# data[].attributes.headline
Inspiring women in the Criminal Justice System #wk8

# data[].attributes.subject
Inspiring women in the Criminal Justice System #wk8

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 7. Senior Constable Karen Lowden is awarded the International Association of Women Police (IAWP) Medal of Valor Award for her role in assisting Madeline Pulver who had been fitted with an ‘explosive collar' (Gusmaroli, 2017).

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 6. Deputy police commissioner of New South Wales, Catherine Burn, the highest ranked female police officer (Douglas,2017).

# data[].attributes.body
Irving’s 2009 paper discussed the difficulties in recruitment and deployment and the low representation of women within senior ranks in the Australian police force. The below figure comes from that paper and depicts the findings from a retrospective mapping of the career paths of every police officer sworn in during 1991. In the table we can see that in the same year, across four states, there were half as many female officers than male. Irving (2009) asserts that since this 1991 study, the number of female police officers in Australia has doubled. This is evidence that a shift is occurring in aspects of the criminal justice system, and women are beginning to be equally represented.

# data[].attributes.headline
Importance of women as justice professionals #wk8

# data[].attributes.subject
Importance of women as justice professionals #wk8

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree with Dr Menih’s statements surrounding the positives of employing more women in the criminal justice system. Equal representation of females is a matter of equality, but in spite of this, women can also bring some unique and positive skills to the work done by employees in the criminal justice system. In a democratic nation the justice system should accurately reflect the gender makeup of the population it serves to protect. Our countries government should also follow this stance as if women feel they have equal representation, they will feel comfortable knowing their interests are truly being taken into consideration.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does the criminal justice system place unrealistic expectations on female workers? #wk8

# data[].attributes.subject
Does the criminal justice system place unrealistic expectations on female workers? #wk8

# data[].attributes.body
Gender-responsive policing in the criminal justice system puts undue pressure on female police officers, who often have to work harder than their male counter parts. Women are offered often placed in roles that give them direct contact with other women, for example conducting body searches in a female prison. This is due to the way women react to each other, a female inmate is less likely to report a sexual assault if it is a women that conducts the body search. I see no reason to dispute this fact, when rates of males sexually harassing female colleagues are so high, it isn’t unreasonable that the same type of male would engage in these behaviours with an inmate. What I can dispute is the criminal justice systems ability to counteract such essentialist approaches. If women are more likely to report sexual offenses to a female police officer, rather than a male one, we need to be asking why that is? Perhaps male police officers need more training in empathetic and understanding approaches to interviewing victims, then sexual offense cases can be handled by both genders.

So does the criminal justice system truly place unrealistic expectations on its female workers? I personally believe the answer to that question is yes.

# data[].attributes.body
Women as a gender group are largely underrepresented as employees in all levels of the criminal justice system, from police officers, to judicial and correctional workers. This subordination of women to men in this context reflects what is happening in wider society, and has been happening for decades. Historically jobs, tasks, and careers have been assigned to individuals based on their gender, for example females do administrative jobs, whilst males engage in physical labour. This notion is reflected in the roles assigned to female employees in the criminal justice sector.

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 4. LGBTQ & Domestic Violence. (Domestic Shelters.org, 2015).

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 5. HIV in Australia:2017. (Australia Federation of AIDS Organizations, 2017).

# data[].attributes.headline
Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence-A Government Publication #wk7

# data[].attributes.subject
Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence-A Government Publication #wk7

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides a great resource for individuals to learn about Intimate partner violence in a LGBTQI context. It also includes a section on barriers to accessing support services, listing reasons such as stigma, discrimination, a lack of awareness of the specific needs and issues of the LGBTIQ population, and the inability by support services to view intimate partner violence outside of a heterosexual framework.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) communities

The LGBTIQ acronym is used to refer to people who are from sexually or gender diverse communities and who may identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, intersex or queer. However, there is a great deal of diversity within these communities and a wide range of "terms and language used to describe biological sex, gender, sexuality and sexual practice" (Fileborn, 2012). In Western culture, people are generally expected to conform to gender roles that match their biological sex; however, many non-heterosexual, transgendered or queer people do not necessarily identify or fit within these narrow, socially defined parameters (Lorenzetti, Wells, Callaghan, & Logie, 2015). As such, "essentialist and simplistic terms" do not capture the complexities and diversities of the LGBTIQ population. For a full discussion of this complexity, see Fileborn (2012) or Calton, Cattaneo, and Gebhard (2015). There is also a list of further reading at the end of this paper.

Conceptualising and defining intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ communities

Intimate partner violence within LGBTIQ relationships was largely unacknowledged until recently and as such has been absent from governmental, policy and service/practice responses to intimate partner violence (Ball & Hayes, 2009). Research in the area has also been scarce (Calton et al., 2015). Government, policy, research, justice and practice-based responses to intimate partner violence have overwhelmingly assumed a heterosexual framework in which women feature as victims and men as perpetrators (Ball & Hayes, 2009). While LGBTIQ communities have had some effect regarding the acknowledgement of the issue within government agencies, this has not always translated into a substantive policy or practice response (Ball & Hayes, 2009; Tayton, Kaspiew, Moore & Campo, 2014). There has also been a lack of acknowledgement of intimate partner violence within LGBTIQ communities themselves. The reasons for this are multiple and complex and include an inability to recognise abuse outside of dominant understandings of gendered power dynamics (Irwin, 2006; Ristock, 2011).

