant Asian women.

This book of essays, also edited by Dasgupta, includes women writers from many SA countries, and they write about a wide variety of topics such as cultural and sexual identity, domestic violence and sexual abuse, and family structures.

This edited collection of essays, fiction, and poetry spans a number of topics – sexual identity, incest, abuse, multiple marriages. The pieces were written by first- and second-generation immigrants from many south Asian countries (including Afghanistan and Burma).

A collection of essays which helps us better understand experiences of SA women, about marriage, divorce, and remarriage, among other things.

This is a general book
about immigration, with an emphasis on the gendered experiences of female immigrants (for instance, on moving from a patriarchal to a more egalitarian society).

Using a gender-based perspective, this book focuses on the impact of migration on marriage, family relationships, and community networks.

These books, in addition to the ones we covered last week, promise to be useful to researchers, activists, advocates, and individuals working in policy and practice. Are there other books that you recommend?

Books about DV in the SA community

2010-03-14T20:14:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, we rounded up some video resources about DV in the SA community. For readers who would like to develop a more in-depth understanding of the issue, here’s a round-up of books about the topic. The following books have been written, collected, and edited by noted figures in the SA community working towards ending DV. The brief descriptions of each book do not exhaustively detail their contents; each description only includes the book’s unique contribution to the discussion. [Clicking on any of the links will lead you to the book's Amazon page]

Margaret Abraham is a prominent writer about DV issues in the SA community, and we’ve discussed her work on this blog several times. Her book covers a range of topics – women’s experiences of DV, barriers to assistance, the rise of South Asian Women’s Organizations, and SA activism. Abraham attempts to place survivor stories within larger social and cultural contexts.

This collection of essays was edited by Shamita Das Dasgupta, an activist well known in south Asian DV circles (we’ve discussed her work previously on this blog). Some of the included topics are the denial of DV in the SA community, expectations about women’s roles and sexuality, and a description of how legal and immigration systems can hinder the ability of a woman to leave an abusive marriage.

This resource-rich anthology, edited by Sandhya Nankani, brings together the voices of community activists, scholars, artists, and survivors. Reviewers suggest that the book adds greatly to our “understanding of prevention, treatment, research, and advocacy issues” with respect to DV, and laud the inclusion of art and poetry.

The authors of this book attempt to go beyond the cases that make headlines – forced marriages, honor killings – and explore the roots of gendered violence in SA communities. They focus specifically on the importance of religion and culture, and draw together debates in research, policy, and practice, with an eye toward policy recommendations.

We'll stop here for now, but there's more to come next week!

SAWO Goals & Strategies

2010-02-28T12:29:00.000-08:00

South Asian Women’s Organizations generally have three goals – organizing SA women, ending domestic violence in the SA community, and community education. Although agencies may primarily emphasize one of these goals, the three goals are, in fact, highly interlinked.

Organizing: As pointed out previously on this blog, SA women had been marginalized both by mainstream women’s organizations and by SA organizations in the US. SAWOs believe that bringing women together and providing a space in which their experiences are heard and valued empowers SA women to fight for issues that are of importance to them (such as immigration reform or social services).

Ending domestic violence: An important goal of many SAWOs is ending DV in the community, and they attempt to address the problem at the macro- and micro-level. At the macro-level, they have tackled the problem at three levels – legislation, legal enforcement, and legal assistance. At the legislative level, for instance, by joining coalitions that fight for immigrant and women’s rights, SAWOs have been instrumental in getting laws like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed; this allows, under certain circumstances, abused women to apply for their own residency. SAWO members have also worked with law enforcement officials, such as police officers and legal professionals, to help them better respond to SA women in need. This involves cultural sensitivity training, combating stereotypes, and increasing awareness of the nuances of SA marriages (explaining arranged marriage, dowry, etc.). In court, SAWO members occasionally function as expert witnesses on SA culture or act as neutral interpreters. Finally, SAWOs often provide legal assistance by helping clients find lawyers or by finding other ways to find and pay for legal advice. [It must be noted that they often conduct similar workshops or perform similar roles with medical professionals too, to help them better meet the medical needs of abused SA women.]

At the micro-level, SAWOs have helped victims of DV by managing hotlines, organizing support groups, and providing emergency housing and financial assistance. SAWO members (often volunteers) work directly with women in need – they help them find lawyers and doctors, and earn or convert educational qualifications. They assist clients in finding job training and helping them in the job search, and they provide information, informal counseling, and legal advocacy. In this hands-on manner, SAWOs have helped many thousands of women over the years and contributed to ending DV in their community.

Community Education: In addition to working with other agencies and providers, and working directly with clients, SAWOs work within their communities to increase awareness of women’s rights and domestic violence. They set up informational booths at community events, organize talks at schools, workplaces, and religious centers, and publicize their work and mission in the local media. Their activities have urged the SA community to recognize DV as a real problem that exists within their community.

It is clear that SAWOs fill a unique and important space in the community by serving the unique needs of SA immigrant women. In a variety of ways, these organizations empower SA women, contribute to the SA community, and play a role in the larger movement to end DV.

[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].

SAWO Ideology & Structure

2010-02-21T22:54:00.000-08:00

Last week, we covered the beginnings of the South Asian Women's Movement (SAWO) movement in the US. This week, we shall explore the driving ideology and structure of these organizations, and next week, we shall explore their goals and operational strategies.

