Sunday, October 31, 2021

Halloween, a Holiday of Acceptance and Possibility

Halloween, a Holiday of Acceptance and Possibility 
 by David Ketchum 

    Today is my favorite American holiday. It might have something to do with Autumn, enjoying the dip in temperatures without the worry of an ice storm, the steam on a mug of hot tea on the patio in the early morning, the vibrant purple of the asters against the golds and reds of the changing Maple leaves, and the simmering pot of soup on the stove. Halloween itself is pure revelry in the human condition. We return to make believe and fantasy. We face human mortality, look the skeleton in its eye socket, and make friends (or at least shake hands) with our own impermanence. We know the world is full of scary monsters, and Halloween is when we get to openly, if not playfully, be honest about our anxieties and fears, whether inside or outside of ourselves. And it’s never more true than when it comes to our own selves. We open the lid on what we are, or what we might be, with fear, excitement, or both. 


     A bucket of candy sits next to the door, though fewer and fewer children threaten us with a chorus of “trick or treat!” Instead, most of our time and the greatest fun is spent with friends: being silly, putting on ridiculous costumes, playing games, and eating together. We don’t have a fixed tradition at our house. We may watch the “Once More with Feeling” episode from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. We may play a special session of Dungeons and Dragons, themed to some macabre setting or folklore. We may write popcorn horror stories, each of us starting a tale and passing it along to the next person to write the next part. We cosplay, decorate the house, and carve pumpkins. 

 A Respite from Privileged Expectations 

     But there’s more here. Halloween in the USA cannot be separated from queer history and community. This is, for practical purposes, our holiday: a day when we can be ourselves. We get to take off the costumes we are often forced to don all year, that we wear to minimize the risk of inconveniencing and incurring the displeasure of the cisgender, heteronormative world, and be ourselves. 

     This isn’t anything new or surprising. People who belong to marginalized communities are very familiar with disguising or masking ourselves in order to navigate the world, usually just to stay safe. Every group has their own unique version of this, but there are also many commonalities and parallels when it comes to dominant cultures pushing exploited groups to adapt to privileged expectations. Very often, these expectations become invisible, baked into the social norms that pass as acceptable, moral, and respectable. For example, upper middle class and wealthy folks have always made it very clear that I can’t act too comfortable in my working class identity, from the way I dress to the vocabulary I use. They can – and do - punish working class folks who fail to live up to their standards by withholding resources, references, job offers, and the like. Similarly, neurotypical people almost inevitably expect me to put in the extra work to make them feel comfortable, even though making eye contact is generally painful for me, I experience sensory overwhelm in loud environments, and I depend on stimming to help me cope and regulate emotions. 

 

   
 Realizing these kinds of things can also help us recognize how dominance influences and creates our own privilege. For me, this has especially meant being more aware of the way White supremacy is constantly at work, and how I have unconsciously internalized White culture and assumptions and prejudices. I realized that it is very helpful when straight people don’t make assumptions about what it is like to be queer, and then take time to listen, interrogate their own internalized dominance, and do practical things to change. So I try to enact the same process to work on my internalized dominance as a White person. By intentionally reflecting like this, I can bring what is usually hidden outside of my consciousness, into my awareness. Then I can more consistently commit to the ongoing work of unlearning Whiteness in myself, my relationships, and organizations. 

 Different Versions of Our Selves 

     We can observe the same kinds of dynamics when it comes to gender and sexuality. Growing up in a conservative Christian family and community before the internet, I did not have easy access even to the vocabulary, let alone people who might have helped me understand myself. The only term I had available was bisexual, but nothing in my world came close to helping me understand my experience as a transgender, nonbinary, demisexual person. Androgyny wasn’t quite right, and most of the other terms available to me are now considered the type of slang that you shouldn’t repeat on iTunes or YouTube. 

     There was a real helpless feeling in that. I could tell I didn’t fit the easy categories of a straight and cisgender. That was difficult in itself, but it was compounded by the fact that my religion was telling me that anyone who didn’t fit in those categories would fit in amongst the other unrepentant sinners in hell. In other words, I was never personally confused about my gender and sexuality, but I was constantly confused by the society and people around me who insisted that I couldn’t exist and, if I did exist, I was repulsive and should be punished for it. So I learned to hide myself and to talk about my gender and sexuality only at very particular times. More than that, I learned to hate myself, because that was the safest way to survive, to anticipate the rejection others promised by rejecting myself. This was my experience of being in the closet. 

     And then there was Halloween, the one night of the year when people like me could go in public wearing a mini-skirt, acrylic nails, and high heels. As long as I had a mask covering my face, this was just another costume. I could even enter the costume contest and parade around, laughing to myself as people tried to guess the person under the mask. It was literally a chance to try on different versions of myself. I could dress up as a devil or vampire, the evil monster that the preachers told me I was and see how that felt, learning with certainty that I was not evil. And in a world that said nonbinary people didn’t exist, I could masquerade as a truly fantastic creature, and still be seen and celebrated. I never won a contest, but the real joy was trying on all those different perspectives and experiences. Because everyone was putting on a mask, Halloween became an opportunity for queer people to take off the straight, monosexual, allosexual, cisgender costumes they were expected to wear, and be themselves. 