Feminism has been the predominant lens through which intimate partner violence and domestic and family violence has been understood. In this framework, intimate partner violence is understood as an effect of patriarchal social structures, gender inequality and traditional gender roles and attitudes (Bell & Naugle, 2008; Woodin & O'Leary, 2009). There is no cohesive understanding or theory of intimate partner violence when it occurs in LGBTIQ couples (Calton et al., 2015). However, concepts such as "intimate terrorism" and "coercive control" are thought to be useful for defining intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ populations as these definitions emphasise that intimate partner violence is primarily defined by patterns of coercion, power and control, and recognise that violence may be emotional, sexual, financial and/or physical (Calton et al., 2015; Donovan & Hester, 2010). These definitions also help to "transcend the boundaries drawn by sexuality and gender" (Donovan & Hester, 2010, p. 281), though as Calton and colleagues (2015) argued, feminist frameworks for understanding violence in families and intimate relationships remain vital.

Prevalence

There is little population-wide data available on the prevalence of intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ communities. Large-scale surveys such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey (2013) do not collect data on LGBTIQ identity, and the Australian component of the International Violence against Women Survey (Mouzos & Makkai, 2004) focused on male violence against women. Further, there are methodological issues with existing studies. For example, most studies use convenience samples, raising questions about how representative the figures are (Tayton et al 2014; Calton et al., 2015; Edwards, Sylaska, & Neal, et al 2015; Tayton et al., 2014). As Edwards and colleagues (2015) highlighted, discrepancies in how intimate partner violence is defined; whether studies assess lifetime violence/current relationship/previous year; and whether measurement scales were used or not, mean there are often large inconsistencies between studies.

Further, as described above, there is a lack of recognition of intimate partner violence within gender diverse or same-sex relationships and under-reporting of intimate partner violence in general (Donovan & Hester, 2010; Leonard, Mitchell, Patel & Fox, 2008). Discrimination, stigma and non-recognition of same-sex or other gender diverse relationships further present barriers to the collection of statistical and demographic data and thus obscure the realities of intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ communities (Lorenzetti et al., 2015).

The Australian Research Centre for Health and Sexuality (ARCHS) conducted a national demographic and health and wellbeing survey of 5,476 LGBTIQ people (Pitts, Smith, Mitchell, & Patel, 2006) and found significant levels of intimate partner violence:

41% of male-identifying respondents, and 28% of female-identifying respondents had experienced physical violence within a same-sex intimate relationship; and

25% of respondents had experienced sexual assault within a same-sex intimate relationship (with women-identifying and trans respondents more likely to experience sexual assault).

A smaller study of 390 LGBTIQ respondents in Victoria, also conducted by ARCHS (Leonard et al., 2008) found that that just under a third had been involved in a same-sex relationship where they were subject to abuse by their partner:

78% of the abuse was psychological and 58% involved physical abuse;

lesbian women were more likely than gay men to report having been in an abusive same-sex relationship (41% and 28% respectively); and

26% of respondents had experienced sexual assault within a same-sex relationship (Leonard et al., 2008).

This research, in addition to international data (e.g., see Donovan, Hester, Holmes, & McCarry, 2006; Edwards et al., 2015; Lorenzetti et al., 2015), suggests that intimate partner violence occurs in LGBTIQ populations at similar levels as within the heterosexual population.

LGBTIQ children and young people's experiences

Though this paper focuses predominately on intimate partner violence in adult relationships, it is important to note that LGBTIQ people may face abuse and violence across the lifespan as a result of their gender or sexual identity, including from within their own families. A national survey of LGBTIQ young people aged 14 to 21 years (Hillier Jones et al., 2010), for example, found that significant rates of young people had experienced abuse with:

61% of young people reporting verbal abuse as a result of their gender identity or sexuality;

18% reporting physical abuse as a result of their gender identity or sexuality;

80% reporting the abuse occurred at school; and

24% reporting they had experienced verbal and physical abuse in the family home.

For the young people who reported abuse in the family home, the abuser was most likely to be a parent and more likely to be their father than their mother.

Experiences of intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ communities: Implications for service providers and practice

While some patterns of intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships are similar to those in heterosexual relationships, others are more specific. This section describes the particular experience of intimate partner violence for LGBTIQ people and how heterosexism, heteronormativity and homo/bi/transphobia (see Box 1 for definitions) shape that experience (Albright & Alcantra-Thompson, (n.d.); Calton et al., 2015).

Box 1: Terminology

Homophobia and biphobia refer to negative beliefs, prejudices and stereotypes about people who are not heterosexual (Lorenzetti et al., 2015).

Transphobia refers to negative beliefs, prejudices and stereotypes that exist about people whose gender identity does not conform to the gender assigned at birth (Lorenzetti et al., 2015).

Heterosexism is the set of beliefs that privilege heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships "at the expense of non-normative sexual orientations and gender identities" and relationships (Leonard et al., 2008, p. 4). As Leonard and colleagues described, heterosexism assumes that sex and gender are fixed at birth and that:

Men are born masculine, women feminine and sexuality is the gendered, reciprocal attraction between the two ... society is built on the primal division and attraction between male and female. (2008, p.4)

Heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships are seen as natural, normal and legitimate (Lorenzetti et al., 2015). These assumptions reinforced through cultural beliefs and practices and through social and political institutions such as the law, family structures and religious beliefs (Fileborn, 2012) and thus become heteronormative (see below). Individuals who challenge this world view are subject to discrimination, and often abuse.

