PL  |  NL  |  FR  |  ES  |  PT  |  IT  |  DE  |  DK  |  NO  |  SE  |  FI  |  GR  |  JP  |  CN  |  KR  |  RU  |  AE

  Report this article

More information

Changing patterns of knowledge production

Utopia

Theses for an Extensive Reform of Education

Defeating Radical Islamic Ideology

Is Urdu going to survive in modern technological computer and internet time

The Hidden Agenda of the Left: Degrees of Insight

Internal Medicine Jobs Outlook 2010

Devastating Effects of HIV/ AIDS on Children of Zimbabwe and Bringing Hope to Them

Damascus Steel

A monarchist manifesto

Indian Immigration

Juan is Wounded Again! (Sugatan na Naman si Juan!)

DIRECT VIOLENCE Acts of violence based on perceptions of sexual orientation or gender expression are not new phenomena. Men were executed for sodomy as early as 1624 (Katz, 1976, 1992). Lesbians and gay men have been, and continue to be, subjected to institutional violence, including felony imprisonment and fines, clitoridectomy and castration, forced psychiatric treatment, dishonorable discharge from the military, and general social ostracism (Herek, 1989, p. 948). Harm based on perceptions of SOGE represents the most violent and culturally legitimate type of hate crime in the United States (Jenness & Broad, 1997, p. 49). Mason (2002), summarizing the results from large victimization surveys undertaken on homophobic violence in a number of English-speaking countries, found that:

�¡ 70 to 80 percent of lesbians and gay men reported experiencing verbal abuse in public because of their sexuality

�¡ 30 to 40 percent reported threats of violence

�¡ 20 percent of gay men reported physical violence

�¡ 10 to 12 percent of lesbians reported physical violence

For people whose sexual orientation or gender expression is outside narrowly defined societal norms, violence is a normative part of life. That is a fact, but it is not a tolerable fact.

HATE CRIMES Hate crimes are criminal offenses committed against a person, family, or property that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnicity/national origin, gender, or sexual orientation or gender expression. Even if the offender was mistaken in the perception that the victim was a member of the group against which he or she was acting, the offense is still a hate crime because the offender was motivated, in whole or in part, by bias against the group (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996). Examples of hate-motivated acts include threatening phone calls, hate mail, physical assaults, and vandalism, as well as noncriminal actions that are motivated by bias, such as nonthreatening name-calling, using racial slurs, or disseminating anti-group leaflets (National Hate Crimes Documentation Network, 2001).

Analysis of the statistics published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (1996) reveals several patterns that have remained consistent over time. Racialbias crimes are the most commonly reported hate crimes, and those crimes are most often perpetrated against African Americans. Religious bias is the second most prevalent type of hate crime reported, and those are most often anti-Jewish in nature. Sexual orientation hate crimes are consistently the third most prevalent type of hate crime reported, and those are more often perpetrated against gay men.

Hate crime statistics provide important information, but they profoundly underrepresent the parameters of the problem. These statistics reflect those incidents that were reported to particular agencies and recorded by them. But only a small proportion of crimes are reported, and many jurisdictions do not collect these data. Community surveys indicate that a profoundly small percentage of SOGE-related violence is reported to the police, conservatively less than 20%. For example, in one sample of 2,259 lesbians and gay men living in or around Sacramento, California, hate crimes were about half as likely as non-bias crimes to be reported to the police (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999). Fort Lauderdale’s anti-violence project, Gays United to Attack Repression and Discrimination (GUARD) reported statistics showing that only about 2% of all hate crimes are reported. Columbus’s Stonewall Union Antiviolence Project reported that across the United States gay/lesbian anti-violence projects consistently document a 1:10 ratio between violence reports known to local police and those reported to gay/ lesbian community advocates (Jenness & Broad, 1997).

Why are there such disparities in the reporting of crimes that are characteristically so heinous? Peel (1999) found that those who did not report the crime agreed with statements such as “It was not practical,” “I was scared and did not feel safe,” “It happened at work and I felt partly to blame.” Many of the nonreporters in Peel’s study cited concern about police homophobia as a substantial factor influencing their decision to not report the crime.

Hate crimes are more than numbers and statistics; they represent human harm and suffering. The effects of hate crimes are not only the direct impact on the immediate victims and their families and friends but also the indirect impact on those who might just as easily have been targets—those who are members of the same identity group (Hood & Rollins, 1995, p. 239).

From the descriptions of those who have reported their experiences of SOGE related hate crimes, the pattern of this violence is beginning to emerge. Mason (2002) describes it as follows:

The typical homophobic incident is said to be a random street assault perpetrated by a group of young males who [are] strangers to the victim. The victim is often alone or with one or two friends at the time. In cases of physical violence, incidents are more likely to occur at night and to take place in public places such as the street, car parks, parks and beaches. This picture appears to be consistent across nations.

However, there are distinctions between violence against lesbians and violence against gay men. Gay men report greater levels of physical assault from strangers, and lesbians report that the perpetrator is more likely to be known to them (although not always).