Abraham, who has conducted extensive research on DV in the SA community, used a variety of methods to explore SAWO ideology and structure (interviews, surveys, participant observation, secondary sources, etc.) but based her article mainly on data gathered from six SAWOs (one of which was Maitri!). Among the questions she was interested in answering about SAWOs were – Why were these organizations created? How do they differ from other mainstream organizations? What roles do they play in shifting domestic violence from a private problem to a public social issue?

She found that SAWOs have 3 different kinds of guiding ideologies and structures. Many agencies were guided by a value-oriented ideology, or a core set of values; for instance, some agencies (including Maitri) were driven by feminist ideals. Their unit of emphasis was the individual woman, and their goal was to empower women and enable them to lead self-reliant lives. This involved challenging the culture of male dominance and pushing for social change. The organizational structure of such SAWOs tended to be non-hierarchical and volunteer-staffed, and they generally did not seek state-funding, in order not to compromise their values. They were, nevertheless, well-connected to other community agencies that shared common goals.

Some other agencies had a diffused ideology, in which the goal was to protect women and children (by way of, for example, ensuring economic equality or legal protection for women). Here, the unit of emphasis was the family, and as such, they drew on elements of both feminist and family violence ideology (which we discussed last week). These agencies tended to be more structured, involving paid employees and boards, and often relied on state funding sources.

Finally, some agencies had no particular ideology (unspecified) – their goal was simply to help people in need, without necessarily adhering to any set of explicitly identified values. Their structure, staffing, and funding varied depending on the people in charge of the organization, and the services they provided, at a given time.

Abraham found that although the agencies differed somewhat in ideology, they all shared an underlying commitment to helping South Asian women, especially those who were victims of DV. Although many of the SAWOs had strong connections with other community-based organizations, they differed from mainstream organizations in their emphasis on cultural factors and understanding of immigration issues.

Note: The data reported in this study was gathered between 1990 and 1993, so please keep in mind that these organizations may have undergone a significant degree of change (Maitri certainly has), and that many more SAWOs have come up since then.

[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].

Emergence of South Asian Women’s Organizations

2010-02-14T13:39:00.000-08:00

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].

Why does Maitri work mostly with immigrant women?

2010-02-07T16:54:00.000-08:00

Mainly because immigrant women have an especially high risk of being in an abusive relationship, and are also least likely to know what to do about it.

Researchers Raj and Silverman (2003) recruited 160 participants for a study about women’s health in the greater Boston area. The majority of the participants were of Indian origin, but the sample also included women of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, and Nepalese origin, and included those who were US-born and foreign-born. The women were generally well-educated (nearly half had post-graduate degrees).

Of the entire sample, 40% of the women reported violence, but only half the women reported some awareness of services that could help them. Participants who had low social support (or high social isolation) in the US, and especially those who lacked family – factors common to many immigrant women – were significantly more likely to report injury from partner violence. The situation was particularly acute for women who were not born in the US, who were almost four times as likely to report injury as a result of partner violence, and only half as likely to be aware of appropriate services, as women who were born in the US.

As we’ve established in earlier blog entries, minority and immigrant women have generally been underserved by mainstream services and shelters for a variety of reasons (lack of resources, lack of cultural understanding). Minority and immigrant women, for the most part, have also not approached mainstream services and shelters for a number of reasons (lack of knowledge of existing options, perceived or experienced racism). It is this cultural gap that has given rise to targeted anti-DV agencies such as Maitri, which aim to narrow the gap by providing services to underserved minority and immigrant women, and by educating mainstream agencies about the unique needs of these populations.

The above findings suggest that South Asian immigrant women are not only at very high risk for domestic violence, but they are also at risk for not knowing what they can do about it. Organizations like Maitri can help meet their needs.

[For more information, see: Raj, A. & Silverman, J. G. (2003). Immigrant South Asian Women at Greater Risk for Injury from Intimate Partner Violence. American Journal of Public Health, 93(3), 435-437].

DV in the media

2010-01-31T22:01:00.001-08:00

The internet is filled with many useful resources for organizations that work towards the prevention of DV. For many of these organizations, such as our own, education about DV is an important part of what we do. For instance, we work with local police departments, the District Attorney’s office, and mainstream organizations to help them better serve the needs of South Asian victims and clients. If you would like to spread the message about DV, here are some useful resources for you too.

Maitri works primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area, but we have many sister organizations across the country working towards the prevention of DV. Here's a Public Service Announcement by Chaya, which is based in Seattle, and another by AWAZ – Voices Against Violence, which is based in the Los Angeles area. This video short, which is similar in content to the two clips above, was created for an organization in New Delhi, India, and urges women not to suffer in silence.

Last week, readers were reminded that DV does not only occur between intimate partners, and the following video is an example of this. Amira’s Story (parts 1 & 2) is about a woman who was abused as a child by her mother. In describing her experience, she raises many themes that we have covered on this blog, such as notions of shame, ‘saving face’ and denial. The video concludes with a brief description of the effects of DV on children.

Mann ke Manjeere, an inspiring and award-winning music video with vocals by Shubha Mudgal, was credited with increasing awareness of DV in India. You need only to look up this clip on youtube to see how many people have been moved to respond with stories of abuse and courage.

Readers, we hope you feel inspired to share these clips with others! (And if you know of any other video resources that should be included, do include them in your comments).

DV in the news

2010-01-24T22:10:00.000-08:00

Over the last few weeks, we have covered many aspects of domestic violence in the South Asian community, including the different forms of DV, the influence of social, cultural, and religious factors, and the role of community-based organizations. What do these add up to the in real world? This week, let’s have a look at some recent news reports about the issue, many of which involve the South Asian diaspora.

