Alzbeta Mozisova
Masaryk University, Czech Republic
Intersections of sexuality and gender in intimate partner violence in lesbian relationships
Sexuality in Theory and Practice
Kingston, UK, January 2013

The presentation discusses limits and perspectives of the feminist framework and the ways in which
gender intersects with sexuality in lesbian intimate partner violence. Drawing on the preliminary
results of a pioneering study of intimate partner violence in lesbian relationships in the Czech
Republic, using a mixed quantitative–qualitative methodology, it discusses the methodological and
theoretical challenges in the research of lesbian intimate partner violence. The research was
designed to explore the attitudes of lesbian, bisexual and queer women towards abuse in intimate
partnerships, and understand the experience and dynamics of abusive lesbian relationships through
individual in-depth interviews with the survivors. The study presents implications for how we
theorize and research intimate violence and contest the predominant theoretical model of domestic
violence.

Contents of the presentation
žFeminist discourse of domestic violence
žLimitations and perspectives of the feminist approach
žViolence in lesbian relationships
žIntersections of gender and sexuality in lesbian IPV

Feminist discourse of domestic violence
žemphasizes the gendered context of domestic violence
žsupported by the statistics from criminal research and shelters that report 90 – 95 % women as
survivors of DV (Dobash et al., 1992; Johnson, 1995; Belknap and Melton 2005).
žviolence stems from (and maintains) gender inequality (Maynard, Winn 1997
ž„One of feminism’s major contributions to domestic violence policy and practice has been to
identify men as the primary perpetrators of domestic violence“ (Itzin 2000: 360)
žPower and control are the most important aspects of domestic violence
ž
ž

Through violence feminisms criticizes and unveils structural inequalities
Theoretical models based on violence in heterosexual relationships when woman is the victim and man
is the perpetrator

Theoretical models of DV
C:\Users\BobiUfi\Documents\##share\queer\[2012] Mezipatra\DVprez4_domestic-violence-cycle.jpg
žThe Cycle of Violence
žPower-control Wheel

Domestic violence definition in the Czech Republic
žfollows the feminist notion of domestic violence as a gendered phenomenon, with women being the
victims of domestic violence in majority of the cases
žSpecific definition of DV with 4 key factors:
ž1. repeating and ongoing
ž2. escalating intensity
ž3. clear identification of perpetrator and survivor
ž4. private
—„In order to speak of domestic violence, all four characteristics must be present!“ (Domácí 2007)
ž

Limitations of the feminist approach to DV
žThe dominant DV discourse is based on the assumption of male perpetrator and female victim – this
universalisation of heterosexual experience and binary categories excludes people who have
experienced abuse in a non-heterosexual relationship, as well as those who do not fit into the
categories (transpeople, intersex people, etc.)
žSimple conceptualization of DV according to the heterosexual norm reproduces heteronormativity
žThe language used in DV discourse (with terms such as „battered women“ „male violence“) is
exclusive and contributes to further isolation and silencing of the victims (Giorgio 2002)
ž=> how can we theorize the intimate partner violence beyond heterosexual relationships without
rejecting the concept of gender as a relevant theoretical framework?

Conceptualization of gender
žDifferent frameworks of gender (Anderson 2005):
žIndividualist – sex as a predictor of violent behavior, reifying essentialist notions of gender
difference (or a lack thereof)
žInteractional - gender as an outcome of social practices rather than as an individual
characteristic that predicts behavior
žStructuralist – gender organizes social institutions as well as identities, attitudes, and
interactions.

Behavior is judged according to the gendered expectations – violence is associated with
masculinity, which leads to the assumption that the violence in lesbian relationships is
distributed accordingly with the butch – femme roles (Renzetti 1996)
The physical appearance is therefore used to determine who is the violent partner and who is the
victim.
Structural context of heteronormativity of institutions which influences the experience of IPV for
non-heterosexual people
Context of homophobia and internalized homophobia

Violence in lesbian relationships
žThe literature suggests, there are certain specifics that distinguish lesbian violence from
heterosexual violence:
—Ristock (2002) challenges universality of the feminist model of DV:
ž1) the cycle of violence: although most women described changing of violent and non-violent
phases, others spoke about non-cyclical individual violent acts
ž2) clear power dynamics: some women were victims in one relationship and then became perpetrators
in another; the dynamics of the lesbian relationships are less rigid (Townley 2001)
— - those with greater social privilege are not automatically those who abuse the power
ž3) the „ideal victim“ – experiencing fear, trauma and helplessness – many lesbian IPV survivors
defended themselves or even used violence in retiliation; some didn‘t feel scared or helpless