Several studies of violence against lesbians indicate that although much of the aggression does appear to involve random street-based attacks, a significant number of the incidents take place at home or work, involve ongoing campaigns of harassment, and are committed by one older man acting alone, who may be known to the woman (Mason, 2002, p. 40). Violence and hate crimes emerge from a larger context that implicitly, and at times explicitly, sanctions them.

INDIRECT VIOLENCE SOGE-related violence is often officially sanctioned and condoned by government, religious, and social institutions. That means that the direct violence of hate crimes is supported by interlocking systems of indirect structural violence. In an array of issues, contemporary social institutions such as government, religion, family, and economic and social welfare entities promulgate and support policies and practices that overtly or covertly cause harm to those who stand outside the dominant forms of sexual orientation or gender expression. The policy analysis and work of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force are particularly helpful in reconstructing the parameters of indirect violence that structures life in America for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, two-spirited people, transgender people, and those who question their sexual orientation or gender expression (GLBT2Qs).

Civil rights laws ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in four states—Minnesota (1993), Rhode Island (2001), New Mexico (2003), and California (2003)—and the District of Columbia, while ten states ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.2 In the remaining thirty-six states, discriminating against an individual or group because of sexual orientation is quite legal (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2004). Only 9.3% of transgender people are protected by any form of anti-discrimination laws. Sodomy laws, an invasion of the privacy of sexual expression between consenting adults, remained in effect in fifteen3 states (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2003) until the United States Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws in the Lawrence v. Texas decision. The military is a significant source of both direct and structural violence in relationship to SOGE. Since the adoption of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by the U.S. military, the Service Members Legal Defense Network has documented 968 incidents of anti-gay violence between February 1999 and February 2000, a 142% increase from the preceding year (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2002).

The concept of family is a deeply complex issue for GLBT2Q people, complicated by SOGE-related structural violence. Many religious groups deny the veracity of same-sex relationships. Same-sex couples who choose to parent children can expect to experience difficulties in becoming foster parents, in adopting, and even in sustaining the custody of their own biological children (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2002). Within the United States of America, same sex marriage is possible only for residents of Massachusetts, and that only since May 17, 2004. However, since the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, thirty-nine4 states have passed legislation or constitutional amendments specifically banning the establishment or recognition of such marriages in their states (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2002). Because same-sex marriage is not a possibility in any state except Massachusetts, domestic partnership benefits are the primary avenue for sharing economic benefits and legal protections. However, domestic partnership benefits are provided by individual employers, municipalities, or states, and the value of those benefits is subject to federal and state taxes (similar benefits available to married heterosexual couples are not taxable).

Health issues, particularly breast cancer and HIV/AIDS, remain significant areas of concern and discrimination with regard to diagnosis, treatment, access to ancillary services, and confidentiality. Similar issues arise regarding mental health services.

Discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation remains legal in many states; same-sex couples generally are denied the community recognition, legal protections, and economic benefits accorded to married heterosexual partners; sexual intimacy between same-sex partners remains illegal in many states. Sexual orientation and gender identity, an individual’s most basic expressions of love and identity, remain sources of oppression and discrimination—of structural violence—across the array of social institutions. This constellation of denied protections and benefits creates a pattern of structural violence that subtly and perniciously denigrates relationships among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and two-spirited people, and those who are questioning their sexual orientation or gender expression. Through this denigration, their orientations to love and their ways of being in the world are rendered less than fully human, and as a consequence, they are rendered less than fully human.

FACES OF VIOLENCE Acts of violence, and inactions that condone violence, affect particular individuals, families, and groups, and they have consequences for those individuals, families, and groups. Survivors of SOGE-related violence are particularly susceptible to the aftereffects of violence. Many crime victims report experiencing depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, fears related to personal safety, and diminution of their sense of self-worth. SOGE-related hate crime survivors displayed less willingness to believe in the general benevolence of people and rated their own risk for future victimization somewhat higher than did others. They also were more likely than others to regard the world as unsafe, to view people as malevolent, to exhibit a relatively low sense of personal mastery, and to attribute their personal setbacks to sexual prejudice (Herek et al., 1999, p. 950). SOGE-related hate crimes symbolically represent an attack on the victims’ identities and community, and so affect the victims’ feelings about their orientation to love, gender expression, and their community. Survivors of SOGE-related hate crimes may perceive that their sexual orientation or gender expression places them at heightened risk for an array of negative experiences in a dangerous world over which they have little control.

One pernicious manifestation of structural violence is that GLBT2Qs may not be able to count on the support of their family or community if they have been victimized. Nontraditional sexual orientations and gender expressions are often developed in opposition to one’s family’s or ethnic group’s expectations. Because of this disjunction from family and community experiences and expectations, these individuals are not likely to be taught strategies for coping with prejudice— at least, not by their families (Herek et al., 1999, p. 946).

Given this context of violence and its seeming ubiquity, it is important for social workers to begin to understand some of its root causes. Without at least a preliminary understanding of causes, and without a clear focus on goals, intervention efforts are likely to flail and to address symptoms rather than the root of problem.