culturally specific resources in ipv work
Most believe that the rise of work against sexual violence began in the 1970’s- the first rape crisis center and domestic violence shelter opened in 1972 and 1974, respectively, and many anti-rape organizations began around this time. Stemming from this, women began to effectively lobby, working to make it illegal to rape one’s spouse, for better enforcement of rape laws, and eventually the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). However, the history of women’s movements, and specifically work against sexual violence, goes back much further than the 70’s. Rape was commonly used by white men to exert racial power, using black and brown women’s bodies as a tool to assert superiority. This happened in slavery, during the Reconstruction era, in opposition to the Civil Rights Movement, and more. We can see this through cases such as Recy Taylor, a black woman who was raped by six white men on her way home from church. Even Rosa Parks, who became a famous icon of nonviolence after her work with the Montgomery Bus Boycott, has strong roots in anti-sexual violence work. It’s clear that work against sexual violence has been heavily influenced by (and has heavily involved) non-White women- if this is the case, why are specific resources for these women lacking?
According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS), 34.6% of white women will experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking. However, 37.1% of Hispanic women, 43.7% of Black women, 46% of American Indian or Alaska Native women, and 53.8% of multiracial women will experience the same. Accounting for some of the LGBTQIA+ community, 44% of lesbians, 26% of gay men, 61% of bisexual women, and 37% of bisexual men experience some form of intimate partner violence (IPV)- this is compared to an average of 35% of heterosexual women and 29% of heterosexual men. This survey makes it more than clear that non-White women are just as much, if not more affected by IPV. However, it is also important to acknowledge that NIPSVS also lacks research into populations that are heavily affected by violence or are particularly vulnerable, such as people who identify as trans, or are disabled. Additionally, there is no research into the intersectionality of identities and how those who may experience more oppression are more susceptible to violence.
IPV includes, but is not limited to, sexual violence. In NIPSVS, the statistics reported accounted for individuals that experienced sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking at the hands of intimate partners (spouses, sexual partners, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc)- while the statistics above are higher than the statistics of individuals who just experience sexual assault, the proportions between different races and sexualities is similar.
Most resource centers and other forms of support offer little for non-white women Even when offered, it is presented as different and separate from the main forms of support, reinscribing that whiteness and heteronormativity are “normal” and anything else is “other”.
It is unjust for organizations who take pride in helping women in need to not provide resources for populations who are disproportionately affected; it is unjust that resources that are provided are heteronormative and designed for white women; it is unjust that any resources that are offered to non-white women, or to men, are put in focus as out of the ordinary, reinforcing that their experience of trauma is abnormal and less valid.
At the minimum, it is crucial that sexual assault advocates, and employees for domestic violence shelters/sexual assault resource centers are trained in certain cultural needs. While there is little data on the demographics of advocates and/or staff members, in my experience it seemed to be predominantly white women. In order to have adequate support for victim survivors of other identities, it’s important for individuals in those roles to have training on the different cultures they may be supporting. With this training, advocates and staff members are able to better understand the variety of circumstances that influence how a woman perceives IPV, and how or why she may choose to heal, meaning they can act as a better support system and help a survivor in ways that are useful to her. First, there needs to be stricter national standards requiring training for this work. From a study done at University of Delaware (a large, public university that enrolls over 22,000 students), only 5 of the 29 employees working against sexual assault were formally trained (page 59). If one school is like this, it’s not hard to imagine that many others follow suit. Having national standards for training, and more importantly including culturally specific responses, gives survivors the comfort that advocates and staff are well equipped to support them in any way they need. The Aurora Center at University of Minnesota shows a strong start to this- in their Sexual Assault Response Protocol, eight pages dedicated to cultural competency. They are organized by different identity groups, and the center provides a variety of specific points to take into consideration when helping victim survivors who identify with that group.
Having culturally specific resources is crucial in affirming victim survivors and providing the best care. As an advocate, if I were to help every person with a white centered, heteronormative lens, I wouldn’t be taking into account my privilege and how different cultures play a role in systemic issues such as IPV. In situations like this, it would be best for me to call on resources from culturally specific organizations, such as Hmong American Partnership or CLUES, or to refer victim survivors to long-term care designed around cultures that he/she/they may be surrounded by- care that is focused on how culture and systemic oppression tie together, and helps the victim survivor feel normal and welcome for those identities rather than an abnormality for those who provide the support. However, organizations like this are not ubiquitous. A simple search for “help for trans people sexual assault”, or “help for somali people sexual assault” show no local resources designed specifically for those populations. Even if it is not logistically feasible to have support centers, language centers, or translators for every single identity group, existing cultural centers can work to create these resources for individuals affected by IPV, or existing shelters and resource centers can incorporate culturally specific support systems coordinated by individuals who belong in that identity group.
Another similar way to bridge this injustice is to integrate staff and advocates who are disabled, people of color, queer, and/or trans. However, it is key to have staff reflect the population that is being helped- that is to say, it isn’t enough to have one “token” employee of color if 80% of those seeking help are people of color. Especially with immediate responders (who may be able to refer victim survivors to resource centers that are culturally specific), it is important for staff to be reflective of the populations they are helping. This shows victim survivors that a place of help and solace values diversity, and is invested in having those voices present when providing support.