While much of the writing in this blog has focused on intimate partner violence, it is important to remember that domestic violence refers to any kind of violence between close family members. Three articles illustrate this:

The first story is from the UK, about a woman who was attacked and left to bleed to death on the street. Much remains unknown about this story; while some suspect that her death was the result of an ‘honor killing’ by her family (for marrying someone against their wishes), others suspect that her husband had a part to play in her death (since, at the time of death, she was trying to get a divorce from him). The next is a news report about an Oregon father who killed his wife, son, and then himself in a murder-suicide, and finally, an article about an Illinois man who set his two young sons on fire.

The next two articles are about different kinds of abuse – not necessarily involving physical or other forms of overt violence, such as those linked to above, but involving issues of coercion, isolation, and abandonment. One is about coerced marriages, and the other is an investigation involving Indian brides abandoned by British husbands.

To conclude on a heartening note, here's an article about the efforts made by the United Nations to end violence against women, which includes the following quote:

"You are a weak man if you use your physical superiority to assault and brutalize women. I will continue fighting until the end of my days for the right of women and girls to live a life free from violence and abuse."
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate

Anti-DV agencies in the SA community

2010-01-10T11:58:00.000-08:00

We’ve spent the last few weeks discussing the specifics of DV in the SA community – the different forms that DV takes, the impact of cultural and religious factors, and the experiences of women and youth. Much of what we know about DV is based on the work done by anti-DV agencies in combating the problem in their communities. This week’s discussion is about the past, present and future of these agencies in the SA community.

Merchant, a professor of social work, begins by emphasizing the fact that domestic violence is not an individual problem, but a social and political one. It is a problem that occurs in all groups, irrespective of ethnic, socio-economic, educational or cultural background. South Asian researchers have noted, however, that Western feminists and agencies have marginalized and underserved minority women, and especially immigrant women. They have found that agencies that serve abused women are either unaware of or unable to address the “structural and cultural factors that legitimate domestic violence” (p. 250) in SA groups.

Historically, most South Asians in the US were immigrants and, as such, were more closely aligned with the values and beliefs of their homeland (arranged marriages, importance of the family unit, traditional gender roles, belief in destiny, etc.), and they were generally unlikely to seek help unless there was extreme DV or harm to children involved. But when they did seek help, they found that mainstream agencies did not meet their needs or understand their circumstances. As a result, South Asian immigrant women were compelled to address DV within their own communities. They located these agencies in areas that had concentrations of South Asians, and were staffed by those who spoke SA languages. Cultural traditions that were met with skepticism or disbelief in mainstream agencies were met with understanding in these agencies.

Merchant explores the extent and scope of the support available from these community-based anti-DV agencies. The findings are based on the responses provided by twelve SA-focused agencies which work in the field of DV prevention, education, or advocacy. The agencies were generally located in areas which had large SA populations, and had many features in common – the organization was non-hierarchical, activities and services were largely volunteer-driven, and they depended on community support by professionals (doctors, lawyers, psychologists, etc.). The agencies provided a range of services – most provided counseling services, support groups, and crisis interventions, but only a handful maintained a hotline or shelter. In addition to these basic services, agencies also occasionally addressed other issues, such as immigration and substance abuse, and provided additional services such as translations or literacy classes. The budgets for the agencies came largely from private donations and fundraising events; only a few had applied for state and federal funds. Merchant found, in other words, that the agencies operated quite differently from mainstream agencies, which employed a hired workforce and trained professionals, and utilized state resources.

The agencies reported serving an increasing number of clients every year; they attributed this to their increased presence at community events and on the Internet, and to their involvement in local activities such as literacy classes and activity groups. Some groups had worked with local police departments to increase cultural sensitivity to SA women who make distress calls. Most agencies did not record or report demographic details or other information about the clients. Some of the larger agencies were working towards immigration reform to offer greater legal protections to women who had arrived as dependents on their husband’s visa.

The agencies were almost entirely staffed by women of SA origin, and several agencies felt that the clients were best served by someone from their own ethnic or cultural group. Although some agencies recognized the need for formal monitoring and evaluation systems, only a few agencies had such systems in place; most depended on informal measures of their performance (e.g., client perceptions) and some conducted no kind of follow-up at all.

Merchant concludes by recognizing the crucial role that SA-focused agencies play in combating DV in their communities by providing services that are culturally sensitive and appropriate. In spite of their valuable services, however, finances were often a concern for the agencies, and many were beginning to apply for state funds. In tapping into mainstream resources, agencies were forced to face the challenge of balancing their volunteer- and community needs-driven beginnings with a more organized administrative structure. Merchant believes that finding this balance is crucial to the future and growth of the agencies.

[For more information, see: Merchant, M. (2000). A Comparative Study of Agencies Assisting Domestic Violence Victims: Does the South Asian Community Have Special Needs? Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 249-259.]

DV in the SA Muslim community

2010-01-03T12:39:00.000-08:00

Last week, we focused on the influence of religious culture on the lives of Muslim victims of DV. This week, we shall explore how their experiences of DV are further complicated by certain aspects of South Asian culture.

Ayyub describes how, even though South Asia is made up of a number of different cultural and ethnic groups, each with their own distinct histories, customs, and languages, many of them share a highly patriarchal and hierarchical structure. Within a family, men and the elderly have the highest status, and women and the young have the lowest status (so a new bride who has just entered the household would find herself with the least power of any member of the family). Many SA cultures resist the development of an individual identity. An individual is primarily defined by their family relationships (parent, child, sibling), and individual needs and desires are subsumed by the interests of the larger family unit.

