Private Concerns in Public Discourse: Women-Initiated Community Responses to Domestic Violence

Bhatla, Nandita and Anuradha Rajan. 2003. “Private Concerns in Public Discourse: Women-Initiated Community Responses to Domestic
Violence.”  Economic and Political Weekly 38(17):1658-1664

In this paper, the authors explore women led community based responses to domestic violence across five sites in India. Three community based initiatives were studied for this study.

1. Shalishi – Traditional system of arbitration utilized by Shramaji Mahila Samiti in West Bengal

2. Nari Adalat/ Mahila Panch in Baroda and Rajkot in Gujarat organized by Mahila Samakhya program

3. Nari Adalat/Sahara Sangh in Saharanpur and Tehri Garhwal in Uttar Pradesh organized by Mahila Samakhya program

All three initiatives have evolved from village level processes of village women’s collectives. Village level sanghas(women’s collectives) are the foundation of the Mahila Samakhya program. One Sahayogini(is a village level organizer from the Mahila Samakhya program) is responsible for 10 villages. Here, she organizes sanghas and helps them work on issues that matter to them. As domestic violence became and important issue, the sanghas formed a new forum known as the Nari Adalat(Women’s Court) to deal with the issue. The Nari Adalat(NA) meets at a centralized place in the village. Women with complaints file an application with the NA and they summon the other side to a meeting. Issues of violence are discussed in public meetings and arbitration is initiated. The village sangha provides basic facts required for the arbitration. The Sahara Sangh acts like a centralized pressure group or think tank which discusses strategies to deal with these cases. The cases are handled by the sanghas themselves.The Shalishi on the other hand, does have centralized sittings, but both these groups include important leaders from the village. The Shalishidhars are women trained to take a woman centric approach in handling these cases.

These initiatives are based on the primary premise that decisions through these initiatives which are embedded in the community, are better enforced. Community sanctions seem to have more power than orders from a court far removed from their lives.Psychological pressure is exerted on the perpetrator.  Moreover, courts are much less accessible to poor women. Since these initiatives are embedded in public spaces, these initiatives have been able to convert individual issues into social problems. These initiatives also help in educating the public on this problem.

A democratic process of arbitration is followed since the process occurs in a neutral setting. Finally these initiatives, since they are women led, provide victims a safe space to share their problems. Poor women, seldom have such forums available.

During the arbitration process, when perpetrators provide reasons for the violence, the facilitators of the NA/MP educate the men that violence is not justified at any point. Thus they are able to question some gender stereotypes, thus changing social norms.

By placing the women’s interest as the starting point for negotiations, the facilitators were pushing the limits of the cultural and normative boundaries of the community. Primarily, they were questioning the notion that violence was a private matter.The feminist agenda of the arbitration process was evident in terms of the kind of voice, issues and concerns that were highlighted.

The authors find that women felt a sense of individual transformationin the case resolution process itself. In the Nari Adalat, the victims were finding a space to exercise their own agency and voice.

Gendering Violence: Masculinity and Power in Men’s Accounts of Domestic Violence

Anderson, Kristen.L and Debra Umberson. 2001. “G.endering Violence: Masculinity and Power in Men’s Accounts of Domestic Violence.” Gender and Society 15(3):358-380

In this article,the authors “examine the construction of gender within men’s account of domestic violence”(pp 359). Batterers construct masculine identities through violence and through their discourses.

Data and Method

Data was collected in 1995-96 through indepth interviews with 33 men recruited through the Family Violence Diversion Network, a non-profit agency. Men volunteered from among the participants of the FVDN program. The sample contained more European American in comparison to the population.

Findings

The respondents suggested that violence was a gendered practice, such that, they(men) caused more serious, frequent and injurious violence than their partners.

In their descriptions of violence, they maintained hegemonic notions of masculinity and femininity. They described female violence as trivial, ineffectual and hysterical while they described their own violence to be rational, effective and explosive. By doing this, they were reinforcing their own masculinity. They also ascribed to themselves the role of “protector” even at the point of violence.

They often held their partners responsible for their own violence. This was particularly true when they described their partners as dominating or controlling (a masculine trait). Therefore, when women did not conform to the norms of femininity, their masculine traits was blamed for the violence. Finally, they also blamed the criminal justice system for being biased against men.

Overall, positions of dominance was always constructed as masculine. Even through their discourses, the batterers were using violence to construct notions of masculinity and femininity.

Domestic Violence, Contested Custody, and the Courts: A Review of Findings from Five Studies with Accompanying Documentary

Araji, Sharon.K. 2012. “Domestic Violence, Contested Custody, and the Courts: A Review of Findings from Five
Studies with Accompanying Documentary.”  Sociological Perspectives 55(1):3-15

In this article, the author demonstrates the problems faced by domestic violence victims or protective parents while they are battling child custody cases. Based on findings from five studies, the author points out seven themes of problems that these women face.

Data and Methods:

This study combines findings from five studies. Given below are the details from each study:

1. Alaska Study: 64 participants, who had suffered domestic violence and were fighting child custody battles were identified and mailed a survey questionnaire. 34 participants responded to the survey. The survey had both structured and open ended questions. Both the quantitative and qualitative data was analyzed.

2. Arizona Study: Based on survey and interview data from 57 women

3. Massachusetts Study: This study used multiple approaches. Forty DV victims were interviewed. 31 DV advocates filled survey questionnaires. 23 women (both DV victims and advocates) participated in focus groups. 16 state professionals involved in DV and child custody were interviewed.

4. Pennsylvania Study: Data was gathered from seven sources – “formal court room observations, descriptions of experiences, telephone justice surveys, testimonies from court hearings, telephone calls, reviews of court information and notices and information obtained from final report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee.” All of these had observations from 566 cases.

5. California Study: Based on 212 answered questionnaires across US, 80 case studies, review of court documents and written case histories.

Findings:

Seven themes around problems faced by domestic violence victim battling child custody cases emerged from the data.

1. Problems with join custody and visitation: In spite of known child abuse, alcohol abuse from the perpetrator, joint custody and visitation was awarded. Children, thus were in danger of being abused again and were witnessing DV. Moreover the protective parents continued to face issues of child support.

2. Lack of enforcement of court orders: DV continued or increased even after separation of parents

3. Perception about Judges and Courtrooms: Judges were perceived to be insensitive and disrespectful. Judges also placed victims at risk by ordering mediation even when it was dangerous to be in contact with the perpetrator. Moreover, the speedy court procedures  and multiple proceedings made it difficult for the victims.

4. Lack of Confidence in Court Appointed Professionals: Victims found the professionals to be untrained and often sympathetic towards the perpetrator. They also forced women to unsafe mediation with their abusers. Moreover, they blamed the protective parent for child abuse. However, there was variability across the five studies in this case.

5. Legal representation, Court Cost, Fear of Courts, and Court Culture: Victims often did not have the financial resources to hire lawyers and did not have enough information about court proceedings to deal with these issues by themselves.

6. Parental Alienation Syndrome(PAS): PAS is, a disorder where supposedly children are programmed by single parents to alienate the other parent. However this syndrome has no scientific proof. However, PAS is often used by abuser parents to gain custody.

7. Problems that protective parents face after custody: Even after custody, protective parents continued to face DV, economic abuse, threatened not to return the children and used the courts to harass the victims.Their children also faced physical harm and sometimes frightened them.