Heterosexism provides the "social backdrop" for homophobic, biphobic and transphobic prejudices, violence and discrimination (Fileborn, 2012). As Leonard et al. explained:

This framework suggests that homophobia and transphobia are both discrete forms of discrimination and also part of a singular, coordinated system for punishing those who in different ways pose a threat to heterosexist privilege and authority. (p. 3)

Heteronormativity is the internalisation of heterosexism at the individual, cultural and institutional level. Lorenzetti and colleagues described heteronormativity as "an internalised set of expectations about gender and sexuality" (2015, p. 33).

Intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships occurs within a "structural environment" of heterosexism, heteronormativity and homo/bi/transphobia affecting LGBTIQ people across the lifespan (Lorenzetti et al., p. 17). Heterosexism, heteronormativity and homo/bi/transphobia are forms of discrimination and despite LGBTIQ rights being protected in Australian law (Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)), LGBTIQ communities still face high rates of discrimination, harassment and abuse in many parts of their everyday life including at work, in public, at school/study and in access to health and other services (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014; Hillier et al., 2010). LGBTIQ communities also face stigma and social exclusion (Lorenzetti et al., 2015).

Research suggests abusive partners within an LGBTIQ relationship may use homo/bi/transphobia or heterosexism to exercise power and control over a partner. For example, the practice of "outing" or disclosing HIV status, or threats to do so may occur (Ball & Hayes, 2009; Calton et al., 2015; Kay & Jefferies, 2010). An LGBTIQ partner may use their partner's sexuality or identity as a form of control by limiting their access to friends and social networks, or by threatening to tell their partner's employer, parent, children, landlord or friends about their same-sex relationship or trans identity (Calton et al., 2015; Donovan et al., 2006). This can result in the fear of loss of children, employment, relationships or housing (Calton et al., 2015).

Internalised homophobia can manifest within an abuser as "contempt for an intimate partner" (Lorenzetti et al., 2015, p. 17; Calton et al., 2015). An abusive partner may also use homophobia or transphobia to control and isolate a partner by suggesting that they will not be believed or that they shouldn't report the violence as they will be discriminated against by services and the law (Calton et al., 2015; Fileborn, 2012). Further to this, fear of isolation and homophobia in the wider community may contribute to victims staying with an abusive partner (Kay & Jefferies, 2010; Parry & O'Neal, 2015).

As described above, heteronormative notions of intimate partner violence may also prevent victims from understanding their experience as intimate partner violence as it is predominately viewed as a phenomenon that affects women at the hands of a male perpetrator (Kay & Jefferies, 2010). Many authors argue that idealised understandings of LGBTIQ relationships further cloud understandings of intimate partner violence, particularly among lesbian women, whose relationships have often been understood to exist outside of traditional power dynamics (Merlis & Linville, 2006; Peterman & Dixon, 2003). Similarly, gay men may have difficulty conceptualising certain behaviours, such as rape within an intimate relationship, as intimate partner violence (Donovan et al., 2006; Fileborn, 2012).

Barriers to accessing support services

There are several issues that act as barriers to LGBTIQ people seeking help from and using support services and the criminal justice system (Calton et al., 2015; Kay & Jefferies, 2010; Leonard et al., 2008; Parry & O'Neal, 2015). These include:

an inability by support services/practitioners to view intimate partner violence outside of a heterosexual framework;

an assumption that intimate partner violence is mutual in LGBTIQ relationships;

insensitivity to and/or lack of awareness of the specific needs/issues of the LGBTIQ population;

discrimination, or fear of discrimination, particularly from police and the criminal justice system; and

stigma.

Heteronormative understandings of gender and intimate partner violence

Calton and colleague's review of the literature (2015) found that gender roles and assumptions about LGBTIQ relationships affect the way domestic violence service providers view intimate partner violence . As described above, the dominant view of men as perpetrators and women as victims may inhibit the ability of both victims and service providers to recognise intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships. In lesbian relationships involving physical violence, for instance, there may be the assumption that women are incapable of exerting physical power over other women. Similarly, stereoypes about gay men not being "masculine" might result in views that they are not capable of violence (Calton et al., 2015; Kay & Jefferies, 2010). Trans victims may be especially affected by a heteronormative lens: "without the sterotypically masculine agressor and sterotypically female victim easily identifiable, both survivor and potential helpers may not recognise abuse" (though some victims may be in relationships with heterosexual men) (Calton et al., 2015, p. 5).

Another issue identified in the research on LGBTIQ survivors of intimate partner violence is that some lesbian abusers will present as victims (to shelters, support groups, and so on), in order to further perpetuate abuse against their partner by pursuing them in these spaces, or by making it impossible for them to seek support at these services (Peterman & Dixon, 2003). As such, it is important for services to determine the perpetrator.

Lack of awareness/discrimination

Research suggests that service providers in the domestic violence, counselling and health sectors may lack understanding and sensitivity to issues specific to intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ populations, and some may knowingly and unknowingly discriminate (AIDS Council New South Wales [ACON], 2011; Calton et al., 2015; Donovan et al., 2006). An Australian study examining lesbian experiences of intimate partner violence , for example, found that mainstream domestic violence service providers are often unaware of the particular strategies used by abusers, such as the threat of "outing" as a form of control ( Hotten, 2009 in Fileborn, 2012). Some services may not be welcoming or accepting of LGBTIQ communities (Fileborn, 2012); for example, by not providing appropriate options on client intake forms (i.e. only providing male or female options, and thereby marginalising trans and intersex people). Lack of understanding and discrimination may affect trans or intersex individuals more severely; for example, trans women may be refused entry to "women only" domestic violence emergency shelters (Calton et al., 2015). Research from the USA suggests that trans individuals experience discrimination in medical and health settings and from therapeutic programs at higher rates than other populations (Calton et al., 2015).