Traditionally, in SA cultures, there is a strong social emphasis on marriage. Parents may feel pressured to get their daughters, whom they raise to be modest and dependent, married off as soon as possible, since there is little tolerance of a single, independent, working woman. In Islam, a single woman is perceived to lead to fitna or social disorder. [Ayyub has noted that parents seek to marry off girls that they perceive to be too independent, often on trips to the home country]. A woman’s role is to be a good wife and mother, and remain dependent on her husband or other men in the family. Notions of shame and honor are magnified to maintain the patriarchal family structure. A woman who fulfills her prescribed role brings honor to the family; conversely, a woman who does not – such as a single or divorced woman, or a lesbian – brings shame to the family. In other words, women, who have the least power and status in the family, bear the responsibility for maintaining a happy family.

Women adhered to the traditional structure when they had few other options and when they did not have access to information or resources. Upon arriving in the US, however, many found themselves in a more egalitarian society in which husbands shared power with wives, where independence was encouraged, and individuality was valued. In many cases, their husbands tried to recreate the patriarchal family structure, but women who found that they could choose to work, access information, services and resources, and stand on their own feet, resisted reverting to the old structure. This transition appears to be hard on male immigrants: Ayyub finds that only a minority of DV cases involve an external cause (such as adultery, alcoholism or drug use); the majority of cases involve the unwillingness of the male partner to share power and control.

Both Islamic religious culture (discussed last week) and SA social culture (discussed above) are, to some extent, distal factors. But families of origin, which embody religious and social culture, have a more immediate impact on women.

Ayyub observes that victims of DV tend to idealize their family of origin. Even though the women recognize that they come from patriarchal societies, and many recall abusive family relationships, they remember their parents as protective and generous, and their home as one filled with love. They remember their parents as encouraging them to have a decent education (even if, in fact, the parents were doing so in order to improve their marriage prospects). These romanticized memories ill-prepare women to address the abuse that they experience.

The reality, however, is less attractive. Many parents, having invested a great deal of time and money in their daughter’s education and on her wedding, are loath to see the marriage end. Many daughters report that they feel a sense of obligation to their parents, and are reluctant to let down the parents who have been such supportive providers and have sacrificed so much for her happiness. Women are socialized to believe that they will bring shame on the family if they do not maintain their marriage, even when there is abuse. This belief is so strongly held that when the parents urge a woman to remain in a violent marriage, their involvement is considered helpful rather than abusive.
_________________________________________________________

Ayyub offers several suggestions to end domestic violence in the Muslim SA community. At the family level, she recommends that parents raise their children, both male and female, to be independent, self-aware, and free of social constraints. She suggests questioning the belief that a marriage must be saved at all costs, and urges parents not to oppress their daughters further by compelling them to stay in an abusive marriage. At the community level, she proposes that SA Muslims accept that DV is a real problem. Mental health professionals can educate the community about the effects of DV on the family, and can provide information on resources and support services that can be accessed by victims of DV. At the religious level, she recommends clarification of rules and regulations regarding marriage and divorce, and suggests that religious and community leaders take a strong and unequivocal stand against violence towards women.

[For more information, see: Ayyub, R. (2000). Domestic Violence in the South Asian Muslim Immigrant Population in the United States. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 237-248.]

DV in the SA Muslim community

2009-12-27T12:07:00.000-08:00

The role of religion in DV situations has been previously described in this blog. A previous entry on the topic (see the entry dated November 22, 2009) discussed whether religion could ever be used to justify violence against women, and the author concluded that there was nothing in the religious texts that offered such a justification. Religion, however, is not always lived according to the texts; often, it is a deeply rooted cultural way of life. Although the religious culture may not tolerate physical violence, it may circumscribe and limit the role of women, thereby allowing another kind of violence against women.

Following the passage of the 1965 immigration laws, many Muslims immigrated to the US, bringing with them a strong sense of religious and cultural identity from their home countries. Upon arrival, they founded Islamic Community Centers in order to meet the needs of the Muslim community. Ruksana Ayyub, a psychotherapist and anti-DV activist in the SA and Muslim community, finds that these centers have not always been sympathetic to victims of DV, since they consider DV a problem that affects only ‘modern American women.’

To make sense of the lack of community response to the issue of DV, it is necessary to have a broader understanding of the role of women within Islam. Although Islam was originally a religion that empowered women and acknowledged their status and value, cultural distortions over the years have changed it into one that disempowers and oppresses them. To her disappointment, Ayyub observes that in Muslim religious centers across the US, debates rage about the right of a husband to beat his wife, and about the lower status and limited roles of women.

Islamic religion and culture expects women to fit into certain prescribed roles – mother, daughter, wife – and those who fit these roles are accordingly awarded status and respect. But women who do not subscribe to these roles, such as women attempting to leave abusive marriages, are met with disdain and resistance. Instead of supporting them, the religious community demands that they stay in their marriages and make the necessary sacrifices for the continuation of the relationship.

Should a woman choose to pursue a divorce against the wishes of her religious community, she may find herself stymied by Islamic religious law, since, in Islam, divorce is generally discouraged, and is sometimes only granted when the divorce proceedings are initiated by the husband. Women are further obstructed by the fact that most Muslim marriages and divorces in the US are performed at two levels – the religious level and the civil level. But Islamic rules of marriage, divorce, and remarriage are often at odds with civil law in the US; these discrepancies often prove disadvantageous to women. For instance, men may grant their wives a civil divorce but not a religious one; the lack of a religious divorce is not an impediment to men when they seek to remarry, since they are allowed by Islam to have up to four wives, but the same is not true for women. In other cases, men may take on secondary wives through religious marriage; in case these marriages are unsuccessful, the secondary wives are afforded no legal protection since the marriages were neither legal nor registered. In order to prevent this misuse of religious law, Ayyub encourages Muslim institutions to consider a civil divorce a final divorce, and to require proof of civil marriage in order to perform a religious marriage.

