http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libdatabase.newpaltz.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0422e6dd-fb90-49bf-9813-3e11e5514c0a%40sessionmgr4010&vid=1&hid=4103
This article, Family Closeness and Domestic Abuse Among Caribbean and South American Women in South Florida, discusses the correlation between the level of family closeness and the likelihood of domestic abuse occurring in Latino households. Domestic abuse is something that occurs in the home much more frequently than most households openly acknowledge and is extremely prevalent in today's society. With that being said, there are many factors that influence domestic abuse (whether it is physical, emotional, or sexual abuse), including the communication style of the family, the families socioeconomic status, and the overall family structure. Again this article focuses on how family closeness and family structure affects the likelihood of abuse occurring, as well as the link between family closeness as an overall protective factor in domestic abuse.
As you read the article there are a few concepts/questions I would like for you to take note of and think about:
What are common assumptions you have when you think about violence/domestic abuse?
How does family closeness affect the likelihood of domestic abuse occurring?
In what ways do you think gender affects the relationship between the abuser/victim?
Notice how and when the words Latino/Latina are used throughout the article. Does this bring up the idea of male dominance in families/gender bias? Why or why not?
Do you think domestic violence is institutionalized?
What role does gender have in terms of how domestic violence is perceived and why it occurs?
*EDIT*
As a class, we discussed the focus points of the chapter, as
well as questions about the textbook reading. The questions that seemed to get
the most feedback were "what is a common assumption you make when you
think about domestic violence?" and "do you usually associate certain
genders with certain forms of abuse?" I found the class answers to be very
interesting and from having open discussion questions, it was made clear that
gender stereotypes are present in regards to this topic. Although we did not
discuss the article in full detail, one thing I was able to bring up was how
the use of Latina and Latino were used throughout the article. When referencing
the family household as a whole, the word Latino was used. When referencing a
female member of the house individually, the word Latina was used. With do you
think we consider the home to be a male dominated sanctum? Why or why not?
One additional point that I wanted to reference again was
the idea of institutionalization. In what ways, do you think domestic abuse is
institutionalized? Do you think we are breaking free from this idea? Why or why
not?
The article's focus was on how family closeness affects the
presence of domestic abuse. The healthier the family environment is, the less
chance there is of domestic violence for Latino families. Although this article
focused mainly on Latino families, do you think this notion is common for most
diverse family cultures? How do you think culture affects domestic abuse?
Thank you again everyone for participating!
As discussed in class, some of the most common misconceptions of domestic violence and abuse is the idea that it is predominantly the male abusing the female in a given relationship. This is greatly caused by, as well as being affected by, the way society perceives gender and the expectations and characteristics that are placed on certain genders. The picture of the abuser being a male stranger and the victim being female that is conjured up by so many of us is a direct result of these conditions. With this being said, I do believe that domestic violence can be considered an institutionalized entity. The act of domestic abuse is something that society has only recently begun to combat, meaning that years of unreported and unacknowledged violence within relationships has taken place. This lack of recognition and action has created a culture in which behaviors like this are normalized. The article focuses primarily on the correlation between family structure and communication with the likelihood of domestic abuse which greatly plays into these concepts in that it represents gender and communication in a familial setting.
ReplyDeleteMallory,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in terms of how cultural expectations lead our society to believe that domestic violence is predominantly a male dominated idea. In terms of domestic violence being an institutionalized entity, I agree with you as well. But, like you said this abuse has gone on under the radar for way too long. Although it has taken some time, our world truly is trying to enforce change for the better. Like you said, that starts off with creating awareness. In reference to your comment on the article, I found it interesting that domestic abuse and familial communication is linked. Although this article focused only on Latina women in Latino households, I believe it would be interesting if the article referenced multiple cultures and ethnicities.
Thank you for your comment!
Taylor
Do you usually associate certain genders with certain forms of abuse?" A lot of the times people automatically assume that violence it is male abusing the female. However, it is also female to male. And even female to female or male to male. And also domestic abuse is not only physical when it is also emotional and mentally. There is a commercial circling around showing a scene of domestic abuse. The scene is when the girl is little and a boy hits her and her mom states "it's because he likes you." And as she gets into a relationship when she is older, her boyfriend hits her and she thinks it is because he is in love with her. It made me think that is communication in the family. I think that that is where the problem of domestic abuse begins. It needs to start when children are little so they know that it is not okay. And even if they are too little to understand, as they grow older it will raise more awareness.
ReplyDeleteHey Maria,
DeleteYour example of the commercial poses an extremely valid and interesting point. It is often hard to figure out what the root of the issue of abuse is, in terms of relationships. But, that commercial makes me question whether or not the victim of abuse is conditioned to think and feel a certain way towards his/her abuser because of how they were brought up and how they were taught to think. Going off of your comment in regards to teaching children what is and isn't "okay," I believe that there is a grey area in terms of what parents teach their children about what's right or wrong.