 “The One Fairy-Tale Evening” 

     This isn’t an exaggeration. Masquerades, costume parties, and other occasions for disguises have always been great opportunities for exploring identity, including and maybe especially for queer folx. As for Halloween, William Stewart, author of Cassell's Queer Companion: A Dictionary of Lesbian and Gay Life and Culture, observed that - 
 “Halloween has always been a time of year when the gay communities experienced greater freedoms. Even in the 1940s and 1950s, when police harassment of gay bars was at its height, Halloween was the one fairy-tale evening when the drag queens could come out with impunity.” (https://lavendermagazine.com/uncategorized/halloween-the-great-gay-holiday/ ) 
     To understand a little about why Halloween became such an opportunity, remember that many cities passed laws enforcing rigid binary and cisgender stereotypes, especially when it came to how you were dressed in public. Some of the earliest laws were in Ohio. In 1848, the city of Columbus outlawed people wearing clothes in public that were “not belonging to his or her sex.” At least 40 other U.S. cities passed similar laws in the following years. PBS NewsHour reported that: 
 “In effect, the anti-cross-dressing laws became a flexible tool for police to enforce normative gender on multiple gender identities, including masculine women and people identifying as transgender or gender non-conforming.” (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/arresting-dress-timeline-anti-cross-dressing-laws-u-s ) 
  

 
 Pittsburgh made headlines in 1907 for a crackdown on Halloween festivities that included arrests of “Girls who had donned male attire” and the hospitalization of a “Youth Who Donned Girl’s Attire.” The latter tripped down the stairs when “his feet became entangled in the folds” of his dress. But enforcement was no joke, as the report from Pittsburgh’s Halloween in 1913 makes clear: 
 “The police were kept were kept busy all through the night keeping order … . In a few instances women in men’s clothes were seen entering and leaving saloons, and others were seen making demonstrations which had been forbidden. / In the afternoon Secret Service Operative Homer Crooks arrested three boys who were making early appearances in feminine costumes.” (https://www.pghlesbian.com/2014/10/the-early-history-of-halloween-and-gender-norms-in-pittsburgh/ ) 
     Thankfully, the Pittsburgh police relented for Halloween festivities in 1914, promising that “Women dressed in male attire will not be molested unless they are disorderly or are seen entering saloons.” (ibid) But it was only a decade ago, in 2011, that New York still had such a law on the books, and “a person perceived as male who dressed in clothing customarily designed for women could technically be arrested … for ‘impersonating a female’”. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/arresting-dress-timeline-anti-cross-dressing-laws-u-s ) Even more recently, a controversial law, officially referred to as Section 240.37 but popularly known as “Walking While Trans,” was not repealed until February 2021. It was used to especially target trans women of color, on the assumption that a trans woman in public was “loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.” (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-york-repeals-walking-while-trans-law-after-years-activism-n1256736 ) 



 “Gay in Public” 

     With such constant harassment, it should be no surprise that queer folx would find ways to reclaim their humanity, their dignity, and their joy. And that is a big part of the story of how Halloween as we now know it came to be celebrated in the United States. Brandon Ambrosino traced the modern history to the “gayborhood parades” of the 1970s in San Francisco and Greenwich Villages. Then, in 1974, there was a march through Greenwich village showcasing the masks and puppets created by Ralph Lee. That event was so popular that it was repeated the next year, and the year after that. Each year, more people participated. “By 1983 the parade had become such a hit that The New York Times hailed it as ‘the best entertainment the people of this city ever gave the people of this city.’” (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-gay-is-halloween_b_4178221 ) 

     The 1970s represented a shift in queer liberation, especially in the desire to be able to be themselves in public. As Ambrosino pointed out, 

 “The gay community wanted to be gay in public. Mainstream culture wanted them to be quiet in public. A Halloween parade, then, was a perfect solution for everyone, because it permitted the gays to be as loud as they wanted under certain conditions. For one wild night, the rules of American gender would be temporarily suspended, and gay men could wear all the glitter that they wanted. But come the following morning, the tiaras were put away as gay men prepared for 364 days of heteronormative winter.” (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-gay-is-halloween_b_4178221 ) 