Our current support and response systems to IPV are white washed and heteronormative- a disproportionate number of responders are white women, and partially because of this, responses are often not culturally competent. By providing culturally specific resources, integrating a more diverse staff, and ensuring that all advocates and staff are trained to properly support victim survivors of different identities, we can start to provide actual justice and support all identities, especially those who are disproportionately affected by IPV.
According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS), 34.6% of white women will experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking. However, 37.1% of Hispanic women, 43.7% of Black women, 46% of American Indian or Alaska Native women, and 53.8% of multiracial women will experience the same. Accounting for some of the LGBTQIA+ community, 44% of lesbians, 26% of gay men, 61% of bisexual women, and 37% of bisexual men experience some form of intimate partner violence (IPV)- this is compared to an average of 35% of heterosexual women and 29% of heterosexual men. This survey makes it more than clear that non-White women are just as much, if not more affected by IPV. However, it is also important to acknowledge that NIPSVS also lacks research into populations that are heavily affected by violence or are particularly vulnerable, such as people who identify as trans, or are disabled. Additionally, there is no research into the intersectionality of identities and how those who may experience more oppression are more susceptible to violence.
IPV includes, but is not limited to, sexual violence. In NIPSVS, the statistics reported accounted for individuals that experienced sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking at the hands of intimate partners (spouses, sexual partners, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc)- while the statistics above are higher than the statistics of individuals who just experience sexual assault, the proportions between different races and sexualities is similar.
Most resource centers and other forms of support offer little for non-white women Even when offered, it is presented as different and separate from the main forms of support, reinscribing that whiteness and heteronormativity are “normal” and anything else is “other”.
It is unjust for organizations who take pride in helping women in need to not provide resources for populations who are disproportionately affected; it is unjust that resources that are provided are heteronormative and designed for white women; it is unjust that any resources that are offered to non-white women, or to men, are put in focus as out of the ordinary, reinforcing that their experience of trauma is abnormal and less valid.
At the minimum, it is crucial that sexual assault advocates, and employees for domestic violence shelters/sexual assault resource centers are trained in certain cultural needs. While there is little data on the demographics of advocates and/or staff members, in my experience it seemed to be predominantly white women. In order to have adequate support for victim survivors of other identities, it’s important for individuals in those roles to have training on the different cultures they may be supporting. With this training, advocates and staff members are able to better understand the variety of circumstances that influence how a woman perceives IPV, and how or why she may choose to heal, meaning they can act as a better support system and help a survivor in ways that are useful to her. First, there needs to be stricter national standards requiring training for this work. From a study done at University of Delaware (a large, public university that enrolls over 22,000 students), only 5 of the 29 employees working against sexual assault were formally trained (page 59). If one school is like this, it’s not hard to imagine that many others follow suit. Having national standards for training, and more importantly including culturally specific responses, gives survivors the comfort that advocates and staff are well equipped to support them in any way they need. The Aurora Center at University of Minnesota shows a strong start to this- in their Sexual Assault Response Protocol, eight pages dedicated to cultural competency. They are organized by different identity groups, and the center provides a variety of specific points to take into consideration when helping victim survivors who identify with that group.
Having culturally specific resources is crucial in affirming victim survivors and providing the best care. As an advocate, if I were to help every person with a white centered, heteronormative lens, I wouldn’t be taking into account my privilege and how different cultures play a role in systemic issues such as IPV. In situations like this, it would be best for me to call on resources from culturally specific organizations, such as Hmong American Partnership or CLUES, or to refer victim survivors to long-term care designed around cultures that he/she/they may be surrounded by- care that is focused on how culture and systemic oppression tie together, and helps the victim survivor feel normal and welcome for those identities rather than an abnormality for those who provide the support. However, organizations like this are not ubiquitous. A simple search for “help for trans people sexual assault”, or “help for somali people sexual assault” show no local resources designed specifically for those populations. Even if it is not logistically feasible to have support centers, language centers, or translators for every single identity group, existing cultural centers can work to create these resources for individuals affected by IPV, or existing shelters and resource centers can incorporate culturally specific support systems coordinated by individuals who belong in that identity group.
Another similar way to bridge this injustice is to integrate staff and advocates who are disabled, people of color, queer, and/or trans. However, it is key to have staff reflect the population that is being helped- that is to say, it isn’t enough to have one “token” employee of color if 80% of those seeking help are people of color. Especially with immediate responders (who may be able to refer victim survivors to resource centers that are culturally specific), it is important for staff to be reflective of the populations they are helping. This shows victim survivors that a place of help and solace values diversity, and is invested in having those voices present when providing support.
Our current support and response systems to IPV are white washed and heteronormative- a disproportionate number of responders are white women, and partially because of this, responses are often not culturally competent. By providing culturally specific resources, integrating a more diverse staff, and ensuring that all advocates and staff are trained to properly support victim survivors of different identities, we can start to provide actual justice and support all identities, especially those who are disproportionately affected by IPV.