The Minefield
By nature I will go to great lengths to avoid public controversy. However these past few months have brought class presentations, law enforcement trainings, awareness raising community events, and lobbying. Since the very premise of the work I do is controversial, public scrutiny and debate have recently become an unavoidable part of my job. These educational activities have forced me out of my familiar 'underground' role and into new and sometimes volatile social positions.
Prior to this fellowship, I had some experience giving educational presentations. In the past I had little difficulty presenting as an art instructor, swimming and Red Cross instructor, and camp counselor. However these former audience members attended my presentations because they wanted to; they thought the class sounded fun. In contrast, I doubt any of my current audience members think, "Oh boy, I bet this presentation on domestic/dating violence and sexual assault will be fun!" My current audiences are captive audiences; they consist of individuals attending church groups, classes, meetings, and trainings. My presentation is usually one of many activities scheduled for the group, and I know it is not the reason these individuals have decided to attend this particular function.
At first my new audiences' common unwillingness to interact with me caught me off guard. As a novice presenter, I rely on audiences' responses to provide me with clues about a group's knowledge of the subject, about which topics are OK to discuss, and about the best way to approach these topics. Occasionally event organizers for school and church presentations will insinuate that certain topics may be inappropriate, such as the use of the word 'sex,' a discussion of male on male sexual assault, or (accurately) approaching domestic/dating violence and sexual assault as crimes committed primarily by males against women and children. However the 'rules' are rarely clear, and often can only be discerned through visual signs of my audience's discomfort.
To ease everyone's nerves I generally focus the presentation on advocates' duties, DVA/SAC's services, and local crime patterns. Immediately delving in to a discussion of gender socialization, DV (domestic/dating violence), and SA (sexual assault) with a new audience is risky and can quickly become 'inappropriate.' However, it is almost impossible to talk about crime or crime victim services without eventually giving some insight into the motives and the experiences of the perpetrator and victim. This is where benign presentations get hazardous. As soon as my presentation moves from abstract crime statistics and DVA/SAC's services for hypothetical victims and to the more concrete realities of the crime and society's role in perpetuating unhealthy gender stereotypes, I know I can expect one of five responses from audience members. When I first began presenting I was prepared only for the response # 1. However, as I continue to see similar responses from my audiences, I have become better able to tailor my presentation to the needs of the audience.
1.) Genuine Interest and Concern
Several presentations have elicited a general response of genuine interest in the topic and concern for the safety and well-being of community members. These audiences are great! They are willing to ask me questions, and through discussion we can move beyond the abstract and begin to address actual community problems. These audiences tend to consist of adult (usually 30+ years old) professionals who work in or have had some experience with the social service sector. While these individuals are statistically less likely to become victims of DV or SA, they are often socially positioned to provide information and aid to community members in-need.
2.) Withdrawal
Withdrawal seems to be the most common response to the public discussion of DV and SA. In most group settings, we, as a society, do not know how to begin discussing these topics. There seems to be no quotidian consensus on where to draw the line between criminal activity and "sh*t that happens," on whether violent behaviors are committed by choice or because of natural instincts and urges (as if the y chromosome could contain a mutant 'rape and battery gene'), or if women and children over-exaggerate the trauma and occurrences of DV and SA. Moreover we have little national dialog to inform us on how to think about and discuss DV and SA. From time to time extreme cases surface in the media. When these cases are discussed, we hear about isolated incidents perpetrated by 'sick individuals' on an often stereotyped victim. Unfortunately this polarization reflects very little of the either the victim's or perpetrator's experiences, and provides the public with minimal information about the psychological nature of these crimes. Needless to say, many Americans have not come to any clear personal conclusions about the complex issues of DV and SA, and thus would rather not be asked to discuss such sensitive and divisive issues in front of their peers.
While our lack of understanding and general discomfort with discussing DV and SA certainly hinder participation, there are many additional reasons people may not wish to engage in such a presentation. For example, DV and SA are very emotionally charged topics. Rarely do I come across a woman that has never known someone who has, or herself, been in an abusive relationship. (I'm sure many men have also had first-hand or second-hand experiences with abusive relationships, however they seem less likely to volunteer this information to me.) Others who have not been affected by DV or SA may assume, "I know what's right and wrong, and I know how to protect myself. This presentation has absolutely nothing to do with me." A final example comes from several high school students who feared that by asking questions [and participating in the discussion] they may appear to be aligning themselves with the unpopular side of the debate. Another added that discussing violence against women is inherently sexist or male-bashing.
3.) She Should/Shouldn't Statements
(These statements and this section assume a female victim.)
If an audience decides to verbally respond, the third response may be vocalized by several members of both supportive and unsupportive audiences. She should/shouldn't statements direct one's attention away from the source of violence and focuses it on the victims' behaviors, in an attempt to rationalize the belief that victims in some way cause the assaults perpetrated against them. These statements are usually intended as questions, which serve to ask, "Isn't she also responsibly for the crime, since she should/shouldn't haveâ¦.?" These questions are great teaching tools, and are usually asked several times in different forms. For example people often comment, "She should have known he was violent, I mean she was dating him." "She shouldn't have stayed/thought he would change." "She shouldn't have cheated on her husband." "Everyone knows that she shouldn't have been walking alone, drinking, dressing provocatively, upset him, etc." Sometimes these questions are resolved quickly. Other times we delve into a lengthy discussion of crime (assault, battery, rape) vs. non-crime (a woman drinking alcohol or wearing sexy clothing.) With these questions we also frequently discuss the misconception that crime victims are illogical, stupid, or easily could have easily avoided the violent situation; the misconception that an abusive person will stop abusing the victim if she leaves, and the misconception that "just leaving" is easy and has no legal or financial consequences.
4.) Law and Order Questions
This response usually comes from high school and occasionally college students in student/peer audiences. These questions serve to steer the conversation towards Iowa law in an attempt to discern for which actions one can be legally punished. For example, "How could you prove it was rape, if both parties were drinking?" or "Is it still considered rape/battery/a crime if ..?" are common Law and Order responses. I have come to think of these questions as exemplifying psychologist Lawrence Kolhberg's Level I or preconventional moral reasoning. I assume this response is befitting, as I am presenting information to an age group among which preconventional moral reasoning will often "make more sense" than conventional or postconventional reasoning. Nonetheless I usually try to emphasize characteristics of socially acceptable, healthy relationships and sensitivity towards one's partner, rather than solely citing Iowa law and its many interpretations.
5.) Hostility
Although this response has been rare, several junior high and high school students have let me know that my ideas are "lame," "gay," and "a "load of crap."
Its Dirty Work but Someone's Gotta Do It
What's the best way to foster a dialog on these controversial crimes that victimize society, especially youth, at such an alarming rate? Honestly, I don't know. I'm still not convinced that one presentation inundating young people with statistics and information about DV and SA is the most effective or realistic way to raise awareness within this population. Small group discussions are much more productive and less uncomfortable for participants. Unfortunately to reach the public via small group discussions would be beyond crime victim services' current resource capacity. What we do know, however, is that without preventive education and social attitudinal change, we are destined to continue the cycle of violence. Social change and new ideas have to start somewhere, and perhaps these simple albeit awkward presentations from a nerdy counselor-type are as good place to start as any.
