RileyDMF6113-3

docx

School

Northcentral University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

6113

Subject

Psychology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

7

Uploaded by MegaBook11073

Report
Week 3: Types and Targets of Family Violence Danae Riley School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Northcentral University MFT-6113 v3: Assessing and Treating Family Violence Dr. Van Donge November 5, 2023
Exploring Family Violence in San Diego Queer Communities Stepping into the welcoming and energetic community of Hillcrest in San Diego, CA was an invigorating feeling. The passion for community and authenticity was palpable. I have met with members of the LGBTQIA+ community throughout the years to talk about celebrations of progress made and testimonials honoring the positive impact the resource centers have had on individuals’ lives. However, today I am meeting with Danae Riley, a therapist and community activist within the LGBTQIA+ community in San Diego to discuss a more challenging topic that she has major concerns about for her beloved community. Intimate partner violence has not been adequately researched, supported, or represented by enough protective legislation up to this point, and the reasons may be in our current lack of data surrounding prevalence and proper treatment protocols. Danae and I met at the LGBTQIA+ resource center where we discussed her commitment to educate the community about the realities of the current landscape and options available for safe and affirming options based on the severity of crisis they may be in. Intimate partner violence and family violence is a global crisis. Though there is limited information available specific to the LGBTQIA+ community, from a wide lens, Danae referred to prevalence of violence through a CDC study showing lifetime prevalence of severe physical violence from an intimate partner to be 24% for women and 14% for men (Simpson Rowe, & Jouriles 2019). As she expanded on the scope of concern, she discussed negative outcomes of such violence impacting health, psychological wellbeing, relational competence, and societal stability (Simpson Rowe, & Jouriles 2019). The remainder of this article will cover some of the highlights from the interview.
What types of violence occur in your community? Though both men and women may use variable methods of violence, men tend to be more commonly exposed to and comfortable with physical violence, so physical altercations tend to be more prevalent with men versus women Due to more comfort with physical violence and experience with combat situations, men also tend to cause more harm than women. Women are more likely to use emotional and psychological tactics, and when physical violence is used, they tend to be less harmful to their partner than a man might be, though this is not always the case (Baker et al., 2013). It is important to note that these are prevalence trends and not binaries. Men and women both may use physical violence. Homophobic controlling behaviors may also be used by both male and female same-sex partners to maintain a sense of power and control over an individual. Often this may look like an individual threatening to “out” their partner, meaning to tell their partners family, friends or other social acquaintances that they are involved in homosexual relations before they feel ready to expose that information themselves. This type of control may be exacerbated by isolation and homophobia individuals may have experienced in their past causing fears of further discrimination and shame if they try to seek help (Kimmes et al., 2019). How do you feel this population is underserved? The most pressing concern I have today is where these folks end up going to seek help. Unfortunately, most shelters are not prepared to support same-sex partner violence and that is a known fact in the community. Many gender-based assumptions are wrapped up in the standardized protocols for how assessment and treatment planning are to be conducted for those seeking help (Baker et al., 2013) We have people who are scared to put their lives in jeopardy
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
due to fears of not being taken seriously, or due to fear of added physical psychological and emotional harm. That is a big reason why our Resource Center has been so insistent upon getting the word out about how we can help. Research in this area is incredibly limited, but it is vital to the continued understanding of risk assessment and treatment protocol. The largest gap that concerns me is the lack of focus on minority stressors that this community experiences. Not having these factors considered as a unique contributing factor may hinder clinicians’ awareness of how to navigate treatment planning (Baker et al., 2013). Additionally, due to limited sample size, nuanced factors related to gender may not be as reliable as we would like to see in research that may impact our therapeutic approach. What risk factors impact this community that may be different from heteronormative couples? The research is limited, but what is interesting about most of the studies particularly looking at LBGTQIA+ individuals who are victims or perpetrators of violence, the largest risk factors for victimization are fairly consistent with heteronormative couples. Prior perpetration or victimization was a top risk factor, followed by prior psychological abuse, lower socioeconomic status and having witnessed abuse as a child (Kimmes et al., 2019). Other factors like higher scales of masculinity across both male and female participants were identified and being risk factors for perpetration for violence What is exciting about this information is that it gives positive validation to the 3 rd wave feminist movement with its redirection from the battered woman and angry man to an expanded viewpoint using a holistic evaluation of the individual & systems that may also have influence (George & Smith, 2014). Though many of the most common risk factors are similar to heteronormative couples, there are some nuances that are