Preliminary results of my study
žMethodology:
žQuantitative, internet-based questionnaire, focusing on the attitudes of lesbian women to the
topic
žQualitative, in-depth interviews with women, who have experienced domestic violence in a same-sex
relationship
žSurvey data:
—207 questionnaires, 2 interviews
—157 (75, 8 %) lesbian, 43 (20, 8 %) bisexual, 7 (3, 4 %) queer
—202 identify as female, 1 as FtM, 1 as „genderfluid“ and 1 as „half man, half women; physically a
woman“
—In the survey, almost 1 in 5 women (19.7%, 40/207) said that they had experienced domestic abuse
at some time in a same sex relationship. Out of the 40 women, 8 (20 %) have experienced domestic
abuse in more than one relationship.
—

Characterictics of the abuse
ž60 % isolated violent acts
ž55 % one-time incident
ž35 % cycle of violence
ž30 % mutual violence
ž27, 5 % escalation of the violence
ž22,5% long-term violence
ž22, 5 % happenned in public
ž35 % first relationship
ž10 % current relationship
ž
ž
The definitional features of domestic violence /all four must be present/
1.repeating and ongoing
2.escalating intensity
3.clear identification of perpetrator and survivor
4.private
Ristock (2003: 335) identified tha pattern of first lesbian relationshiop as abusive in 49 % of the
cases - the violence happens in a context of heteronormativity, which implies isolation and
dependency on the (more experienced) partner in terms of social and information capital

Interactional frame of IPV
žBehavior is judged according to the gendered expectations – violence is associated with
masculinity, which leads to the assumption that the violence in lesbian relationships is
distributed accordingly with the butch – femme roles (Renzetti 1996)
žThe physical appearance is therefore used to determine who is the violent partner and who is the
victim.
žHassouneh and Glass (2008) identified 4 myths surrounding IPV in lesbian relationships:
ž1) women are non-violent
ž2) myth of lesbian utopia
ž3) violence between women can not be serious
ž4) the feminine partner is the victim

Women don‘t hit?
žI can‘t imagine one woman beating another. [survey #178]
žI never thought of it. Probably the same as usual + some extra emotional abuse. [survey #65]
ž
žThe association with psychological or emotional abuse is quite strong - as 66, 7 % of all
respondents think that lesbian IPV is mostly psychological.
ž
žI think that girls can hurt each other the most by some psychological abuse… a guy just hits the
woman, and he hits her so much that she can’t get up afterwards. But girls hurt each other much
more by what the say… It’s like a dagger through your heart, and I think that’s much worse than one
slap each night.
[Interview #1]
žShe started throwing things at me… then it was psychological… she would lock me someplace and tell
me „enjoy being helpless“. That was quite often, these psychological… And physical, that was
various. Burning, hitting all over, that was very frequent. [I: And did you have to seek medical
help after she had attacked you?] Approximetely five times during the relationship.
[Interview #2]
ž
ž

Female non-violence
žI think that domestic violence in lesbian relationships is not very common, because usually they
are more mature and they have other problems – for example in the society – that they have to deal
with, and they don’t need to be bothered even at home. [Survey #106]
-the myth of lesbian utopia (Hart 1986: 13) – the ideal image of lesbian relationships as equal,
loving and non-violent serves as a defence against the stigma of deviant relationships and
sexuality
-the context of societal homophobia
žThey are not women if they can do this. [Survey #112]
-This belief is a reflection of one of the myths of lesbian IPV – that women are not violent. And
it reflects that violence is associated with masculinity.
žButch, behaving like a man. [Survey #197]
ž- The opinion that violent women are those, who are stronger, bigger or more masculine was,
however, less prevalent than had been expected. Only 15, 9 % agreed with that.
ž

Structural effects of heteronormativity on IPV
žThe context of abusive relationships framed by institutionalized heteronormativity and homophobia
ž- the threat of being outed is used as a specific abusive form of intimidation
ž- isolation, lack of rights and services (Rohrbaugh 2006)
ž- homophobia of the police or the criminal and justice system (Renzetti, 1998).
ž

Naming the abuse in lesbian relationships
žMcLaughlin and Rosee (2001) conducted a research comparing attitudes of lesbian and heterosexual
women towards domestic violence showing that lesbians had better knowledge regarding domestic
violence in heterosexual relationship than in a lesbian one.
žAmong those women, who have not experienced IPV in same-sex relationship (N=167), when asked
„What are your associations with the term „domestic violence in lesbian relationships?“
ž10 % claimed they never heard of it, 7 % wrote „nothing“, 7 % can’t imagine it and 8 % think women
are simply not violent (or should not be).
ž=>„denial, minimization, silence“? (Merlis, Linville 2006: 131).
ž

Speaking about the abuse
Help sought from
Responses
N
Percent of Cases
LGBT friends
18
47,4%
Heterosexual friends
15
39,5%
New partner
14
36,8%
Family
10
26,3%
No-one
9
23,7%
Someone at work
4
10,5%
Therapist
4
10,5%
Other – is hasn’t ended yet
1
2,6%
Table 2b. Confiding about the abuse after the abusive relationship ended