Unfortunately, even when there is a legal and religious divorce, it does not necessarily guarantee ease of remarriage. Although the Prophet Mohammed himself married divorced and widowed women as an example to other men, divorced women are now considered inauspicious and harbingers of ill-luck, making it difficult for them to seek spouses.

Ayyub observes that the Hijab (traditional head covering) and the Chador (face veil) are making a comeback among younger Muslim women in the US for very paradoxical reasons – on the one hand, it protects them from the sexualized norms of Western society, and on the other, it affords them independence because they find that the garment frees them from family objections. But this independence is often limited, since Muslim women are discouraged from pursuing a career. They may be allowed to do so only if their work does not require too much interaction with men and if it does not interfere with their familial responsibilities. Ayyub narrates the story of a Muslim woman completing her doctoral studies who was advised by a religious leader not to pursue a career so that she could fulfill her primary duty to her spouse. Although, in this particular case, the woman finds a way to continue working, Ayyub finds that many women have sacrificed careers and life goals in order to fulfill their responsibilities to the family.

The Qur’an generally encourages peace, justice, and kindness towards women; a single verse that may be interpreted as a justification for violence, however, dominates views of DV in the Muslim community. When there is DV in a relationship, religious leaders advise women to remain patient, accepting, obedient, and loyal; there are few consequences, if any, for the men. The majority of Islamic centers fail to address the issue within the community, and many refuse to provide information about outside resources such as state-sponsored shelters, support groups, and legal and social services, viewing them as too ‘radical’ and harmful to the Islamic community.

The experience of Muslim women is further complicated by their South Asian cultural background and their families of origin. These factors will be further discussed in the following week.

[For more information, see: Ayyub, R. (2000). Domestic Violence in the South Asian Muslim Immigrant Population in the United States. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 237-248.]

Isolation by others as a form of DV

2009-12-20T20:12:00.000-08:00

Last week, we discussed how willful isolation by a spouse, even in the absence of physical or sexual violence, is a form of DV. Unfortunately, isolation by spouse usually leads to or is co-present with other forms of isolation.

Isolation from others: In her interviews, Abraham finds that the very act of moving to the US is socially isolating, since the wife is leaving behind family, friends, and other support systems. The relationships that she forms in the US are often based on the husband’s existing friends, who will generally take his side in case of conflict. Even when they are aware of the abuse, few friends provide advice or support. In fact, they may trivialize the wife’s experience and compel her to not call the police (so as not to jeopardize the immigration status of the husband).

Isolation by ethnic community and other institutions: New immigrants often associate with other members of the same ethnic community. They are sometimes forced to do so due to the divisions of US society (which many find to be divided by racial and class lines), and many choose to do so, to try and replicate the kind of support that they have at home. Victims of DV, however, find the ethnic community unwilling to treat DV as a real problem for two reasons. First, they believe DV to be a private problem rather than a community problem, and second, they deny the existence of DV in order to uphold the image of a ‘model minority.’ (In fact, Abraham briefly discusses the difficulty involved in studying DV in a community that doesn’t consider DV an issue).

Lacking support in their own community, victims may also be hesitant to approach the police or the court systems for help, believing there to be, or having experienced, stereotyping or systematic bias in these institutions. (It is important to note that they may have been convinced of the inaccessibility of the institutions by their spouse).

______________________________________________________

In many cases, all 3 forms of isolation overlap – women who are isolated and mistreated by their husbands are unable to develop effective social support systems; and as a result, are unfamiliar with outside support systems. Cultural notions about marriage and partnership may also make it hard for women to leave. For many of the interviewed women, even when other forms of abuse were present, they found that the social isolation was often the most disempowering part of the DV experience.

Abraham recommends that communities break down the “wall of isolation” by welcoming new members into their midst and helping them integrate into the new culture, by recognizing diversity (in other words, understanding that not everyone fits the model minority stereotyping), and by redefining the chauvinistic nature of many SA cultures so that DV is seen as a community problem.

[For more information, see: Abraham, M. (2000). Isolation as a Form of Marital Violence: The South Asian Immigrant Experience. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 221-236.]

Isolation by spouse as a form of DV

2009-12-13T10:02:00.000-08:00

Researchers have shown that loneliness and isolation, especially as a result of cultural change, is a risk factor for DV. This is largely because familial and cultural support systems that are available to an individual in the home country are often lost in the transition. In this article, Abraham explores isolation, which she defines as the “individual’s perception and reality of being emotionally and socially alone, economically confined, and culturally disconnected” (p. 222), as a form of DV in the SA community.

Abraham found that this kind of abuse is hidden behind an “invisible wall of isolation” because of a number of reasons – due to the power tactics used by the abusers, geographic immobility, cultural and linguistic constraints, financial dependency, and lack of social networks. There are also societal factors such as the racial and ethnic divisions of US culture that isolate abused women, and immigration policies that handicap immigrant women.

To understand the experience of isolation, Abraham interviewed 25 women who had experienced DV. All the women were first-generation immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and most had come to the US after marriage. They ranged in age from their 20s to 50s, and represented all major SA religions. She found that isolation can happen at three levels: in the relationship with the husband, in relationships with others (friends, relatives, coworkers), and in terms of participation in and access to larger social structures (such as organizations and institutions).