 Fifty-seven Percent 

     Over time, we’ve been able to reclaim more and more spaces and days. And with each passing year, the safer we make the world, the more people are able to accept and love themselves and others. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the ongoing research that reveals the shifting demographics in gender and sexual identities around the world. Julie Moreau, writing for NBC News, reported last June on a global survey by Ipsos that revealed more and more “young adults identify as nonheterosexual and noncisgender”. This wasn’t a small study, either, as it included over 19,000 people from 27 different nations, from 16 to 74 years old. Those who were born after 1997 “were nearly four times as likely than those over 40 (4 percent compared to 1 percent) to identify as transgender, nonbinary, gender-nonconforming, gender-fluid or ‘in another way.’” They were also twice as likely to identify as “lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual or asexual,” making up 18% of respondents. (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/nearly-1-5-young-adults-say-they-re-not-straight-n1270003) 


    
 Gallup polls in the United States have also shown a steady increase gender or sexual minorities. In 2012, 3.5% of respondents said they were LBGTQ+; in 2017, the number was up to 4.5%; in 2020, it was 5.6%. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx ) And in 2016, Ditch the Label conducted a survey of more than 1,000 young people (13-26 years old) in the UK and USA. 76% answered that they “no longer believe the conventional labels which are used in relation to sexuality to be relevant or of importance.” Only 43% identified as “traditionally ‘straight’.” (Read that again.) And over 90% of respondents “agreed that the exploration of your sexual identity is a healthy and normal part of growing up”. The report pointed out that: 

 “This means that young people do not have to ‘commit’ to any aspect of their identity prematurely when revealing themselves to their offline friends and family if they are not ready to do so. They have an opportunity to explore and come to terms with their sexual preferences at a pace that suits them, free from external pressures.” (https://www.ditchthelabel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/The-Valentine-Study.pdf ) 

 



     This is really hopeful news, reflecting a general trend towards more acceptance of the wonderful diversity of human experience. Society is changing; we are changing society; we are loving and permitting ourselves to be our selves. We are not there yet, to be sure. And as we grow into this more generous and affirming way of being, there will continue to be awful news related to gender and sexuality based oppression and violence. But those discussions are for another day. Today, we celebrate that hope that we are actually moving toward a humanity that is more open to and affirming of the huge amount of diversity in human gender and sexuality. 

     That is good news for everyone, and Halloween is perfect time to celebrate. It’s an opportunity for us to reflect on how queer communities, while excluded and demonized, have found ways to resist, thrive, and celebrate. And it is also a time to ask how we can keep becoming a society that encourages acceptance and love for all its members, where we dismantle all oppressive systems and cultures, and create a place where everyone can thrive. 

     So on this, the gayest of holidays, have some fun (while being safe): compliment outrageous (but not racist or culturally appropriative) costumes; be honest about your fears and desires; do at least one silly thing that brings you joy; eat and drink something that makes you happy; and have a very, very, very Happy Halloween!


Sunday, October 24, 2021

“Crisis as Opportunity for Transformation – How A Pandemic Can Help Us”

“Crisis as Opportunity for Transformation – How A Pandemic Can Help Us” 

click here to see the video

A picture containing text, person

Description automatically generatedOct. 24, 2021          Dr. Roger Ray  

 Arundhati Roy – from an essay in her soon to be published book, ‘Freedom. Fascism. Fiction.’

“What is this thing that has happened to us? It’s a virus, yes. In and of itself it holds no moral brief. But it is definitely more than a virus . . . it has made the mighty kneel and brought the world to a halt like nothing else could. Our minds are still racing back and forth, longing for a return to ‘normality’, trying to stitch our future to our past and refusing to acknowledge the rupture. But the rupture exits. And in the midst of this terrible despair, it offers us a chance to rethink the doomsday machine we have built for ourselves. Nothing could be worse than a return to normality. Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next. We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.”

 

I consume way too much news from a variety of sources. My only real TV consumption is watching Morning Joe while I have my coffee in the morning. There are times when they have really good guests and informative conversation, but I am regularly treated to moments when I am just overhearing a bunch of millionaires stroking their own egos before a live television audience.

 

It seems to happen most often when the hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, are joined by their friend and advertising tycoon, Donny Deutsch. As if they were perched on mountains of bags of money, they presume to give the Democratic Party advice about their branding, their marketing profile, their appeal to voters. On Monday, the trio confidently assured one another that Americans are, at best, a bit right of center politically. They are turned off by the social reconstruction proposed in Biden’s infrastructure and reconciliation bills. Deutsch always has to throw in the scare word, “socialism” to tell Democrats if they keep sounding like socialists, they will lose every election. 

 

What frightens these very wealthy people as they pretend to be journalists with their fingers on the pulse of America can be summed up in a three-word phrase so succinct that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could wear it on the back of a formal gown: tax the rich. The tax burden in America has left the very wealthy paying a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than those of us with modest middle-class incomes. 

 

Tax cuts on high income earners from the Regan era in the 80’s all of the way through Trump’s generous tax cuts for the rich is why our government cannot afford to provide the social services provided to citizens in most of western Europe. . . well, tax cuts and a bloated military budget and senseless illegal wars. 

