Introduction
Domestic violence has long been assumed chiefly as a heterosexual, sociopolitical occurrence with its foundation in sexism, that is, gender. This assumption was created through the great influence of the feminist movement that began in the mid-1970s. Consequently, the domestic violence movement has in the past concentrated almost wholly on the battering of heterosexual women. The feminist political standpoint of the heterosexual dyad has been the foundation of the movement’s principal values, forming everything from policies concerning the treatment of the batterers to victimization theory, to conventional domestic violence law (Wallace, 2007).
The feminist evaluation of gender socialization and the role it plays in domestic violence has been extremely successful in shedding light on the association between discrimination and violence against women in the larger society and the at-home form of that gender oppression: battering.
Regrettably, feminist theory, which views men as the victimizers and women as the victims, has also led to the underestimation of gay and lesbian domestic violence due to the fact that it rules out the likelihood of such violence taking place. Without a doubt, the campaign to bring to an end domestic violence has been tremendously disinclined to tackle and work to thwart same-sex battering, mainly due to the basic challenge to domestic violence theory that is represented by gay and lesbian battering (Letellier, 1994).
The reality of female batterers and male victims confronts the stringent gender classifications of victims and executors that are essential to a feminist assessment of domestic violence. The shortage of knowledge concerning same-sex domestic violence permits much of the present studies in the topic, in theory as well as in practice, to stay heterosexist. Lacking a broader distribution of facts concerning same-sex domestic violence, the need for a more comprehensive attitude to the subject of battering in general remains an illusion. Based on this background, this paper will examine the reasons why majority of gay/lesbians are reluctant to report incidents of domestic violence.
The ‘Mutual Combat’ Misperception
One of the major explanatory factors of reluctance to report domestic violence by gay/lesbians is referred to as ‘mutual combat’. This phrase is used to mean the assumption made by scholars that same-sex partners are most likely to retaliate when battered by their partners. A number of scholars argue that members of a same-sex relationship are least likely to stand by passively when their partners are abusing or battering them. The reason behind this lies in the same gender of the partners involved which almost means that the partners are likely to be of the same build, height and strength. There is no ‘weaker sex’ in a same-sex relationship.
This is different from the situation in a heterosexual relationship in which the female partners are likely to take the battering passively from the male partners. This notion of mutual combat, or equal violence, holds that both of the partners are similarly competent and eager to engage in violence, that both partners are both a victim and a batterer, and, accordingly, that both partners are likewise answerable for the violence. Majority of the battered gay men and women actually use the idea of mutual combat to primarily express their own encounter of domestic violence.
It is therefore common to hear phrases such as “I hit him, too. We both batter,” when dealing with same-sex victims of domestic violence. The notion of mutual combat is also widely utilized in the criminal justice system especially when victims of domestic violence from the gay community report such incidents to the police. Rather than record the incident as domestic violence, most of the police officers are highly likely to record the incident as mutual combat. The result of this notion is that it further underpins for the victim, the perpetrator, and the society at large the mistaken belief that same-sex domestic violence is mutual.
Results from prior research studies show that approximately 71 percent of battered same-sex women retaliate against their partners with violence at least once in their relationships, and most often in self-defense. The same is also true for men who are more socialized than women to use physical violence against their opponents. However, retaliation of a physical abuse does not mean that the violence in such a relationship is mutual.
The misconception of a mutual combat has been challenged by many scholars such as Renzetti (1992) who argues that, “a major weakness in the mutual battering perspective is the underlying assumption that all violence is the same, when, in fact, there are important differences between initiating violence, using violence in self-defense, and retaliating against a violent partner” (p. 107). Renzetti’s argument in this context is important.
This is because inspiration for the violence ought to be evaluated within the framework of the relationship so as to comprehend which of the partners in the relationship is more powerful. It is not sufficient to identify which of the two partners hit first. This is because a person who has been battered may make use of violence in an effort to thwart another assault against him or her. It is also not sufficient to identify which of the two partners suffered the more serious injuries because both partners in the relationship may possess a similar physical capability to harm the other.
Retaliation against a violent partner can have a devastating effect on victims’ comprehension of the violence as well as on their inspiration to search for assistance for themselves. Kurst-Swanger and Petcosky (2003) elucidate that a substantial number of physically abused lesbians doubt whether or not they are truly battered if they retaliated even on one occasion to violence perpetrated against them with violence of their own. This doubt is particularly strong when the retaliation becomes successful in stopping the partner from physically abusing them in the future. Such victims often view themselves as equally responsible for the domestic violence.
For majority of the battered lesbians therefore, there is a lack of apparent difference between battering and violence used as self-defense. These victims of domestic violence regard themselves as perpetrators irrespective of the reason behind their violence. This may be principally the reality for battered men, because being an executor of violence is a more socially tolerable role for men than being a victim.
Closely linked to this perception of mutual combat is the view that most same-sex partners view domestic violence incidents as a problem of the relationship or “our problem”. Therefore, rather than seeking help elsewhere, they prefer to deal with such a problem on their own. In addition, partners who retaliate may feel that they have also become part of the problem and therefore they feel they have no right to seek help outside the relationship. They believe that the only way to deal with the problem is to either persevere or to keep on retaliating (Kurst-Swanger and Petcosky, 2003).