The AIDS Council of NSW's (ACON) report into the gaps in services for people who identify as LGBTIQ experiencing intimate partner violence found that services lack awareness of, and sensitivity to, the specific issues and needs of LGBTIQ clients (ACON, 2011). In a survey of 65 mainstream domestic violence services in NSW, the report found:

services lacked an understanding of gender, sex and sexuality specifically in relation to intersex and transgender clients;

under half of all services collected data/demographic details about the number of LGBTIQ clients they saw;

less than 20% rated themselves "fully competent" to work with LGBTIQ clients, and less than 5% with transgender or intersex clients; and

services acknowledged that they needed extra resources, training and more accessible services for LGBTIQ clients, particularly in rural/regional areas.

The ACON report, as well as an Australian Institute of Family Studies review of services for at-risk groups (which included LGBTIQ communities) (Tayton et al., 2014), suggest that there is a need to demystify and recognise that violence happens in LGBTIQ relationships and in the families of same-sex attracted and gender diverse young people. This needs to occur in the general public as well as within domestic violence services and the justice system. Lorenzetti and colleague's (2014) framework for prevention of intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ populations was written for a Canadian audience; however, it is relevant to the Australian context. The framework suggests that building the capacity and knowledge of health care professionals, child welfare professionals, education workers, domestic violence services and the justice system through education and training is imperative in order to improve understanding and responses, and to prevent further violence.

Stigma

Stigma is another key issue that prevents survivors seeking help, and research suggests this is particularly an issue for bisexual and trans-identifying individuals (Calton et al., 2015). Stigma works in various ways to inhibit help-seeking behaviours. For example, individuals may not reach out for help because they are not open with their sexual orientation or gender identity; especially if their family is unaware about their LGBTIQ status (Calton et al., 2015; Carvalho, Lewis, Derlega, Winstead, & Viggiano, 2011). Trans people might fear being "outed" before they are ready to disclose their identity, and/or before they have made associated changes such as using preferred pronouns, a preferred name, changing physical appearance or undergoing any surgical procedures or hormonal therapies (Calton et al., 2015). Conversely, trans people who have been publically "passing" as a particular gender may fear seeking help because this would expose their trans history.

Barriers to reporting intimate partner violence to police

There are further issues identified in the literature around specific barriers for LGBTIQ people reporting intimate partner violence (and other violence more broadly, including homophobic violence). There is a history of poor relationships between police and LGBTIQ communities that has resulted in a fear and mistrust of police (Fileborn, 2012; Parry & O'Neal, 2015). Some state and territory police have sought to address this through the introduction of LGBTIQ liaison officers and by supporting events such as pride marches and the Sydney Mardi Gras (Fileborn, 2012; Tayton et al., 2014). However, research suggests that LGBTIQ communities still face significant discrimination and homophobic attitudes by police officers (Dwyer & Hotten, 2009; Kay & Jefferies, 2010; Fileborn, 2012; Parry & O'Neal, 2015). This contributes to an underreporting of intimate partner violence. Fileborn (2012) identified several further barriers to reporting and these included:

the desire not to draw negative attention to LGBTIQ communities;

the risk of survivors being alienated within LGBTIQ communities;

the belief that their experience will not be taken seriously by police; and

the belief that they will be discriminated against by police .

Conclusion

Intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships has been under acknowledged and misunderstood in policy, practice and judicial responses until relatively recently. This has largely been because intimate partner violence has predominately been understood from within a heteronormative framework in which men feature as perpetrators and women as victims. Absence of a cohesive framework from which to understand intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships, the dearth of population-wide data on prevalence, as well as a lack of recognition of the existence of intimate partner violence within LGBTIQ populations have also contributed to this lack of attention. However, there is growing recognition of the issue in policy and practice, and an increasing focus in research.

The available evidence suggests intimate partner violence occurs in LGBTIQ relationships at similar levels to heterosexual relationships and the abuse similarly involves the use of power, coercion and control. However, heterosexism, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are central to understanding how LGBTIQ people experience intimate partner violence . Heterosexism, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia also affect access to services and responses from service providers and the justice system. Several barriers have been identified for LGBTIQ people accessing services. These include discrimination (real or feared), lack of awareness and sensitivity to LGBTIQ issues, lack of recognition of intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships and heteronormative understandings of gender and intimate partner violence . Building the capacity and knowledge of health care workers, domestic violence support services and the justice system through education and training is imperative in order to improve understandings and responses and prevent further violence in LGBTIQ communities.

Useful resources

References

AIDS Council New South Wales (ACON). (2011). One size does not fit all: Gap analysis of NSW domestic violence support services in relation to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities' needs. Executive Summary and Recommendations. Surry Hills: ACON.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2012. Canberra: ABS.

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2014). Face the facts: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people. Sydney: Australia Human Rights Commission. Retrieved from <www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/​files/FTFLGBTI.pdf>.

Albright, M., & Alcantra-Thompson, D. (no date). Contextualising domestic violence from a LGBTQ perspective. Seattle: The North West Network. Retrieved from <nwnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Intersections-in-Practice-Article.pdf>.

Ball, M., & Hayes S. (2009). Same-sex intimate partner violence: Exploring the parameters. In B. Scherer (Ed.) Queering Paradigms (pp. 161-177). New York: Peter Lang.

Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1096-1107.

Calton, J., Cattaneo, L. B., Gebhard, K. T. (2015). Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence and Abuse.

Carvalho, A. F., Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Viggiano, C. (2011). Internalised sexual minority stressors and same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 501-509.

Donovan, C., & Hester, M. (2010). 'I hate the word "victim"': an exploration of recognition of domestic violence in same sex relationships. Social Policy and Society, 9(2), 279-289.

Donovan, C., Hester, M., Holmes, J., & McCarry, M. (2006). Comparing domestic abuse in same sex and heterosexual relationships. Bristol: University of Bristol. Retrieved from <www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/sps/migrated/documents/​rc1307finalreport.pdf>.

Dwyer, A., & Hotten, J. (2009). There is no relationship: Service provider staff on how LGBT young people experience policing. Paper presented at the TASA Conference 2009, 1-4 December 2009, Australian National University, Canberra.

Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., & Neal, A. M. (2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations : A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research, Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 112-121.

Fileborn, B. (2012). Sexual violence and gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer communities. Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA) Resource Sheet. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from <www3.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/sheets/rs3/>

Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., & Mitchell, A. (2010). Writing themselves in 3: The third national study of the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex attracted and gender questioning young people. Bundoora, Victoria: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society.

Irwin, J. (2006). Lesbians and domestic violence: Stories of seeking support. Women in Welfare Education, 8(1), 28-36.

Kay, M. & Jeffries, S. (2010). Homophobia, heteronomativism and hegemonic masculinity: male same-sex intimate partner violence from the perspective of Brisbane service providers. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17 (3), 412-423.

Leonard, W., Mitchell, A., Patel, S. & Fox, C. (2008). Coming forward: The underreporting of heterosexist violence and same sex partner abuse in Victoria. Bundoora, Victoria: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society.

Leonard, W., & Pitts, M. (2012). Private lives 2: The second national survey of the health and wellbeing of gay, lesbian, bisexual (GLBT) Australians. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society.

Lorenzetti, L., Wells, L., Callaghan, T., & Logie, C. (2015). Domestic violence in Alberta's gender and sexually diverse communities: towards a framework for prevention. Shift: The Project to End Domestic violence. Calgary: The University of Calgary.

Merlis, S. R., & Linville, D. (2006). Exploring a community's response to lesbian domestic violence through the voices of providers: A qualitative study. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 18(1/2), 97-136.

Mouzos, J., & Makkai, T. (2004). Women's experience of male violence: Findings from the Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS), (Research and Public Policy Series). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Parry, M. M., & O'Neal, E. N.(2015). Help-seeking behaviour among same-sex intimate partner violence victims: An intersectional argument. Criminology, Criminal Justice and the Law, 16(1), 51-67.

Peterman, L. M., & Dixon, C. G. (2003). Domestic violence between same-sex partners: Implications for counselling. Journal of Counselling & Development, 81(1), 40.

Pitts, M., Smith, A., Mitchell, A., & Patel, S. (2006). Private lives: A report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society.

Ristock, J. L. (2011). Introduction: Intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ lives. In J. L. Ristock (Eds.). Intimate partner violence in LGBTQ lives, (pp. 1-9). New York & Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Tayton, S., Kaspiew, R., Moore, S., & Campo, M. (2014). Groups and communities at risk of domestic and family violence. A review and evaluation of domestic and family violence prevention and early intervention services focusing on at-risk groups and communities. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Woodin, E. M., & O'Leary, K. D. (2009). Theoretical approaches to the etiology of partner violence. In D. Whitaker and J. Lutzker (Eds.). Preventing partner violence: Research and evidence-based strategies, (pp. 41-67). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The LGBTIQ acronym is used to refer to people who are from sexually or gender diverse communities and who may identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, intersex or queer. However, there is a great deal of diversity within these communities and a wide range of "terms and language used to describe biological sex, gender, sexuality and sexual practice" (Fileborn, 2012).

# data[].attributes.body
Many contextual triggers of intimate partner violence are seen in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, however there are some triggers that are unique to the context of a same sex relationship. For example, the impact of homophobia, and HIV, on an individual may be held against them, as a threat by their abusive partner. This usually includes threatening to tell their friends and family about their HIV positive status, or telling them about the gay relationship, if they have not come “out.” An abusive partner may use these factors as a method of control, to make their partner stay in the harmful relationship, or to control their actions within the relationship. It is really difficult as a heterosexual woman to understand the impact these factors can have on a person. As someone who practices in positive and healthy relationships, It is even more difficult to understand how a person could use them to bring harm to someone they supposedly love. Despite the different methods of control, or the contextual triggers, it is clear that heterosexual and homosexual abusive relationships share similarities, it seems so ludicrous that there is such a large gap in support services fro victims of same sex intimate partner violence.

# data[].attributes.body
The LGBTIQ community has a long standing history of being discriminated against, and misunderstood by wider society. With this shared experience, it is no wonder that support services and information surrounding same sex intimate partner violence has a ways to go, before it is comprehensive and provides adequate support for these vulnerable individuals. During the lecture for this topic, Dr Menih quoted a Queensland study that found workers from formal, domestic violence support services admitted that there was a gap in training surrounding the unique needs of same sex couples. I was really disappointed with this statement. How is it fair or just that our support services can only provide care to hetero-normative couples? This in itself is a form of institutionalized homophobia, and needs to be addressed by our government on a national level. I do believe that this will be addressed now that gay marriage is legal, hopefully that breakthrough in LGBTIQ rights will bring about a major change in government policy.