 

But what is this frightening socialism that Joe, Mika, and Donny want to protect us from? What is actually in Biden’s proposed infrastructure and reconciliation bills?  I don’t want to get lost in the weeds about the differences in hard infrastructure like roads, bridges, powerlines, and water systems, and the social infrastructure, most of which is in reconciliation, but I do want to point out that as the media keeps using large dollar figures like “three trillion dollars” to make it seem like we are talking about a communist revolution. Folks, we spent more than that on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, so far as I can see, we got nothing out of those wars but unnecessary deaths and a loss of American credibility.

 

But, if, rather than wasting our resources on endless and often illegal wars, what if we spent American resources on America? What do we get?

 

Beyond long delayed and much needed repairs to roads, bridges, the power grid, and water, it is proposed that we strengthen families by providing universal pre-K classes and affordable childcare, which allows more American workers to actually go back to work and helps to give the children of the working class, a better start in education. It is also proposed that there be a child tax credit that will put money back into the households of those who are trying to raise the next generation of Americans. Frankly, I know of many families who have given up on having children because they can’t afford it. 

This tax credit would make it possible for both the wealthy and the poor to have a family. It also provides for 12 weeks of paid family leave in the case of a new birth, adoption, or serious family illness. It will not surprise you to learn that most American voters support these ideas. These are, after all, programs already present in most of the developed world.

 

And it proposes to make two years of community college education tuition free. Now, two years is not the same as a four-year degree and, in a real democracy, the children of the poor would have access to the same quality of education as the children of the wealthy, but no one is even proposing free college at the best college you can get into. But two years at a community college is better than nothing and those who do well there will often find a way to continue their education in either a state university or a private college. This is not a substantive solution to how the income gap affects access to education, but it is a step in the right direction… a step supported by the majority of American voters. 

 

And while this proposal falls far short of the universal health care provided in most developed nations of the world, it does expand Medicare and Medicaid to cover millions of people who are not covered now . . . something that wins approval from almost everyone but the super wealthy. 

 

And, as I am sure you have all seen the ads on TV that the pharmaceutical companies are paying hundreds of millions to run, it should not surprise to you know that they are lying to you again. What is being proposed is that we allow Medicare to take competitive bids for prescription medication because we, in the USA, pay about 2.5x as much for our medications as the same drugs cost in other countries. 

The pharmaceutical giants do not want to end this enormous government giveaway to very profitable corporations, but do you know who does want to end this obscenity? The majority of American voters. 

 

There is also a substantial investment in affordable housing, both to repair decaying houses and to make it more possible for first time homebuyers to get into a home of their own. Something that is long over due and something that would be applauded by the majority of voters.

 

There is not a “green new deal” as many of us had hoped but there is some money for improving rail service and also subsidies for buying electric vehicles and even more subsidies for those who buy EVs that are made in America. West Virginia senator, Joe Manchin, a coal millionaire himself, has made certain that the renewable energy portions of these bills have been gutted . . . so this is not a panacea, but it is a very positive start. The coal industry is rapidly on its way out, whether the government steps in to hasten its demise or not. 

 

These proposals fall far short of the ideal, of really trying to bring Western European social democracy to the USA but it is all so much more than I ever dreamed we would get out of a Joe Biden administration. Biden was never a progressive and for much of his career, the reason he could work across the aisle that separates Republicans from Democrats was that he seemed more like a Republican than he did a Democrat. Biden is an ardent Catholic, but he was never a Mother Teresa, Daniel Berrigan, Thomas Merton, or a Dorothy Day sort of Catholic. Somehow, we are seeing a different Joe Biden in this current debate. We are seeing someone whose political agenda does bear the fingerprints of Christian social values. 

What has made the difference? With your permission, I will speculate that at least a large part of what has made the difference is the pandemic itself. Not just 700,000 deaths but a massive disruption of the economy. Restaurants have closed, bookstores and dress shops have been reduced to curb service rather than in-store browsing. The pandemic has required relief checks and stimulus checks… government spending at an unprecedented level. They even gave payroll protection grants to churches which, I don’t mind telling you, made the difference in me being paid or not being paid last summer. 

 

The pandemic has been a health disaster, but it has also been an economic disaster that the government has stepped in to prevent it from causing a massive depression. We have spent money in the past 18 months that we never would have spent had we not been in the middle of a crisis.

 

It is like when a powerful hurricane hits several miles of very valuable beachfront property. It is a huge economic and human loss when this happens but the other thing that happens is that old, poorly built or maintained buildings fall down. Badly planned development with hold hotels too close to the water, all get wiped out. And when the water subsides and the debris is removed, communities then have the opportunity to build back in smarter, more eco-friendly ways. If I may be allowed to say it this way, they get a chance to build back better. 

 

Major natural disasters as well as human caused disasters, like a major war or mass migration, can change the face of society so that it doesn’t just snap back into what we have called normal.

