1 / 53

REFRAMING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS COERCIVE CONTROL

REFRAMING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS COERCIVE CONTROL . Evan Stark, Ph.D , MSW Rutgers University-Newark. the italian woman henri matisse. Goals. Recognize the achievements and limits of the Domestic Violence Revolution – Reframe woman battering as Coercive Control

ayla
Download Presentation

REFRAMING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS COERCIVE CONTROL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REFRAMING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS COERCIVE CONTROL Evan Stark, Ph.D, MSW Rutgers University-Newark the italian woman henri matisse

  2. Goals Recognize the achievements and limits of the Domestic Violence Revolution – Reframe woman battering as Coercive Control Appreciate what this means for intervention 2

  3. The Domestic ViolenceRevolution

  4. THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REVOLUTION IS STALLED

  5. U.S. INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE RATE DECLINE 1976-2000FBI (SHR, 1976-2000) FEMALE MALE

  6. Coercively Controlling Male Partner Life on Three Planets Domestic Violence: Criminal Charges; TRO- CRIMINAL COURT Planet I Mother Failing to Protect Child Protection Planet 3 Contact & Custody FAMILY COURT Planet 2 Adapted from Radford & Hester, 2006 ‘Good Enough’ Father

  7. The Domestic Violence Model Incident Based Violence Focused Calculus of Harms Intimate/Stranger Relationships Focus solely on Victim/Perpetrator - doesn’t fit women’s experience -

  8. ….a discrete event? “repeated” 60-85% 89% of victims suffered previous assaults; 35% abused daily (Memphis) Women who charged husbands average 35 prior assaults (Canada) NCVS 25-30% serial abuse (more than l/wk) 7.l assaults/yr (London survey)

  9. IS DV ABOUT SEVERE INJURY?

  10. Is “domestic violence” domestic? National/Medical Data 75-80% of victims are single, separated or divorced (NVCS; Stark et al. etc.) Mass. In a majority of DV arrests, men not living with victim NYC CHILD WELFARE 3l.5% of victims living in the same household (Magen, et al.)

  11. Duration • If abused ever, 72% still at risk (Stark & Flitcraft, l996) • av. 7.3 yrs. In hospital • Av. In population 5.5 years (Campbell)

  12. P=IxD • 14.6% of women in last 5 yrs. (prevalence) • Average time 5.5 - 7.3 yrs • Incidence 2-3% (14-21/100) • 79-86 of every l00 cases are ongoing • An estimated l5 million women in the U.S. • MORE LIKE HIV/AIDS THAN THE FLU

  13. RAPE AND BATTERING AMONG RAPE VICTIMS AMONG BATTERED WOMEN 27% FORCED TO HAVE SEX AGAINST THEIR WILL OFTEN OR “ALL THE TIME.” 24% REPORTED BEING FORCED TO ENGAGE IN ANAL SEX AT LEAST ONCE (Davies et al. 2006) • 34% ARE RAPED BY PARTNERS OR FORMER PARTNERS • 52% OF RAPE VICTIMS > 30 (Stark & Flitcraft, l996)

  14. Health Consequences Alcohol Abuse Drug Abuse Suicide Attempts Mental Illness Child Abuse Homelessness HIV

  15. Cause or Effect?

  16. But…………… The vast majority of women who are battered do not experience these problems

  17. Women and Children’s Reality “Ongoing” Rape and DV fall on continuum Cumulative effect Multiple tactics Crosses Social Space “Help” often makes things worse “Violence isn’t the worst part.”

  18. When Abuse is Viewed through the Violent Incident Framework: Abuse and Rape are Trivialized No one goes to jail No injury, no crime, no ID Degree of risk & entrapment are inversely related to intervention Victims themselves minimize abuse ABUSE IS NORMALIZED

  19. II. RE-FRAMING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS COERCIVE CONTROL

  20. TYPOLOGY OF ABUSE • FIGHTS • PARTNER ASSAULT (20%-40%) • COERCIVE CONTROL (60%-80%)

  21. Partner Assault • Motive: hurt, punish, control • Conflict suppressed • Women as well as men • Victims retain autonomy • Repeated • May escalate over time • Sexual abuse • May decrease with separation • Fear or Injury may be High

  22. COERCIVE CONTROL • Coercive Control is a strategic course of conduct designed to retain privilege and establish domination in personal life based on fear, dependence and the deprivation of basic rights and liberties.