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 3. An info graphic detailing facts on domestic violence. (Hack For Family And Domestic Violence, 2018).

# data[].attributes.headline
Domestic Violence through the Radical Feminist lens #wk6

# data[].attributes.subject
Domestic Violence through the Radical Feminist lens #wk6

# data[].attributes.body
The rhetoric surrounding Domestic Violence in the context of Radical Feminism is one of Illumination. Radical Feminists assert that domestic violence is a critical component of creating, and maintaining the patriarchies control over both women and society. Gender roles are well established in our society. In particular, the male role as head of the family. Radical feminism tells us that this dominance is either natural or inevitable, so in turn, it is unavoidable. As a female it is difficult not to accept this notion as we see males in a position of power over women so frequently, that it can feel like the natural order of society. However, when this natural order is used to bring harm against women, one must question if there needs to be a stronger anti patriarchal movement? If women’s gender roles were established as the more dominant in a family situation, would the same methods of control, be available to men? In turn, would men then still possess the means to engage in acts of domestic violence?

# data[].attributes.body
The nineteen-seventies saw an emergence of public knowledge surrounding the issue of domestic violence, a form of deviant behaviour that has been previously hidden in the private lives of victims and perpetrators. Feminist campaigning and the emergence of domestic violence shelters saw the beginnings of wider societies actions to curb domestic violence. This however is no easy feat as domestic violence is both a social and a legal problem, the interplay between these two contexts making it difficult for the issue to be resolved on a large scale.

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 1. Poster from a German film, called 'Die Ungehorsame' that showcases domestic violence. (Beck, & Haase, 2015).

# data[].attributes.body
In popular culture audiences see the same representation of domestic violence over and over again. This image is often of a male who flies into a rage and physically assaults his wife or partner. As my knowledge of domestic violence was gathered from movies and television shows this shallow picture that was presented to me, is what I thought domestic violence consisted of. During week six of this unit I learnt that this was not the case. Once it was explained to me, it made perfect sense that sexual, and more surprisingly psychological violence are aspects of domestic abuse.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article Visentin claims that despite the governments efforts, the 2014 domestic violence reforms have done little to curb domestic violence. What is interesting about this article is the statement from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research director, who claims that the original goal of 'a 25 per cent reduction in domestic violence reoffending by 2021' is unachievable. These claims are based on the questionnaire that victims fill out as part of the process. BOCSAR tracked 24,000 cases of domestic violence and discovered that the questionnaire victims fill out is flawed, and puts said women at risk of further harm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Victims assessed as having a "serious risk" are then referred to a Safety Action Meeting (SAM), where a team of experts develop an "action plan" for the victim.

BOCSAR tracked more than 24,000 cases of domestic violence between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016, and found that the questionnaire was a "very poor instrument for measuring the risk of repeat domestic violence victimisation, often performing little better than chance".

As part of the questionnaire, victims are required to answer 25 questions designed to assess their risk-level. A police officer then performs a further assessment, including whether there are children at risk of harm. Victims are considered at "serious risk" if they respond "yes" to at least 12 questions, and if the officer's assessment also concludes there is a legitimate threat.

However, BOCSAR's report found that 90 per cent of those who experienced repeat victimisation had responded ''yes'' to fewer than 12 items in the questionnaire.

"Large numbers of women who are at serious risk aren't being identified as such and aren't being given the support of a safety action meeting," Dr Weatherburn said.

He said the questionnaire also failed to ask critical questions, such as whether the victim intended to live with the perpetrator.

"We were shocked to discover how bad that instrument was. You might as well guess who is at serious risk," Dr Weatherburn said.

The department of justice said there was a "common misunderstanding" that the tool was designed to measure or predict the possibility of re-victimisation.

"More accurately, [the tool] was designed to provide an appropriate immediate response pathway to reduce the level of threat for victims and increase victim safety," the department said in a statement on its Facebook page.

BOCSAR also evaluated the safety action meeting program, measuring its effectiveness against police local area commands where the program had yet to be implemented.

Rose Bay and Canobolas were the only local area commands to record a reduction in domestic violence incidents, and it remained below 3 per cent per month.

Dr Weatherburn said the program's ineffectiveness was partly a byproduct of the inadequacies of the screening process, which he said resulted in women who were not at serious risk being referred to the safe action meetings.

A spokeswoman for Pru Goward, the minister for the prevention of domestic violence, said the NSW government was currently working with BOCSAR to develop "a revised and improved risk assessment tool for domestic violence victims."

"This revised tool is in addition to a number of specialist initiatives that support victims of domestic violence and help them to rebuild their lives, free from violence," the spokeswoman said.

Dr Weatherburn said there was "hope for the Safer Pathway program if we fix that assessment tool".

This month, BOCSAR found that the government's treatment program for domestic violence offenders known as DVEQUIPS did not appear to reduce the risk of re-offending.

Similarly, its 2017 evaluation of the government's Domestic Violence Evidence-in-Chief reforms, which aimed to increase the conviction and guilty plea rate in domestic violencecases, said they had "had little if any effect".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Domestic violence scheme failing to protect women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Victims assessed as having a "serious risk" are then referred to a Safety Action Meeting (SAM), where a team of experts develop an "action plan" for the victim. BOCSAR tracked more than 24,000 cases of domestic violence between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016, and found that the questionnaire was a "very poor instrument for measuring the risk of repeat domestic violence victimisation, often performing little better than chance".