 

I love the way that Arundhati Roy writes about it in a brilliant essay about the pandemic and the opportunity it gives us. She says: And in the midst of this terrible despair, it offers us a chance to rethink the doomsday machine we have built for ourselves. Nothing could be worse than a return to normality.. . This . . . is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next. We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.”

 

Our millionaire friends on the sets of morning news talk shows are trying to shutter our imaginations, limit our options, by trying to make the price tag sound comical, “3.5 TRILLION dollars,” without mentioning that this is a 10 year program. So, simple math shows it is 250 billion per year.”

 

What’s more, in the midst of this crisis, the most wealthy Americans, the super-rich, our billionaires who are shooting themselves into the sky for very expensive five and six minute long joy rides, they have become 60% richer during the pandemic! They have exploited the government spending and business panics to pocket nearly 2 trillion dollars in the past year of pandemic. Just a flat 15 or 20% tax on these obscene profits would more than pay for every program that I have mentioned. Mark Zuckerberg has become 137% more wealthy in the last year. What if he had only doubled his immense fortune in the last year, would he half to start clipping pizza coupons to make ends meet?

Amazon.com: Monopoly Classic Replacement Board by Hasbro : Toys & GamesMost of us grew up playing the board game, Monopoly. Three our four players start out with a certain amount of money and then they roll the dice to see which properties, or utilities you land on. You can buy available properties, make improvements on it and charge rent to other players who land on your property. Predictive skill helps in this game but mostly it is the roll of the dice. Eventually, one player gets all of the land and money and everyone else is broke.

 

What you may not know is that the game was invented near the end of the 19th century by a very clever woman named Lizzie Maggie. She invented it as a teaching tool about the downsides of a capitalist economic system that allows people to hoard so much wealth that they impoverish everyone else. She told a reporter in 1906, “In a short time, I hope a very short time, men and women will discover that they are poor because Carnegie and Rockefeller, maybe, have more than they know what to do with.” 

 

The myth that the super wealthy want to sell to the rest of us is that they are just so very very clever that they actually earned the huge fortunes they have and that they deserve this disproportionate hoard of the country’s resources…. Even if they just inherited it from daddy, Sam Walton, still, it is theirs. It is a myth that is based on a little bit of truth but their wealth, like in a Monopoly game, depends in part on their insight and intelligence, but it depends a whole lot more on the roll of the dice. . . being in the right place at the right time to ride the wave of changes in the economy to end up with a mountain of money.

The billionaires of America, and mind you, a billion dollars is a thousand million dollars, but the most wealthy have hoarded not a billion dollars but more than a hundred billion dollars. 

1

Elon Musk

Increase188.6

Tesla, Inc., SpaceX

50

  2

Jeff Bezos

Increase187

Amazon

57

3

Bill Gates

Increase129

Microsoft

65

4

Mark Zuckerberg

Increase105

Facebook

36

5

Warren Buffett

Decrease87.5

Berkshire Hathaway

90

6

Larry Ellison

Increase77.9

Oracle Corporation

76

7

Steve Ballmer

Increase69

Microsoft

64

8

Larry Page

Increase75.7

Google

47

9

Sergey Brin

Increase65.7

Google

47

10

Alice Walton

Increase62.3

Walmart

70

11

Jim Walton

Increase70.2

Walmart

72

12

Rob Walton

Increase61.8

Walmart

75

 

Just the top ten of this club of billionaires are collectively holding more than a trillion dollars which makes the Carnages and Rockefellers look like paupers. Why don’t we have universal healthcare, paid leave for new parents, tuition-free higher education, and more investment in renewable energy? Because a tiny club of businessmen have been allowed to hoard way too much of the nation’s resources. 

 

We know that income and wealth disparity will destroy the capitalist systems of the west, we know that we have to fix it or there will be a total economic collapse. We know that we need to take drastic measures to save our planet’s ecology but it never seems to be a good time. It seems to be impossible to muster the moral will. However, in a pandemic, when money is moving at this scale is exactly when we can best afford to make changes in our social structure that we preachers have been talking about for decades but we always seemed like we were pie-in-the-sky idealists but now, now, we really could do it. 

 

If we simply strive to return to “normal” a normal defined by the violence of poverty, crime, homelessness, illness…. Then that would be a failure of government, a failure of public morality, and, sadly, a failure of preaching. I don’t want to fail. I hope you don’t either.

 

Imagine a new and better world, that is better than normal, better than the way things were, and never stop fighting until we have succeeded in making the world the better world that we’ve been talking about for 3000 years.