  23. Coercive Control • Assault • Intimidation • Isolation • Control

  24. CC & Violence • Repeated, minor, routine • Rape/Sexual Assaults • Little or no “conflict” • May not exist 11

  25. Rape as Routine • He told me he wanted to fool around and I told him no. He kept persisting and taking off my clothes and I kept fighting him off. He took his belt and tied my hands behind my back aqnd he had fun. I never wanted him to do that again like that so I never said ‘no. • Dila, age 26

  26. INTIMIDATION • Threats of violence • Violence against others • Destruction of property • Harassment through the network • “The silent treatment” 12

  27. INTIMIDATION • Use of the Children • Surveillance (Stalking, etc.) • Use of legal system • Witness intimidation • INVISIBLE THREATS 12

  28. DEGRADATION • ritual enactments associated with sex, bodily functions or obedience • TARGET AREAS OF GENDER IDENTITY FROM WHICH PARTNERS GET THEIR SELF-RESPECT, ESTEEM AND POWER • Link to Ownership

  29. The Continuum of Degradation • Anal sex • Pornography • Marking • Digital Inspections • Punishment • Shaming • Toileting • Personal Hygiene • Treated like an animal • Use of Children to Enforce Sexual Compliance

  30. ISOLATION • Family and friends • School, work, church • Communication/Transportation • Helping Professionals • Private Life

  31. CONTROL what to cook no friends when to sleep no personal money what to wear no transportation when to have sex no contraceptives

  32. Control Prevalence US/GB • Took her Money (.54) • Monitored Time (.85) (.66) • Kept from Medical Care (.29) (.22) • Did Not Allow to Go to School (.62) (.52) • No Socializing with Friends (.79) (.71) • Kept from Seeing Family (.60) (.50) • Restricted Car Use (.54) (.31) • Can’t Leave House (.62) (.47) • Threatened to Take Children (.44) (.40) • Did Not Allow to Work (.34) (.40) • Tried to Make Crazy (.89) (.75) Sources: Tolman,l989; Rees, Agnew-Davies & Barkham, 2006; Buzawa et al. l999

  33. SAFETY ZONES SEARCH & DESTROY MISSIONS

  34. What makes a battered woman is her socially constructed inability to escape when she is threatened, exploited or attacked • CC takes shape on a terrain that is contested by women’s assertion of agency & the challenge sexual equality poses to male privilege

  35. CONTROL IN THE CONTEXT OF NO CONTROL

  36. Isolated from Support Deprived of liberty Deprived of Basic Needs Ritual Degradation Routine Violence Punishment for Non-compliance Restricted Mobility Monitoring Time Carrot/Stick Material Exploitation Perspecticide Sex Exploitation CC = Hostage Taking

  37. CC is NOT like hostage taking • Privileged access affords personal knowledge • Invisible in plain sight • Going ‘home’ is not an option • Gendered: No Parallel among men in personal life • Extends through Social Space

  38. Why does she stay? She Doesn’t Separation is dangerous Ending abuse as a process She loves him and/or thinks the children need him No resources

  39. Why does HE Stay? Privileges & Ownership Services, Sex, Money, Time & Ego Dependency Fear of being alone (‘abandonment anxiety) “Doing Masculinity.” BECAUSE HE CAN

  40. Control • The 3 “Rs” Rules He makes the “rules” Righteousness I am the “Word” I am good, you are bad Reason If you see the world differently than I do, you’re crazy.” “The argument is over, when I say it Is over” 14

  41. LETHALITY • Presence of gun/threats to kill • Threatened or Real Separation • Sexual Assault • Level of Control • (e.g. control + estrangement = 5x grter risk

  42. CC and risk in mediation • Post separation • 47% reported escalating violence . • 51.9% reported at least l threat to their lives • 23.2% reported forced sex • CC vs. DV • CC accounted for 81% of escalating violence; 80% of threats to life & 76% of forced sex • DV accounted for 20% escalated DV; 17% threats & 24% forced sex • 75% (CC) vs. l8% (DV) expressed fear in mediation

  43. Assessment in the Context of Human & LibertyRights • Violence = Right to Security • Intimidation and Degradation =Right to Dignity & Live Without Fear • Isolation= Right to association & support • Control = Right to Autonomy/Independence

  44. Invisible in Plain Sight • There is nothing like it in men’s experience • Liberties violated are taken for granted • Corresponds with women’s default roles • There are no words to describe it • There are no images on the media • It is built around personal knowledge and invention—role of learning is minimal

  45. Towards a new story…. • From incident of violence back to complete history of oppression • From injury to limits on autonomy, self-respect, liberty and equality • Start with evidence of strength– ask: what has happened to bring this woman low? How can we restore this capacity?

  46. RETHINK HARMS • Harms to Liberty • Harms to Equality • Harms to Physical Security • Harms to Personhood • Harms to Family • Harms to Citizenship • Harms to Community and Economy

  47. CASE MANAGEMENT SAFETY ENHANCED ADVOCACY Respectful partnering BUILD SUPPORT NETWORK EMPOWERED DECISION-MAKING + ACCESS TO RESOURCES

  48. Rethink SHELTER • Refuge from to Refuge within the community • Balance Safety with Freedom, Equality and Autonomy • Create communities of collective struggle and liberation and aid women to reconstruct their indigenous support networks… • Restore decision-making where it is denied (workplace, school, re-political arena, community) • Reconnect to larger agenda of the women’s movement….

  49. Challenges to LAW and Justice • Give CC a Name—COURSE OF CONDUCT CRIME • Criminalize the Violation of Liberty Rights in Personal Life • Recognize the wrong of subordination – “Domestic violence in the strong sense.” • Retaliation = Defense of Liberty • ASK: HOW WOULD WE JUDGE A MAN WHO RESPONDED VIOLENTLY TO THESE DEPRIVATIONS AND INDIGNITIES?

More Related