# data[].attributes.body
I found week six to be one of the most interesting topics covered so far. I had a fairly basic understanding of violence against women, only previously gathering information from popular culture and media campaigns. It was very engaging to see this issue through a more critical, and academic lens. As a women, domestic violence is an issue I cant help but relate to, and sympathize with, It is for this reason that I connected to week six’s content on a personal level.

# data[].attributes.body
Facts and figures on violence against women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Violence against women is now recognised to be a serious and widespread problem in Australia, with enormous individual and community impacts and social costs.

However this significant social problem is also ultimately preventable.

But to prevent violence against women we first need to understand it.

Get informed with these key statistics, facts and definitions.

Key facts

The following basic statistics help demonstrate the prevalence and severity of violence against women:

On average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner, according to the most recent analysis of homicide statistics in Australia.1 ​

One in three Australian women has experienced physical violence, since the age of 15.2

One in five Australian women has experienced sexual violence.²

One in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner.²

One in four Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner.³

Women are at least three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner.⁴

Women are five times more likely than men to require medical attention or hospitalisation as a result of intimate partner violence, and five times more likely to report fearing for their lives.⁵

Of those women who experience violence, more than half have children in their care.6

Violence against women is not limited to the home or intimate relationships. Every year in Australia, over 300,000 women experience violence - often sexual violence - from someone other than a partner.7

Eight out of ten women aged 18 to 24 were harassed on the street in the past year.⁸

Young women (18 - 24 years) experience significantly higher rates of physical and sexual violence than women in older age groups.9

There is growing evidence that women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence.10

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience violence at higher rates than non-Indigenous women.11

What do we mean by violence against women?

Put simply, and using an internationally recognised definition, violence against women is any act of gender based violence that causes or could cause physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of harm or coercion, in public or in private life. 12

As this definition makes clear, violence against women is not only or always physical. It includes psychological, economic, emotional and sexual violence and abuse, and a wide range of controlling, coercive and intimidating behaviours.

In Australia, violence against women is called many different things, including domestic violence, family violence, intimate partner violence, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Here are some definitions of different kinds of violence, which demonstrate the different forms that violence against women can take:

Domestic violence

Domestic violence - refers to acts of violence that occur in domestic settings between two people who are, or were, in an intimate relationship. It includes physical, sexual, emotional, psychological and financial abuse.

Emotional/psychological violence

Emotional/psychological violence - can include a range of controlling behaviours such as control of finances, isolation from family and friends, continual humiliation, threats against children or being threatened with injury or death.

Family violence

Family violence - is a broader term than domestic violence, as it refers not only to violence between intimate partners but also to violence between family members. This includes, for example, elder abuse and adolescent violence against parents. Family violence includes violent or threatening behaviour, or any other form of behaviour that coerces or controls a family member or causes that family member to be fearful. In Indigenous communities, family violence is often the preferred term as it encapsulates the broader issue of violence within extended families, kinship networks and community relationships, as well as intergenerational issues.

Gender based violence

Gender based violence - violence that is specifically 'directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately'.

Intimate partner violence

Intimate partner violence - any behaviour by a man or a woman within an intimate relationship (including current or past marriages, domestic partnerships, familial relations, or people who share accommodation) that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm to those in the relationship. This is the most common form of violence against women.

Non-partner sexual assault

Non-partner sexual assault - sexual violence perpetrated by people such as strangers, acquaintances, friends, colleagues, peers, teachers, neighbours and family members.

These definitions are taken fromChange the story: A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women and their children in Australia. You can find the full glossary of terms on page 61-62.

The impact of violence against women

Violence against women and their children takes a profound and long-term toll on women and children's health and wellbeing, on families and communities, and on society as a whole.

Intimate partner violence contributes to more death, disability and illness in women aged 15 to 44 than any other preventable risk factor. ¹³

Domestic or family violence against women is the single largest driver of homelessness for women, ¹⁴ a common factor in child protection notifications, ¹⁵ and results in a police call-out on average once every two minutes across the country. 16

The combined health, administration and social welfare costs of violence against women have been estimated to be $21.7 billion a year, with projections suggesting that if no further action is taken to prevent violence against women, costs will accumulate to $323.4 billion over a thirty year period from 2014-15 to 2044-45. 17

Children and young people are also affected by violence against women. Exposure to violence against their mothers or other caregivers causes profound harm to children, with potential impacts on attitudes to relationships and violence, as well as behavioural, cognitive and emotional functioning, social development, and - through a process of 'negative chain effects' - education and later employment prospects. 18

Above all, violence against women is a fundamental violation of human rights, and one that Australia has an obligation to prevent under international law. ¹⁹

What about violence against men?

All violence is wrong, regardless of the sex of the victim or perpetrator. But there are distinct gendered patterns in the perpetration and impact of violence.

For example, both women and men are more likely to experience violence at the hands of men, with around 95% of all victims of violence in Australia reporting a male perpetrator. 20

While men are more likely to experience violence by other men in public places, women are more likely to experience violence from men they know, often in the home. 21

The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence and sexual assault are perpetrated by men against women, and this violence is likely to have more severe impacts on female than male victims. ²²

Recognising the gendered patterns of violence doesn't negate the experiences of male victims. But it does point to the need for an approach that looks honestly at what the research is telling us, and addresses the gendered dynamics of violence - this is what Our Watch seeks to do.

Our specific mandate is to prevent violence against women and their children, but promoting gender equality and respectful and non-violent relationships benefits the whole community, including men.