 

A lion and a sheep

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Sunday, October 17, 2021

Domestic Violence & Social Change

David Ketchum
October 17, 2021



Before I begin, a brief word about terminology may be useful. There is no universally agreed-upon phrase to refer to what we alternatively call domestic violence, intimate partner violence, gender-based violence, and family violence. Often, these phrases are based in a specific discipline and reflect that discipline’s approach. Moreover, definitions may categorize different kinds of violence, such as physical, sexual, emotional, financial, and social. There are also legal categories and definitions, such as battery, assault, and homicide. Then there is the question of who is included, since domestic violence can involve parents, children, lovers, ex-es, and extended family. Its affects can range from mild to severe, from temporary trauma to death. Whatever this violence is called, its effects are pervasive and destructive. And our personal and social well-being cannot be separated from bringing domestic violence to an end. 

20 Per Minute

 

   
Since 1981, October has been set aside as “Domestic Violence Awareness Month” (DWAM), as a time to educate the public, share resources, and bring victims, advocates, and social service providers together. Forty years is a wonderful milestone to celebrate, and it’s also a long time from the perspective of our individual lives. But it is also a shocking reminder of just how recently domestic violence was largely considered socially acceptable, necessary, and even moral. 

    To the best of our knowledge, domestic violence before colonization was rare among indigenous peoples in the land we now call the United States (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40609-014-0003-z ). But settlers brought the habit with them from Europe and carried it with them as they spread across the continent. Following English common law, husbands were encouraged to beat their wives “for correctional purposes,” though the switch could not be larger than the man’s thumb. The practice went largely unchallenged through the centuries, and it was legally upheld in 1824 by the Mississippi Supreme Court. That ruling reinforced the right of a husband to use “moderate chastisement in case of emergencies”. In Alabama’s defense, it was also the first state to revoke the legal right of wife-beating, which it did in 1871. Maryland went further in 1882, when it became the first state to make domestic violence a crime. It carried a punishment of “40 lashes or a year in jail.” By the late 1800s, culture had generally shifted enough so that laws preventing wives from being held under lock and key, or daughters from being sold into prostitution, became more common. In some places, domestic violence was also recognized as grounds for divorce. (http://www.pacwrc.pitt.edu/Curriculum/310DomesticViolenceIssuesAnIntroductionforChildWelfareProfessionals/Handouts/HO3DomesticViolenceTimeline.pdf  ) 

    But progress wasn’t straightforward, and people consistently found creative ways to avoid prosecution or reduce consequences for domestic violence. To give two examples, in 1886, North Carolina ruled that a husband couldn’t be tried unless domestic violence resulted in permanent injury, threatened death, or was “malicious beyond all reasonable bounds.” In 1962, New York moved domestic violence cases to the civil court, where an abuser faced fewer penalties than if convicted for assault in a criminal court. Victims also faced extra obstacles to leaving violent relationships, such as being disqualified for welfare programs based on their estranged spouse’s salary. And it was not until the 1970s that most US states allowed a victim of domestic abuse to take a spouse to court. Even then, resources remained scarce and largely informal; in 1979, only fourteen states funded domestic violence shelters. (ibid) 

    October became Domestic Violence Awareness Month in 1981. By 1989, the United States had more than 1200 programs supporting victims of domestic violence, with shelters providing assistance to over 300,000 women and children each year. In 1990, judges were finally required to take into account any history of abuse when determining child custody and visitation rights. In 1992, the American Medical Association released guidelines to help medical professionals screen for domestic violence. (ibid) But intimate partner violence remains shockingly common. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has documented that “nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States,” which is more than 10 million people per year. In fact, domestic violence is at least “15% of all violent crime.” (https://www.ncadv.org/statistics )


The Social Context 

    The history, as always, is complicated. Obviously, very much has changed and we have a lot of progress to celebrate; we can be grateful for the hard work that won those victories. Obviously, domestic violence is still shockingly common; we can be grieved and outraged that this is the cases. To give you an idea of size of the problem, Missouri is in the top ten of states with the highest rates of intimate partner violence. Our 41.70% rate trails Oklahoma (49.10%) by only a bit more than seven percentage points. But there are no winners in these statistics. North Dakota has the lowest rate of intimate partner violence in the USA, and more than 25% of the population still suffer from abuse. (https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/domestic-violence-by-state ) At best, you have better than a 1 in 4 chance of experiencing violence in your home, a place that should be safe, beautiful, and full of joy.  


The obvious question that arises is: why is it so difficult for humans, including humans who live and love together, to stop hurting each other? As with so many things in the West, we tend to individualize both problems and solutions. And it is true that domestic violence is something that happens to individuals and particular families. But these statistics don’t happen by accident. Human relationships exist in social contexts, and family violence develops as part of our cultures and institutions. It may be less overwhelming to think about the problem as limited to the individuals involved, but when we make the social context invisible, we also make it difficult to understand what is happening and make good choices that lead to change. Bruce Perry made this point in 1997 in a foundational research report called “Incubated in Terror: Neurodevelopmental Factors in the 'Cycle of Violence.’” He wrote: 