Isolation by spouse: Abraham finds that the delay in newlyweds joining each other inhibits bonding or communication between the spouses. In many cases, the first real contact is after the wife has already left behind her support systems in her home country. But at this point, she finds herself emotionally, financially, and socially dependent on a man she has just met, making it easy for the husband to take advantage of the situation.

This form of isolation is often the hardest to take because the husband is believed to be the one person the wife can interact with and depend on in the new country. Spousal isolation can begin very soon after marriage – for instance, men may not take the necessary efforts to get their wives to join them in the US, leaving the women unsure about their husband’s intentions, or they may not help them feel comfortable in or get adjusted to the new way of life, leaving the women hesitant to venture out of the house. Husbands may not allow their wives to leave the apartment or give her any money. They may monitor her daily activities, threaten to shame her, constantly find fault with her, or use her lack of familiarity with the culture to further isolate her (for example, “you don’t know this neighborhood”). As a result, the wife becomes increasingly dependent on her husband for money, outings, etc., and therefore more vulnerable to abuse.

[It must be noted that many of the interviewed women, including those who worked, specifically identified financial isolation (not giving her money, excluding her from investments and accounts, not letting her know how much he makes) as the most immobilizing kind of spousal isolation.]

Next week, we shall discuss the two other kinds of social isolation that victims of DV experience.

[For more information, see: Abraham, M. (2000). Isolation as a Form of Marital Violence: The South Asian Immigrant Experience. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 221-236.]

Youth as perpetrators of DV

2009-12-06T23:01:00.000-08:00

Parents generally have more power in parent-child relationships, so youth often experience DV in these relationships as victims (as described in the previous entry). In relationships with siblings and peers, however, the balance of power is more even, and youth can be both victims and perpetrators of DV.

Youth as perpetrators:

In some SA communities in the U.S., there is some evidence that brothers may keep their sisters from having or meeting friends or boyfriends in order to maintain their honor or purity. Although in traditional SA culture there is some expectation that brothers will protect their sisters, this kind of intimidation and exertion of control goes far beyond the bounds of what is considered merely ‘brotherly’. If males perceive themselves to be a member of a marginalized minority, they may view this as a way of gaining power and respect in society.

There have also been news reports about young men who sexually abuse the sisters with whom they share rooms. In these cases, too, youth are stuck in the liminal space between U. S. culture (where sharing rooms between opposite sex siblings is unusual, but there is a lack of supervision) and their traditional culture (where sharing rooms is not unusual, although social control is exerted by the many other individuals also in the room).

When SA youth are involved in dating relationships, girls usually bear the full brunt of traditional expectations (chastity, family honor) but also the burden of penalties (such as pregnancies). As a result, SA girls who find themselves in abusive relationships may be unable to access traditional support structures, such as extended family members, for help. Boys are generally not held responsible for their actions, and may even be considered victims by people who believe the girls to be demanding, needy, or even liars.
__________________________________________________________

In all of the scenarios described above, SA youth appear to be trapped in a liminal space, where they are neither children nor adults, neither South Asian nor American. Their negotiation of these identities is further complicated by gender roles and expectations of the dominant culture versus their traditional culture. While their unique place in society does not provide an explanation for DV in SA youth, Purkayastha’s descriptions provide a framework in which to understand their lives better.

[For more information, see: Purkayastha, B. (2000). Liminal Lives: South Asian Youth and Domestic Violence. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 201-219.]

Youth as victims of DV

2009-11-29T22:58:00.000-08:00

When we think about DV, we generally think about women and children as victims; it is not often that we take into account the experiences of adolescents and young adults, and when we do, we include them under the umbrella of ‘children’. Unlike children, who are generally victims, however, youth can be both victims and perpetrators of DV.

In this article, which is based upon the experiences of the children of post-1965 immigrants from South Asia, Purkayastha discusses the experience of DV in youth. She suggests that these youth exist in a liminal space, where they are neither American nor South Asian, neither adults nor children. She frames their experiences within the race and gender hierarchies of the dominant U.S. society. Purkayastha focuses on youth who are victims and perpetrators of violence, not witnesses.

Youth as victims:

The author begins by describing the difficulty of conceptualizing youth and violence. In U.S. mainstream society, youth (a broad term that encompasses adolescents and young adults, those in their late teens and early twenties) are in the process of becoming independent and separating from their natal families. SA youth, however, are often still financially dependent on their parents and often stay at home. Parents assume that they will remain involved in their child’s life decisions. For SA youth who wish to acculturate into the larger, dominant culture, this divergence in societal and parental expectations may lead to arguments over legitimate parental control, and pressure to conform to parental expectations may be perceived as coercion. Although most adults would not consider parental control and coercion as abusive behavior, many adolescents may do so.

This conflict between the dominant culture and parental expectations is further complicated by gender. The author writes, “South Asian youth are caught between parental directives about the ‘right’ gender relations and the peer culture expectations of what is cool/acceptable and uncool/unacceptable among ‘real’ men or women.” SA youth are expected to be polite, modest, and soft-spoken, in contrast to the dominant culture of masculinity (which demands competitiveness and aggressiveness) and femininity (which demands sexuality). Many youth view the unwillingness of their parents to accommodate prevailing U. S. standards as unreasonable and a source of distress.

There is also some ambiguity about what constitutes psychological or physical DV with youth. For instance, while most people would agree that curtailing a woman’s right to use the phone would be considered abusive, does the same standard hold true for an adolescent who routinely overuses the phone? In many cultures, spanking a child is normative disciplinary behavior; is hitting an adolescent normative? While the author does not provide any easy answers to these questions, it is necessary to reflect on these issues when considering the full range of abusive behaviors from coercion and control to physical and psychological violence.