Taylor, you bring up a really interesting point in regards to whether or not family closeness is a protective factor against abuse universally, or only in specific cultures. The article brought up the idea of familisimo as being associated with why family closeness is a protective factor against abuse in Latino families. Familismo is a Latino value that emphasizes the importance of being rooted in ones family and that ones actions should contribute to the overall welfare of that family. This value is associated with the protective power that close relationships can have over abuse, because it supports the idea that family members should stick up for other family members. This factor is especially powerful in close mother-child relationships. Though the researchers speculated that this idea was connected to the protective power of close relationships in Latino households specifically, this theory could be pretty much applied cross-culturally. Though there may be some cultures in which perhaps a strong mother-child relationship would not serve as a protective factor against domestic abuse because of different cultural norms, for most cultures, especially Western cultures, this theory would probably apply. I think this is true because even though there may not be a specific term for familismo in other cultures, I think That being said, there would have to be more research and studies conducted to see to which specific cultures this theory actually applies to.
ReplyDeleteHey Hayley,
DeleteRelating this discussion back to the article really provides valid evidence that family closeness does in fact provide a protective factor against abuse. How different cultures perceive and maintain relationships definitely has an effect on the family welfare, too. I find it interesting how cultures can vary so dramatically in some areas, yet for the most part there is always an underlying sense of family and closeness.
Taylor, your points are so interesting!
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question on male dominance, I feel like a home is considered in this way because it is the norm for the male to bring in the money and therefore seems to give them more power over women. When a women brings home more money than a male, in some case it causes conflict because it is not "supposed" to be that way, and a home is not "supposed" to be powered by a woman. Domestic abuse is definitely institutionalized. As far as breaking free from this idea, maybe slowly things are changing but it is going to take time for this idea to completely be broken due to the fact that many people have different views on things and society makes changes at a severely low pace. As stated in your presentation, the term familismo is a great example on how culture affects domestic abuse. This term is a Latino value, and goes to show that there are ways in which other cultures, specifically the Latino in this case, view protective power that relationships can have over abuse.
Hey Mandi,
DeleteThe overall concept of domestic abuse being institutionalized is something that I find extremely interesting. I agree with you that although there is a constant push for change in terms of how we perceive the dynamic between men and women, it is definitely going to take some time. With that being said, I do believe we are going to witness some incredibly drastic changes in the years to come. I agree that the overall idea of familismo can be a factor in terms of how protective power in relationships can affect abuse.
Taylor,
ReplyDeleteYou pose a great question when you ask why society considers the home to be a male dominated sanctum. To my knowledge, unless a household is ran by a single mother, almost always, the man of the household enforces the rules that the kids, and even the wife, must live by. Since this idea is more common than uncommon, it programs our minds to automatically associate domestic violence to be initiated by the male of the household and relationship. We can ask ourselves why this is but in regards to male dominance in the household, it is easy to assume that when children or a spouse do not obey the man of the household, there will be consequences. For many generations, the male has been a superior figure in the household and that is why they enforce the rules, demand to be respected, and will not tolerate anything less than the ways that they want their household to operate. For many generations, the man of the household has always been respected by the children. It makes us question whether it was out of fear or if it was out of respect. Our minds are automatically predetermined to assume that the male figure in a relationship is the one to enforce the domestic violence. However, as the class discussed, this is not the case in same sex couples. Who is to blame when either one or both parties are engaging in domestic violence but are the same sex? Domestic violence is a major issue in relationships and unfortunately it always will be. Great presentation Taylor!
Hey Andrea!
DeleteI find it very interesting how you brought up your personal experience regarding the home being a male dominated sanctum. We often disregard the fact that as a majority, we tend to view "the man of the house" to be the rule enforcer, and that both children and wives simply just accept this. The fact this is a preexisting idea that often times does not get brought up in topic of conversation, nor do we tend to question this really proves that it is socially constructed and institutionally drilled into our minds. As you said, this has been going on for generations and to be honest, I find it to be quite unfair. Like you mentioned, our minds are automatically predetermined to believe that the male is the one who is likely to perform domestic violence. In a way, it is almost an accepted predetermination of relational constructs. In regards to the question of how is at fault in same sex marriage, again enforces how socially constructed and accepted intimate relationships are. There is so little research on same sex relationships due to the fact that it strays away from the norm. So, to answer your question... I am not entirely sure.
Thank you for your post!
Taylor
When I think of domestic abuse I think of physical and emotional violence. I believe physical abuse is the most thought of version of domestic violence, however there is also emotional and physiological. Since the latter categories are more abstract and do not exhibit visible marks, they tend to go unnoticed. I also believe it is difficult for the abused to realize when they are being emotionally abused. Domestic violence is also usually perceived as male on female violence. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NSADV) 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of sexual violence in their lifetime. Therefore, men and women have experienced almost equal amounts of domestic violence. It is not only a male perpetrated thing.
ReplyDeleteI believe family closeness has a great affect on domestic violence. Different cultures also influence how abuse is or isn’t normalized. I believe American culture has normalized seeing women being domestically abused, but it is considered abnormal if a man is abused. We see this in demonstrated in films and TV often, which is problematic. These are cultural stigmas that need to change. It is institutionalized because ideas surrounding masculinity encourage dominance and the victims are often silenced because of legal red tape, disbelief or feelings of being trapped.