“Widespread ignorance of the intimate relationships between cultural belief systems, childrearing practices and the development of violent behaviors will doom any attempts to truly understand, and prevent, violence...” (https://7079168e-705a-4dc7-be05-2218087aa989.filesusr.com/ugd/aa51c7_c5dbf3cc18c3475da0891b8982bcf63c.pdf )  

    This means, as the World Health Organization pointed out, that “Cultural and social norms are highly influential in shaping individual behaviour, including the use of violence.” Humans tend to act in ways that they believe are socially acceptable. If violence is viewed as a socially acceptable way to resolve conflict, or a strategy to control other people’s behavior, then individuals will act violently: 

“Social tolerance of violent behaviour is likely learned in childhood, through the use of corporal punishment or witnessing violence in the family, in the media or in other settings. Interventions that challenge cultural and social norms supportive of violence can help reduce and prevent violent behaviour.”   (https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/norms.pdf  )


Plates in a Basket

    It’s not a complicated point when you think about it, but it’s an exercise we typically avoid, and it took me years to truly understand it. This was despite spending a significant part of my own life dedicated to the people and issues involved with domestic violence - as a family member, pastor, mediator, foster parent, activist, and friend. Beginning in 1993, most of my early pastoral ministry focused on family conflict and violence. This led to an invitation from the Mennonite Central Committee in 2007 to work with a small nonprofit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, to help establish a program to address, prevent, heal, and transform family violence. It was a wonderful partnership, and I have a profound gratitude for the three years we worked together. 

    Peace Bridges didn’t start out addressing family violence. They were focused on training participants in basic conflict transformation tools that could be used in communities and organizations. But in the process of providing conflict coaching and mediation training, the staff kept hearing both stories of how participants were using the practices in their families and requests for more resources. It turned out that the training was impacting the participants’ experiences of family conflict, and some peacebuilders were taking the initiative and teaching these skills to other families in their communities.


    At the same time, we had a growing number of partners who were trying to address domestic violence. We learned that, despite an increase in resources and programs, violence in Cambodian families continued at significant rates. We had a baseline; two studies in the mid 1990s documented the experience (Plates in a Basket Will Rattle: Domestic Violence in Cambodia by Cathy Zimmerman in 1994) and prevalence (Household Survey of Domestic Violence in Cambodia by Erin Nelson and Cathy Zimmerman in 1996) of domestic violence in Cambodia. However, a 2005 study (Violence Against Women – A Baseline Survey by the Cambodian Ministry of Women’s Affairs) showed that, tragically, little had changed, despite a decade of effort. 

    That 2005 survey revealed that 64% of the population claimed to know a family that used violence by “Throwing something at the other, pushing or shoving or grabbing the other.” Further, 58% claimed to know a family that used violence by “Knocking on the head, slapping or spanking, kicking, biting, shaking, pulling hair, punching.” Even in families without physical violence, 93% of respondents said that it was acceptable for “cursing or insulting” to be used in family conflict and 92% claimed they knew a family that used cursing/insulting. Perhaps most significantly, respondent attitudes about the acceptability of violence, including extreme violence (e.g., threatening with a weapon, burning, choking, throwing acid, shooting, etc.), was consistently reported at disturbingly high levels. For instance, when asked, “In your opinion ... is it at any time acceptable for a husband to do this to his wife?,” 28% of respondents answered that it was at least sometimes acceptable to throw acid at or shoot the wife. (Violence Against Women – A Baseline Survey by the Cambodian Ministry of Women’s Affairs in 2005)


    This was all despite “a wide range of donors, government agencies and NGOs working intensely to reduce domestic violence for … nine years.” Why hadn’t there been a more dramatic change in attitudes and behaviors? The authors concluded that the reason was that “At their core, these past approaches were unconnected to Cambodian values and attitudes.” (ibid) For example, a lot of work was done in Cambodia to pass a comprehensive law addressing domestic violence. That was a huge victory! Then, organizations poured resources into going into villages and communities to educate leaders and police officers about the new law. This was also essential. But there was a gap that wasn’t anticipated. In our conversations, we learned that in some situations, the village leaders or police officers were using their new knowledge about the law to help men avoid getting caught. Education, as the saying goes, sometimes just creates more clever devils. In another situation, a person had received extensive training in conflict transformation. A young woman who was abused in the home tried to leave, and the ambitious mediator was part of conflict process that only addressed the girl leaving home, rather than the abuse that made her leave. Preserving the family unit was the absolute priority, over the girl’s safety. In both of these cases, the programs failed to connect with Cambodia values and attitudes in a way that made change possible. At Peace Bridges, we responded by creating a long-term training program that specifically helped participants reflect on what it meant to be a healthy family in a Cambodian context, shifting norms in a way that fit the culture.