Violence against women key statistics

References:

1. Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) 2017. The 2017 National Homicide Monitoring Program report by the AIC showed that over a 2-year period from 2012/13 to 2013/14, there were 99 female victims of intimate partner homicide. Women continue to be over-represented as victims of intimate partner homicide, accounting for 79% of all intimate partner homicides.
2. Cox, P. (2015) Violence against women: Additional analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Personal Safety Survey 2012, Horizons Research Report, Issue 1, Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety (ANROWS), Sydney; and Woodlock, D., Healey, L., Howe, K., McGuire, M., Geddes, V. and Granek, S. (2014).
3.Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2012.
4. In 2012, 17% of all women and 5% of men had experienced violence by a partner since the age of 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013),Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) Personal Safety, Australia 2012, Cat. No. 4906.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Canberra.
5. Mouzos, J. (1999)Femicide: An overview of major findings, No. 124, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, pp. 1-6.
6. National Crime Prevention (2001) Young people and domestic violence: National research on young people's attitudes and experiences of domestic violence, Crime Prevention Branch, Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, Canberra; and Cox (2015), see note 2.
7. ABS (2013), see note 4. Survey extrapolated to population figures on the basis of 3.8% of all women surveyed reporting having experienced physical or sexual violence from a non-partner in the past 12 months (and approximately 9 million women over the age of 18 in Australia).
8. Johnson, M. and Bennett, E. (2015)Everyday sexism: Australian women's experiences of street harassment, The Australia Institute, Canberra.
9. ABS (2013) see note 4. In the 2012 Personal Safety Survey, 13% of women in this age group reported having experienced violence by a man in the last 12 months. This was the highest proportion of any age group.
10. Cox, P. (2015), see note 2; and Woodlock, D., Healey, L., Howe, K., McGuire, M., Geddes, V. and Granek, S. (2014), see note 2.
11. There is no single data source that provides a direct comparison for all forms of violence. However various data sources consistently show Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experiencing higher (and often much higher) rates of violence than non-Indigenous women, with the size of the difference varying according to the type of violence, data source and jurisdiction. In 2014-15, hospitalisation rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family violence-related assaults were 530 females per 100 000 female population. After adjusting for differences in population age structures, this was 32 times the rate for non-Indigenous females. Source: Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (2016)Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: Key indicators 2016, Productivity Commission, Canberra, p.4.98, and table (table 4A.12.13).
12. United Nations (1993) Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women.
13. Based on Victorian figures from VicHealth (2004)The health costs of violence: Measuring the burden of disease caused by intimate partner violence, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Melbourne. A comparable national study is pending.
14. 55% of women with children presenting to specialist homelessness services nominated escaping violence as their main reason for seeking help. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012) Specialist homeless services data collection 2011-12, Cat. No. HOU 267, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra.
15. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2015)Child Protection Australia 2013-14, Child Welfare Series No. 61, Cat. No. CWS 52, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. Children exposed to family violence are classified as experiencing 'emotional abuse', which, while a broader category, is the most commonly substantiated type of harm (39%) in child protection notifications across Australia.
16. Police across Australia dealt with 239,846 domestic violence incidents in 2015, an estimated 657 domestic violence matters on average every day of the year (or one every two minutes) - calculated for police data sourced across all states and territories, collated atABC News.
17. Price Waterhouse Coopers (2015) 'A high price to pay: the economic case for preventing violence against women', report prepared for Our Watch and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth).
18. Frederick, J. and Goddard, C. (2007) Exploring the relationship between poverty, childhood adversity and child abuse from the perspective of adulthood, Child Abuse Review, 16, pp. 323-341; and Humphreys, C. and Houghton, C. (2008) The research evidence on children and young people experiencing domestic abuse, in Humphreys, C., Houghton, C. and Ellis, J., Literature review: Better outcomes for children and young people affected by domestic abuse - Directions for good practice, Scottish Government, Edinburgh. Several jurisdictions now recognise this harm as a form of family violence in and of itself.
19. The elimination of violence against women is also a specific target of the newUnited Nations Sustainable Development Goals, to which Australia is committed: United Nations (2015) Sustainable Development Goals.
20. ABS (2013), see note 4.
21. Ibid.
22. Around 95% of all victims of violence (both male and female) reported experiencing acts of violence - physical or sexual assault, or threats - from a male perpetrator. ABS, (2013), see note 4. Survey extrapolated to population figures on the basis of 3.8% of all women surveyed reporting having experienced physical or sexual violence from a non-partner in the past 12 months (and approximately 9 million women over the age of 18 in Australia).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Violence against women is now recognised to be a serious and widespread problem in Australia, with enormous individual and community impacts and social costs. However this significant social problem is also ultimately preventable. But to prevent violence against women we first need to understand it. Get informed with these key statistics, facts and definitions.

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 2. A Facebook post detailing forms of domestic violence (UN Women, 2017).

# data[].attributes.body
Week seven's topic provides a comprehensive overview of Men as Victims, in multiple contexts. It outlines men as victims of both intimate partner violence, and rape, and how the criminal justice systems responds to these male victims. The lecture also includes a discussion on the frequency, prevalence and types of intimate partner violence, the ‘Cycle of Violence,’ the different contexts of violent acts and how they impact victims, help seeking, perceptions and support services, including why victims don’t seek support from formal services. The lecture also provides some answers to the widely used question “Why don’t victims just leave?” This lecture gives a clear view of the gendered and hetero-sexist discourses surrounding intimate partner violence, and sexual assault.