Lack of Services for Gay/Lesbian Victims
A second major reason that discourages same-sex victims of domestic violence to report such abuses is the lack of services available to them. Communities all over the globe have a multitude of support services (such as shelters and counseling services) available to battered women who are in a heterosexual relationship. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of same-sex partners. Support services for same-sex partners are insufficient and scattered.
For instance, Letellier (1994) argues that “in the United States, half a million gay men are battered every year yet there are only approximately six agencies or organizations in the entire country that exist specifically to help them,” (p.98). The lack of sufficient and effective services for same-sex partners implies that thousands of such partners opt to remain with their abusive partners simply because they have no alternative place to run to.
A number of explanations have been given for the lack of adequate support services for the gay community. First and foremost, the vigorous campaign by the feminist movement against gender-based violence helped the society to focus almost entirely on the establishment of highly effective support services for heterosexual women at the expense of other groups that are also affected by the same problem of domestic violence.
Second, the gay community itself has still not yet acknowledged the severity of the problem of domestic violence within the community. In order to maintain this peaceful image, many same-sex victims of domestic violence either refuse to report such incidents or report them when they become deadly. The open denial and the public declarations by the gay community as a non-violent community contribute to the inability of same-sex partners to seek and find help. Due to this denial, the society is left in the dark concerning the violent deeds that are perpetrated against members of the gay community. As a result, the society cannot do much for such victims such as establishing essential shelters and such-like support services (Renzetti, 1992).
Homophobia and heterosexism of the criminal justice system
In addition to the mutual combat misperception and lack of services, victims of domestic violence in the gay community refuse or are reluctant to report physical abuses due to the established homophobia and heterosexism of majority of the criminal justice agencies, particularly the police department. Research studies on the victimization of the gays/lesbians show that the police commit close to 20 percent of all anti-gay victimization deeds. This unfair treatment of members of the gay community comprises of verbal and corporal assault, entrapment, blackmail, and the intentional maltreatment of anti-gay violence cases.
The degree of lack of trust in the police department and of the criminal justice system as a whole is high among lesbians and gay men, with justifiable reasons. Members of the gay community who are abused by their partners and have sought help from the police at some point report that they were treated in a humiliating and dehumanizing manner. For instance, some reports indicate that instead of arresting the batterer, the police end up arresting the victim.
In other cases, the police often choose to turn a deaf ear to calls of help from same-sex victims of domestic violence. In yet other situations, the police arrest both the violence perpetrator and the victim and hold them in the same cell where the batterer continues to physically abuse the victim. Some reports also show that the police only respond to such distress calls when the abuse becomes bloody or deadly. The negative attitudes of the police towards the gay community force homosexual victims of domestic violence to endure the assault or to retaliate (Renzetti, 1992).
A domestically assaulted gay or lesbian who interacts with the criminal justice system also encounters negative outcomes that are not linked to the assault she/he faces. For instance, members of the gay community are widely associated with the HIV/AIDS syndrome. On the other hand, people suffering from HIV/AIDS are widely discriminated in almost all sectors of the society. The link between HIV/AIDS and homosexuality poses a great discrimination challenge for the same-sex victims of domestic violence. A battered person who seeks help from the police would be required to disclose personal information such as sexual orientation.
Revelation of such sensitive information is associated with the risk of losing one’s employment and health coverage. As a result, most of the battered gay/lesbians prefer to keep the domestic assault to themselves rather than report and risk losing essential opportunities (Lettelier, 1994).
Discriminatory laws
Closely linked to the homophobia and heterosexism of the criminal justice system is the existence of laws that discriminate against members of the gay community. Discrimination of the laws is evident in the fact that such laws use only opposite-sex terms that make it difficult for homosexual partners to receive help from the criminal justice system until serious injuries have been sustained.
An example of a discriminatory law is the California statute (273.5 Spouse Abuse) which states in clear terms that the law is applicable only to heterosexual couples. Part of the statute states that, “Some other offenses do require higher degrees of harm to be inflicted before the crime denounced by them is committed… But the legislature has clothed persons of the opposite sex in intimate relationships with greater protection by requiring less harm to be inflicted before the offense is committed,” (cited in Letellier, 1994, p.103). Therefore, in accordance with the California law, a domestically assaulted gay man or lesbian would need to suffer greater injuries than heterosexual women or men so as to receive assistance in the form of arrest of their abusive partners or support services.
Conclusion
Research studies indicate that members of the gay community suffer from domestic violence in almost the same magnitude as members of the heterosexual community. However, gay men and lesbians fail or are reluctant to report such incidents. The reasons behind this trend include: the ‘mutual combat’ misperception, lack of support services for the gay/lesbian victims, homophobia and heterosexism in the criminal justice system and laws that discriminate against members of the gay community.
In order to assist gay/lesbian victims of domestic violence, the negative attitude held by the society towards the gay community should first be dealt with through public awareness and education programs. Only then will the gay community be comfortable enough to report acts of domestic violence perpetrated against its members. Only then will the society be able to establish support services for the homosexual victims of domestic violence.
Reference List
Kurst-Swanger, K. & Petcosky, J. (2003). Violence in the home: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Letellier, P. (1994). Gay and bisexual male domestic violence victimization: Challenges to feminist theory and responses to violence. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 95-106.
Renzetti, C. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Wallace, H. (2007). Victimology: Legal, psychological, and social perspectives. New York: Allyn and Bacon.