“Beyond That”

    I’m so grateful to all my friends and colleagues at Peace Bridges and our partner organizations. Working together was a transformative experience that also made sense of my experiences in the United States and has shaped my approaches since then. It helped me understand how political and legal structures reflect social norms about domestic violence. This is also why, over the last ten years, my focus has shifted more toward conflict and violence in the queer community, especially among transgender and nonbinary folx. Social norms around gender have tended toward the very violent in US culture, and it’s not a secret that wives have more often been the victims of domestic violence at the hands of husbands. (https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf ) Patriarchal violence can’t be separated from cisgender-heteronormativity. It’s no accident that equal rights for women went hand in hand with progress to address, heal, and prevent domestic violence. Similarly, equal rights for gender and sexual minorities, as well as for children, are now vitally important to continue to address, heal, and prevent domestic violence. 

    This is one example of what is meant by shifting social norms. Rigid gender roles and stereotypes are still prevalent and give 1) abusers an excuse to act violently and 2) communities an excuse to blame the victim. If you believe that men are more violent by nature, then maybe you also believe we should not hold them accountable for violence. If you believe that women are responsible for doing all the housework, then maybe you also believe that a man has a right to be angry if the housework isn’t finished. If you think that a man who expresses any emotions except excitement and anger is weak, then maybe you also won’t believe a man who has been abused. And if you don’t believe that transgender and nonbinary people exist, then maybe you also don’t believe we have a right to safety, dignity, and happiness in our homes. (https://nomore.org/domestic-violence-transgender-community/ )

    Another social norm that plays a big role in domestic violence is gun culture. As reported by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, we know that 25% of homicides in the USA “are related to domestic violence,” and that a person is “five times more likely to be murdered by an abusive partner when the abuser has access to a gun.” We also know that “abusers often use the mere presence of a gun to coerce, threaten, and terrorize their victims, inflicting enormous psychological damage.” (https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/domestic-violence-and-firearms/ ) And yet, as a society, we continue to value easy access to guns more than we value human life or family health. 


    
Religion has obviously played a big role in all of this, too. Unfortunately, we live in an area where a lion’s share of religious beliefs contribute to, rather than liberate us from, domestic violence. (https://theconversation.com/evangelical-churches-believe-men-should-control-women-thats-why-they-breed-domestic-violence-127437 ) Last year, Harrison Keegan of the Springfield News-Leader and Kaitlin Washburn of the Kansas City Star teamed up to take a closer look at domestic violence in southwest Missouri. One of the stories, which will be tragically familiar, included a former member of James River Assembly of God, who reached out to the church after the police failed to take her seriously: 

“Joy sought counseling at the church, but the advice she received left her stunned and feeling betrayed. / A church counselor sat down with Joy and told her the abuse was her fault because she was not being a ‘godly wife.’ / ‘They used that as the basis for all of my counseling, that I needed to investigate myself more fully and figure out what I was doing wrong to force him to act this way,’ Joy said. ‘The counselor looked at me and said all of that is my fault and the wife is the one responsible for leading her husband to Christ.’ / Not long after that, Joy’s husband threw her down a flight of stairs and off a 14-foot balcony for not doing the dishes. She left him that day in the back of an ambulance.” (https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2020/11/15/springfield-high-rates-gun-violence-domestic-abuse-linked/6265109002/ )

    You probably will not be surprised by the pastor’s response: “It is the policy of James River Church that our counsel always prioritizes the safety and security of those who are facing abuse. … Beyond that we have no further comment.” (ibid) That was an opportunity to make things better, publicly denounce any interpretation of scripture in a way that excuses domestic violence, announce formal training for all counselors from people who actually understand domestic violence, and repent of the harmful ways religious institutions have blamed victims, tolerated and protected abusers, and put vulnerable people at risk for centuries. They could have reassessed harmful doctrines, such as women’s subordination or a view of atonement that necessitates and celebrates violence. But they didn’t do that. Hiding behind a flimsy policy that appears meaningless aside from protecting their own interests, they had “no further comment.” 

What we do and say is important. Our own voices may not be very loud next to all of these conservative megachurches and radio stations, but these are the voices we have. And we’ll continue to use them to insist that the world can be better, our homes can be safe and happy places, and our intimate relationships can be filled with love, instead of violence. For this Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I’m grieving for all who still carry the burden of family violence, who don’t know how to get out, and who have been opposed at every step toward freedom. But I’m also celebrating each one of us that has been able to break cycles of violence we learned in our families and create new families that don’t have to carry the burden of internalized oppression and generational trauma. May each of us find the people, resources, and places we need to have a life that is safe, free from harm and fear, and full of joy and love. 

-----

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence:

 https://ncadv.org 

National Domestic Violence Hotline: 

https://www.thehotline.org

(800) 799-7233 or TDD(800) 831-6863   

LOCAL HOTLINES (Southwest Missouri):

(417) 864-7233 or (800) 831-6863  

HARMONY HOUSE - LOCAL SHELTER:

(417) 837-7700 or (800) 831-6863