Next week, we shall discuss the experience of DV in SA youth as perpetrators rather than victims.

[For more information, see: Purkayastha, B. (2000). Liminal Lives: South Asian Youth and Domestic Violence. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 201-219.]

Can religion ever be used as a justification for DV?

2009-11-22T06:24:00.000-08:00

Habibeh Rahim, a professor of theology and religious studies, allows that even though both Muslim and Hindu traditions generally accord men higher status than women, neither religion provides any kind of justification for domestic violence. In both religions, marital harmony and welfare is considered the foundation of family prosperity.
________________________________________________________

Islam: In Islam, husbands are responsible for the welfare of their wife and children, and may not desert their family under any circumstances. Spouses are encouraged to be open and honest with each other, and tolerate each other’s faults. The Qur’an indicates that a man may strike or maintain an aggrieved silence against his wife for only one reason – if she were to engage in lewd behaviors in his absence; even then, the husband may not continue to do so if his wife changes her behavior.
When there is conflict in a marriage, both husband and wife are advised to seek independent counsel. If there is to be no reconciliation, the separation must be characterized be kindness on both sides. In case of separation, the laws generally favor the men, for whom it is easier to divorce and remarry.
The Prophet, whom many followers consider a Muslim exemplar, was believed to be a very kind, gentle, respectful and humble husband who encouraged independence in his wives. He did not expect his wives to serve him, and he sought their opinion in important matters.
Contrary to popular understanding, the Qur’an does not award a higher status to all men. In fact, women are accorded many protections, including a share (albeit a smaller one) of their father’s estate. Islam exhorts followers to support destitute women. In essence, Islam does not condone violence against women.
________________________________________________________

Hinduism: According to the Laws of Manu, women are to be honored, cherished and adorned by the men in their lives. In return, however, women must be dependent on their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons. A happy marriage is one in which there is respect, fidelity and commitment between the husband and wife. The wife, additionally, must be faithful, chaste and obedient to her husband, and not divorce or remarry in the event of widowhood. Husbands, for their part, should be magnanimous and exercise physical restraint.
Texts also suggest that women should not be forced into marriage, and should only enter into a marriage if it pleases them. A destitute woman must be treated with generosity and charity by her community. Once again, there is no justification in the religious texts for violence against women.
_________________________________________________________

In conclusion, Rahim argues that both Islam and Hinduism emphasize marriages that are characterized by respect, generosity, and kindness, and do not condone the systematic abuse of the wife.

[For more information, see: Rahim, H. (2000). Virtue, Gender and the Family: Reflections on Religious Texts in Islam and Hinduism. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 187-199.]

What does DV look like in the South Asian community?

2009-11-15T11:44:00.000-08:00

The author of this article, Shamita Das Dasgupta, is well known in the South Asian DV community as the founder of Manavi, which was the first anti-DV agency catering to South Asian women in the United States.

The author begins with a brief history of South Asian immigrants in the United States. Although some arrived as early as the late 1800s, she focuses on the immigrants who arrived after 1965, when the United States loosened their immigration policies and invited educated, English-speaking individuals to immigrate. This homogenous group of immigrants grew to be financially and professionally successful, and was generally considered a ‘model minority.’ This group of immigrants, conscious of their status, was unwilling to admit to problems in the community. Another wave of immigrants, many of them women, arrived in the 1980s, following Family Reunification policies. It was at this time that reports of DV in the South Asian community started surfacing.

Although there has been lots of anecdotal evidence, there has been little research on DV in the South Asian community. Those who work with clients from the community, however, recognize some commonalities in the victim experiences:
1. While victims may admit to physical violence, few admit to sexual violence. Marital rape is an alien concept, since many women believe that they have no sexual rights after marriage.
2. The involvement of in-laws in the DV; in fact, in many cases, it is not the husband but extended family members that are primary abusers of the woman.
3. Fear of deportation or loss of children due to the victim’s dependent visa status.

There are three kinds of impediments for women seeking help: personal, institutional, and cultural. At the personal level, women may be afraid of ‘losing face’ or their reputation, or being exposed to hostility in the community. They may also worry about their financial status or lack of familial support. At the institutional level, women may find that immigration, child custody and public benefit policies work against them, and they may experience racism or xenophobia from traditional support structures such as police and the courts. Cultural barriers include traditional views of marriage and divorce, family, parenthood, etc. (for instance, women may believe that divorce may be irrevocably damaging to children). They may also believe that their experience is their destiny, or their ‘karma.’

Dasgupta suggests several interventions to battle these impediments. She suggests that effective intervention should arise from the victim’s own community, since victims may be more comfortable approaching someone with a shared cultural background. Religious institutions and community-based organizations, which have so far proved unwilling, must be willing to confront the issue of DV in their midst.

Volunteers in anti-DV agencies should be better trained to meet client needs, and mainstream agencies should be sensitized to cultural issues. These agencies need to systematize their resources and build a cohesive coalition to battle DV in the SA community.

[For more information, see: Dasgupta, S. D. (2000). Charting the Course: An Overview of Domestic Violence in the South Asian Community. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 173-185.]

An overview of DV in the South Asian community

2009-11-08T11:50:00.000-08:00

In 2000, the Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless published a special issue on the topic of DV in the South Asian community in the U.S. In the next few blog posts, we will discuss the articles that were included in this volume.