Coming out and speaking out
žOf those, who had experienced abuse in lesbian relationship, only 5 % were closeted to their
friends or family; the overly high level of coming out should decrease their isolation
Levels of coming out (scale of 1 – no one to 10 – everyone)

Coming out to family
Coming out to friends
Coming out at workplace
N
Valid
40
40
38
Missing
0
0
2
Mean
7,40
8,90
5,82
Median
8,00
10,00
6,50
Mode
10
10
1a
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
However, being out does not erase the effects of heteronormativity - as Balsam (2001) pointed out,
the connection between heteronormativity and the silence concerning the abuse in lesbian
relationships works at all levels of coming out:
1. Those who are closeted cannot talk about abuse in their relationship which makes them even more
isolated (also the threat of being „outed“ can be used as additional form of violence)
2. Those, who are partially out but do not speak about their relationships also remain silent about
problems in their relationships.
3. Those who are out and active in the community feel as if the have an image to uphold - being the
role models and keeping alive the „myth of lesbian utopia“

Reasons for the silence
Table 3: The Reasons for not telling anybody about the abuse at the time of the abuse

Responses
N
Percent of Cases
I didn’t want to admit it to myself
11
55%
Didn’t percieve myself as a victim
8
40%
I was ashamed
6
30%
Didn’t want to lose my partner
4
20%
I was scared of my partner
4
20%
I don’t look like a victim
4
20%
Sexual orientation
3
15%
Didn’t know where to seek help
2
10%
Fear of the reaction
1
5%
Other
6
30%
= the context of heternormativity in which lesbian abuse takes place
= the intersection of gender and sexuality in the way that gender appearance and the expectations
of feminity associated with being „the right victim“ are in play.
„I didn’t think it was serious. Mostly it happened when we had a severe fight, and I perceived it
that these things just happen once in a while.“ [Survey #171]

Problems
Table 4: What do you consider to be the biggest problem(s) for those who experience(d) abuse in a
lesbian relationship?

Responses
N
Percent of Cases
The silence
27
73,0%
Attitudes towards LGBT people
23
62,2%
The police and the justice system
18
48,6%
Media representations of domestic violence
13
35,1%
Reactions of other people
12
32,4%
Lack of services for survivors
11
29,7%
Attitudes of the LGBT comunity
6
16,2%
I think there needs to be some major awareness raising and especially it should start early at
schools. Just to tell the kids what is wrong and what is right. It is about the education. It’s the
matter of how they raise you as a kid. If someone is raised to keep silent and simply obey
otherwise they get hit, they will obey in their adult life too. [Interview #1]
There should be some media visibility. It is all hidden, people hardly speak about it. [Interview
#2]

Seeking help
žThe survey results show that while majority (73 %) of the survivors consider the silence to be the
biggest problem, at the same time they perceive the attitudes of the LGBT community as the least
problematic. The victims often see the abuse as their own problem; something they have to deal with
for themselves.
ž
ž„What happens in the relationship, stays in the relationship.“ [Survey #164]
ž
ž[Have you ever considered seeking some „official“ help, some organisations?]
No. I just thought I would deal with it on my own… I don’t believe in this. It may be good for
people, who can’t deal with it alone, but – as I always say – I was raised that way that I deal
with everything on my own, rather than looking for help. [Interview #1]
ž
žWhen she [the survivor] doesn’t have the will to change it, there is nothing you can do about it.
[Interview #2]
ž
ž
ž
ž
ž

(The fear of) institutionalized homophobia
žThe survivors don’t see the problem in the community, rather in the services and the attitudes of
the society (towards violence and towards LGBT people). The criminal and justice system and the
services for survivors are seen as rather dysfunctional and they don‘t trust them.
ž
žWhen you end up in a hospital or a shelter, there should be some ways to keep you there. Because
once you are there, they usually say „that’s ok“ and there’s no further investigation. If I had
spent there more than those 2 hours and if they had talked it over with me, maybe it would have
ended differently… [Every time] I would say „I don’t want to talk about it“ and they would close
their files and tell me „you can go home now“. [Interview #2]
ž
žMy therapist obviously had a problem with it [that it was a lesbian relationship]. She even told
me something like „if you were with a boy, it wouldn’t have happened to you“. [Interview #2]
ž
ž
ž
ž

Conclusion
žDomestic abuse is experienced in many different ways by those in lesbian relationships and the
characteristics do not necessarily comply with the dominant definition of domestic violence.
žIntersections of gender and sexuality in IPV
ž=> Reflection and redefinition of the concept of gender used in the research of DV
ž=> Redefinition of the theoretical accounts of dynamics and definiton of DV

Lesbian IPV challenges the concept of gender, but at the same time shows, how gender and sexuality
intersect

Alzbeta Mozisova
Masarykova univerzita, Brno
amozisova@gmail.com
Thank you for you attention!