History of Intimate Partner Violence Research
Two fields have dominated IPV research: family violence studies and feminist studies. Of those, feminist scholars were the first to turn what was considered an individual, private matter (wife abuse) to a social problem. They succeeded, but not without leaving behind the LGBTQ+ communities. In the article “Straighten Up and Act Like a Lady: A Qualitative Study of Lesbian Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence,” Mikel L. Walters states that an “acceptable representation of a female survivor” was necessary for the movement to raise awareness (2011). This “acceptable representation” was a white, heterosexual, married, middle-class woman. In the 1970s, lesbians were considered “perverted, sick, and deviant;” therefore, it was in the interest of lesbian activists to perpetuate the idea that men were the aggressors in relationships (Walters, 251). Although the promotion of the ideal victim might have helped the movement grow, and the stereotyping of men as aggressive might have taken some pressure off lesbians at the time, both perspectives were severely misguided.
A Couple Definitions
In contrast to academic IPV research, awareness of sexual and gender minorities has increased in mainstream society and pockets of academia, and the conversation about sexuality and gender has changed. Terms like ‘heteronormative,’ heterosexism,’ and ‘genderism’ show up in academic studies and popular culture, and internalized homophobia and internalized heterosexism are discussed in studies that address LGBTQ populations specifically. These two definitions illustrate the need to reveal what has been there all along. Historically, straight, cisgender people are less likely to see heterosexism or genderism, because they do not experience the negative effects from them. However, awareness of LGBTQ+ issues is illuminating the fact that LGBTQ+ folks have unique challenges.
Heterosexism: the collective constellation of societal prejudice, attitudes, stereotypes, and beliefs that cast heterosexuality as normative and any other form of human sexual identity, attraction and/or behavior as abnormal.
(Hoy-Ellis and Fredriksen-Golden, 2016, 1120)
Genderism: an ideology that reinforces the negative evaluation of gender non-conformity or an incongruence between sex and gender
(Hill and Willoughby, 2005, 534).
A Bit More Context
In addition to mainstream media, another group who is paying attention to IPV in the LGBTQ+ community is the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP). They conducted a study of LGBTQ+ access to help for victims, and reported their findings in their report “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-Affected Intimate Partner Violence in 2015” (2016). Of the victims who sought help at domestic violence shelters, 44% were turned away, and of those victims, 71% stated gender identity as the reason (10). But access to domestic violence shelters is hardly the only issue facing LGBTQ+ victims of IPV. In the article “Counselors’ Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence in Same-Sex Versus Opposite-Sex Relationships,” Jamye Banks and Alicia Fedewa review studies that measured the way counselors’ attitudes about same-sex couples influenced their treatment recommendations for IPV victims (2011). They found that when participants were given the same scenario, they were more likely to see the situation as dangerous when they were told it was in the context of a heterosexual relationship. Because they saw same-sex IPV as inherently less dangerous, they were less likely to recommend emergency intervention, and more likely to encourage couple’s counseling (201). Obviously, that kind of discrepancy has the potential to put people’s lives and well-being at risk.
The second major development in IPV research came in 1979, with Murray Straus’s article “Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales.” Straus’s article caused a split in IPV research, because he reported findings that women and men engaged in abuse in equal amounts. This led to what is now called the “gender symmetry” debate (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010), which has continued into the present. The fact that IPV happens in non-cisgender, heterosexual relationships has been glossed over or ignored by both camps.