In the brief introduction, Sheehan, Javier and Thanjan (2000) argue that the generic term ‘South Asian’ does not fully capture the national, religious, cultural, economic, political, and historical variation that exists within the community. They find, nevertheless, that there are certain commonalities in the experiences of domestic violence that women in the South Asian community experience.

1. There is, generally, a lack of understanding about DV in this community. People who experience DV may not recognize it, and those who observe DV may be accustomed or insensitive to it, and not consider it something worth addressing. The authors point out that an indigenous term for ‘domestic violence’ does not even exist within most south Asian languages, making it very hard for community organizations to raise sensitivity to the issue.

2. There is a high level of secretiveness in the community. This not only makes it hard for abused women to seek help, but it also complicates the efforts of organizations trying to reach these women. The authors suggest that because women are socialized to put the needs of their family ahead of their own, and held responsible for maintaining harmony and minimizing conflict in the family, they may find it difficult to seek help; they may worry about their own safety and their family name.

3. There are legal complexities that make it hard for abused women to seek help. Specifically, many south Asian women in the country are often here as a ‘dependent’ on their husband’s visa; leaving the marriage leaves them legally stranded.

While these are certainly not the only factors that distinguish the South Asian community, those who work with victims of DV will surely nod their heads in agreement. The authors conclude with recommendations for community-based organizations and future reading.

[For more information, see: Sheehan, H. E., Javier, R. A., & Thanjan, T. (2000). Introduction to the Special Issue on Domestic Violence and the South Asian Community. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 167-171.]

"Why doesn't she just leave?"

2009-11-01T11:44:00.000-08:00

This is a common question, often asked by well-meaning observers, about women in abusive relationships. Before we dive into a specific discussion of DV in the South Asian community, it is necessary to have a general framework by which to understand DV. While there are no easy answers to the question asked in the title, a possible explanation is provided by Social Exchange Theory.

The most important variables in a relationship, according to Social Exchange Theory, are rewards and costs. Rewards include anything pleasurable or satisfying in a relationship. This could include love, romance, companionship, intimacy, etc. Costs, on the other hand, are things that are disliked or unsatisfying in a relationship, such as compromises, frustration, boredom, and violence. It seems logical to say that a woman would only stay in a satisfying relationship, in which rewards exceed costs, and would leave a dissatisfying relationship, in which costs exceed rewards.

It is rarely this simple, however. We need to consider what previous experiences the woman has had, and what expectations she has for the future. These experiences and expectancies provide a comparison level from which the current relationship is measured – “Is this better or worse than what I had before? Is this what I want for the future?” A woman who is in a dissatisfying relationship, therefore, may remain in that relationship because the relationships that she has known were similar to her own, or because she has little knowledge of what other relationships are like.

Furthermore, it is necessary to consider what other alternatives are perceived to be available to the individual – “Could I do better elsewhere?” Some women may recognize that they are in a dissatisfying relationship and may even be aware that it does not need to be this way, but they may believe that no other options are available to them. (It is important to note that they may come to believe this because of their abusive partner, who may convince them that they are somehow unworthy or undeserving of love).

A perceived lack of alternatives alone could persuade a woman to stay in an abusive relationship, but it is important to understand the impact of other variables, such as possible investments and barriers. Investments and barriers discourage a woman from leaving a relationship because- they cannot be fully recovered when the relationship ends. Investments include money, property, and time, and barriers include children, legal status, and feelings of shame.

A woman may recognize that she is unhappy in her relationship but may feel that it is her lot in life or that she has no other other alternatives. Or she may desire to leave the relationship, but may find herself unable to do so because she is fearful of losing people and things that are important to her. Her experiences, expectations, investments and barriers all discourage her from leaving an abusive relationship.

Although Social Exchange Theory does not capture all the aspects of the abusive situation, exploring the problem of domestic violence through this theoretical lens shows that leaving an abusive relationship is never as straightforward as it seems. When one considers all the reasons that women may find themselves in abusive relationships, the question, "Why doesn't she just leave?" seems too simple; we need to be asking, "What can we do to help her leave?"

Welcome!

2009-10-25T11:37:00.000-07:00

Who are we?

We are a free, confidential, referral non-profit organization based in the San Francisco Bay Area (primarily the south bay). We help families from South Asia facing domestic violence, emotional abuse, cultural alienation, human trafficking, or family conflict. You can learn more about the work we do at www.maitri.org. Call our toll-free hotline 1.888.8.MAITRI if you are worried or concerned for yourself or someone you know.

What is the purpose of this blog?

The purpose of this blog is to disseminate, discuss, and bring to light information about familial violence in the South Asian diaspora from an academic point of view.

Rather than approaching the topic of domestic violence (DV) from a personal or anecdotal viewpoint, in this blog we will try to discuss peer-reviewed, published, research-based studies. We hope that you will participate in a discussion based on these studies - Do the findings ring true? Do the author recommendations make sense? What does or doesn't the researcher capture? How can these findings be translated to the real world? How can their research inform our work in the community? Where possible, we will link to the article.

Why are the comments moderated?

To prevent abusive comments, cussing, or flame wars.

By deleting my comment aren't you violating my right to free speech?

No. This is a privately run blog with moderated comments. You are welcome to post whatever you wish on your own blog.

Can I post anonymously?

No. If you have something to say, we would like to know who you are.

I think you have written my case history. Can I sue you?

No. Maitri does not publish or discuss any specific case histories. All case discussions are composites with all identifying details removed. Any similarities are purely coincidental as we have a large case load. We receive over 2000 phone calls per year on our hotline!