particular to individuals and families who identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community or those who have had same sex relationships that may be considered. Primary differences that we have seen in same-sex perpetrators of violence are internalized homophobia and higher rates of substance use for men and fusion for women. Being HIV positive has also been indicated as having an association with higher rates of victimization for queer men (Kimmes et al., 2019). To break down each of these factors further, I will tell you a little bit about what these mean in the LGBTQIA+ community and why they are likely so impactful to the rates of violence. Internalized homophobia is a minority stressor that I think is critical for us to further examine. Internalized homophobia refers to a queer individual’s stigmatization of the LGBTQIA+ community that they are a part of. (Kimmes et al., 2019). This dissonance created feelings of hatred toward oneself, leading to depression and anxiety and often is combined with heightened substance abuse which adds to the probability of violence occurring within a relationship (Kimmes et al., 2019). Though both men and women experience internalized homophobia, men have been identified as having higher rates leading to intimate partner violence and often the concerns of stigmatization are at an all-time high for individuals who are HIV positive. For this reason, HIV may be another risk factor associated with victimization of intimate partner violence. Those who are HIV positive may feel shame and lack a sense of worth or self-esteem, leading to vulnerability. It may be the case that the perpetrators of violence may feel as though they are taking out the anger and resentment they feel about themselves when being violent to their partner (Kimmes et al., 2019). For women in same sex relationships, fusion is a common experience in which women develop a boundaryless enmeshment with one another, losing their sense of individualism and
leading to anxiety and lack of differentiation. This may lead to individuals feeling a sense of isolation from the former support systems they may have had, and also may lead to ease of psychological manipulation (Kimmes et al., 2019). Another risk factor I am often overtly aware of is that likely, due to higher associations with jealousy, bisexual women are at the highest risk of violence with either a male or female partner (Baker et al., 2013). What factors do you have to consider when providing therapy to this population? There are many unique considerations I assess for when planning for systemic treatment with my clients. First and foremost, I approach my clients from a trauma informed lens, considering that this population is subject to lifelong prevalence of discrimination and lack of legal protections causing a continued lack of trust in law enforcement, mental health professionals and doctors who may have formerly stigmatized their lifestyle and pathologized their homosexuality (Baker et al., 2013). Creating a safe and affirming environment needs to be intentional, and I need to be patient with the process of gaining their trust in my ability to help them. I also maintain a non-biased, curious and open perspective, removing the gender stereotypes of men being abusers and women being abused. In the research we have seen conducted on the LGBTQIA+ community, this model has been proven to be inaccurate and harmful (Baker et al., 2013). Another interesting consideration to note for future research being conducted is that with this population, the identifying variables to allow for more targeted understanding of risk may be challenging as there is a difference in clients who identify as being LGBT versus people who may take part in same sex relations without identifying as a part of the community. Surveying questions to identify these variables must be more elaborate for researchers to truly understand the populations they are seeking to understand (Baker et al., 2013).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
References Baker, N., Buick, J., Kim, S., Moniz, S., & Nava, K. (2013). Lessons from examining same-sex intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 69, 182-192. George, J., & Stith, S. M. (2014). An updated feminist view of intimate partner violence. Family Process, 53 (2), 179–193. Kimmes, J. G., Mallory, A. B., Spencer, C., Beck, A. R., Cafferky, B., & Stith, S. M. (2019). A meta-analysis of risk markers for intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 20 (3), 374–384. Simpson Rowe, L., & Jouriles, E. N. (2019). Intimate partner violence and the family. In APA handbook of contemporary family psychology: Applications and broad impact of family psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 399–416). Whitaker, D. J., & Rogers-Brown, J. S. (2019). Child maltreatment and the family. In APA handbook of contemporary family psychology: Applications and broad impact of family psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 471–487). American Psychological Association.