We must also remember that not only spouses are victims of abuse, but children are susceptible as well. When I work at my grandfather’s day camp in central Long Island, it is part of our job as counselors to notice evidence of abuse. From what I have seen, children can be greatly affected by the abuse that occurs inside their home. There have been many sad stories from my grandfather’s camp, but an important lesson I have learned is that domestic abuse is not uncommon. Many children, spouses, romantic partners are abused. Children are not an exception because they are young, but are more prone to abuse because of their youth.
Hey Allee,
DeleteI agree with you when mentioning that due to the fact that both psychological and emotional abuse do not leave visible marks on the victim involved in the relationship, these forms of abuse are often swept under the rug. I also agree that often times, the individual does not recognize that the abuse is present. I also believe that family closeness has an extreme impact on domestic violence. The normalization of abuse does vary from culture to culture, which is why is is so hard to pin point exactly what is and isn't acceptable. What we define abuse as is entirely different from cultures outside of America. Regardless, cultural stigmas do need to change but that is much easier said than done. I agree with you that we as a culture focus mostly on the spouse involved in domestic abuse. In actuality, and similarly to what you said, children, grandchildren, parents, friends are all affected by domestic violence.
Thank you so much for your response!
Taylor
Taylor,
ReplyDeleteYou pose some really great questions. First, the idea that when referring to the family household as “latino”, rather than “latina”, signifies an important value that most cultures have. Perhaps this can be related back to the importance most cultures place on paid work and the lack of importance placed on care work. I’m taking motherhood and mothering this semester (a class everyone should take!) and we discussed that, through industrialization, the role of women changed. When families survived through agriculture, women were not seen “less” important because they didn’t hunt. They still picked crops, cooked, and cared for the children. However, industrialization allowed for individuals to acquire food, and other needs, from grocery stores. Men were then taught to go to work, make money and support his family. Women were stationed in the home to cook, clean, shop and care for the children. Being that the home is the domain of the woman, why would the man be identified as “head of the household”? Well, wouldn’t it make sense that in a capitalist society, money is the most important thing? Thus, this family structure was a means of oppressing women and giving control to men for they were the ones providing the most important resource- money. To answer your other question as well, many cultures probably take on this belief, as we have seen in our own culture. It relies on whether or not you live in a patriarchal society (as opposed to a matriarchal society such as some Native American cultures believed in), for this is an outlet for men to obtain more control and power.
As far as domestic violence being institutionalized, this also goes back to a means of control and power over their female counterparts. Not only have cultures normalized and enforced the idea that men are superior to women, but they have also normalized violence. Abuse is not just enacted by men, I just believe this norm was set by men and has been taken on by women as a result. We are exposed to different media that demonstrates this is to be expected or even warranted. Although over time legislation has been developed to attempt to protect individuals against violence, it remains contradictory to what we are exposed to. In addition to this, Spitzberg and Cupach (2011) discuss in their book The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication that, “family abuse is ‘done in a way that violates socially acceptable standards and carried out with the intention or perceived intention’” (pg. 365). Therefore, the idea that violence is acceptable to an extent as well as an individual not perceiving abuse as intended are both consequences of institutionalized acceptance of violent behavior. This can cause the violators to be unaware they are demonstrating abusive behavior and victims to accept it for they have internalized that they deserve it, or at least should expect it.
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteWow! Thank you for bringing up your personal experience from a different class. I find it to be extremely interesting how women were deemed as "less important" when family survival was based off of agriculture... especially due to the fact that they were only limiting themselves of the task of hunting. To be honest with you, I find this to be amazing. Why? Why are men constantly viewed as the stronger, more dominant members of family?
In regards to your comment pertaining to the institutionalization, I also believe that the majority of this issue is deeply tied to the idea of control and power over one's counterparts. Thank you also for bringing up points from our Darkside of Interpersonal Relationships class, because I too used the information learned in that class for my presentation. Thank you again for such an awesome post!
Taylor
Hey Taylor,
ReplyDeleteI believe that your presentation brought up many good discussion questions that not only got the class thinking, but also changed perspectives about the concept of family and the relation tied to domestic abuse. Is domestic violence institutionalized? Well, I believe that every aspect of life is not only institutionalized, but also internalized. I also believe that although it may sound stereotypical, gender/ the way individuals are gendered truly effects the way one perform's their individuality. Beginning in early education and following all the way through to a man's adulthood, it is instilled in him to act tough and perpetuate his dominance in all aspects of his life. This definitely translates into why men are categorized as abusive more frequently than women. Thanks for your presentation!
Best,
Conor
Hi Conor,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how you brought up the point that not only are most aspects of life institutionalized, but the fact that we internalize them as well. I find that statement to be true. Whether one agrees or not, an individual is effected by every encounter they have in some way. I also agree that morals, values, and beliefs are instilled in people starting at childhood. Thank you for your post!
Best,
Taylor