Abstract
It may at first seem curious that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would be the topic of an editorial 9 months after its 2013 reauthorization and before we have the opportunity to examine its impact, since it takes effect in fiscal year 2014. Nonetheless, advocates can revel in their victory of a battle hard fought, particularly after the failure of Congress to reauthorize VAWA in 2012. For some of us, the true curiosity was that there was a battle at all. Surely, we can agree that interpersonal violence is socially undesirable, if not tragic. In her blog, Bea Hanson (2013), acting director of the Office of Violence Against Women, reported, “The week that VAWA was reauthorized, at least 15 women and 4 men were killed by intimate partners. A 9-year-old boy was killed by a hatchet by his father, who had previously served time in jail for domestic violence and fought for custody after his release. A 17-year-old boy was arrested for stabbing his 16-year-old girlfriend to death. And a 22-year-old pregnant woman was shot in the head and her body burned—her boyfriend has been arrested.” Notwithstanding these tragedies, the curiousness begins to fade when the sticking points of the reauthorization become transparent; three provisions for previously unaddressed or underaddressed groups were included: (1) protections for intimate partner violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBT); (2) the sovereignty of Native tribal courts; and (3) extended access to U visas for immigrant victims (Eichelberger, 2013; VAWA: Udall Celebrates Senate Reauthorization of VAWA, 2012).
These “sticking points” allow us to use multiple theoretical lenses to contextualize our cultural acceptance of violence against women in the United States (because surely no theoretical lens helps us understand that this violence is appropriate).
Sticking Point 1: Equal Protections for LGBT People
At a time when our willingness to address the needs of LGBT people has expanded (e.g., the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, access to marriage and medical decision making and directives and as beneficiaries of insurance, electing openly lesbian and gay members of state and federal governments, and the U.S Supreme's Court recent opinion about the Defense of Marriage Act), why was the notion of equal protection with VAWA such a sticking point? (Note: we are not arguing that the country has gone far enough in equal protections for LGBT people, just that it has recently made some progress.) As good feminists, we are obligated to consider that the answer is tied up in an analysis of the patriarchy itself. Through simple acts of loving, the expression of gender in forms that are different from their natal gender or, as with this claim for equality, the patriarchy is threatened. At a March 2013 meeting entitled the “Feminization of Poverty Revisited,” organized by the National Association of Social Workers in Washington, DC, Gloria Steinman (2013) agreed, stating that the patriarchy is interested in controlling reproduction and procreation in all its forms—including the right to choose and same-sex relationships that do not result in procreation. The exclusion of equal protections undoubtedly would have resulted in a continuation of interpersonal violence and the unmet needs of LGBT people, and so the not-so-subtle message was clear: Interpersonal violence is the consequence of nonconforming sexual and gender expression. Although we celebrate that this conflict was won by advocates (equal protection for LGBT people is included in the reauthorization), we are deeply concerned about the broader contextual significance and analysis of this disagreement in the first place. Undoubtedly in 20 years, future generations will ask “Did that really happen, what was America thinking, was there a time when equal rights were not afforded to LGBT people?” with the same disbelief that current generations question the policies of separate drinking fountains and entrances for African Americans during segregation, for example.
Sticking Point 2: The Issue of Native American Sovereignty
Fundamentally, critical race theory proposes that policies and practices that are based on an inequitable and racist system that is both pervasive and structural (Delgado & Stefancic, 2011) are so pervasive that they are part of the very resolute foundation of our society. The VAWA provision related to tribal sovereignty is a poignant example of pervasive and structural inequity, given that Native American women are twice as likely to experience sexual assault as other women and that nonnative Americans are responsible for 70% of the victimization perpetrated against Native American women (Perry, 2004). The confusion over jurisdictional responsibility (tribal vs. federal systems) when the perpetrator is nonnative (Eichelberger, 2013; Krehbiel-Burton, 2013; Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978) resulted in what was akin to a free pass for perpetrators and was operationalized as the ability of these offenders to continue to commit crimes of interpersonal violence. In 2012, the U.S. Senate and House negotiations to reauthorize VAWA broke down at the key protections against violence for Native American women (Eichelberger, 2013; Krehbiel-Burton, 2013). Notably, while the issue of prosecution for nonnative perpetrators by tribal courts was problematic, the prosecution of tribal members in U.S. courts remained unquestioned. Human Rights Watch (2013) assessed that “neither state nor tribal authorities have jurisdiction in such cases. The federal government has jurisdiction, but often does not make prosecuting misdemeanor domestic violence and dating violence offenses a priority.” This indictment is an indication of inequity based on race followed by a consequence: the alarmingly high rates of interpersonal violence experienced by Native American and Alaskan Native women with the offenders not being held accountable. Although advocates also eventually triumphed on this issue during the reauthorization of VAWA, the prevailing inability to relinquish control in the name of safety, protection, and accountability is of great concern.
Sticking Point 3: The Increase in Access to U Visas for Victims of Intimate Partner Violence
With regard to the final sticking point (and the one that “stuck”), advocates of VAWA and their immigrant-group allies eventually acquiesced to this provision, believing that these additional protections for immigrant victims will be taken up during broader immigration reform. U visas exist to serve as a protection against the unintended risk that the U.S. immigration system puts on immigrants. The power for permanent residence and citizenship lies with sponsoring relatives (including abusive spouses). In her recent column in Color Lines News for Action, Jayapal (2013) stated that immigrant victims are trapped in abusive relationships in many ways, including the inability to work or fully integrate into the society, and that immigration reform must involve the United States being a safe haven, family reunification, access to work opportunities, and the recognition that work in the home is “real work.” So, perhaps rather than an either/or lens, understanding this provision from a position of intersectionality (since both lenses are components of feminist and critical theories) is more useful.
Although few studies have investigated sexual violence and the exploitation of female immigrant farmworkers, Morales Waugh (2010) found that 80% of female farmworkers were subjected to sexual assault and harassment. We have found the same in our research and work as social workers, since we have listened to advocates who work with immigrant women and victims themselves. The national critique ought to acknowledge the compounding issues of oppression beyond race and gender and include issues of globalization using multiple theoretical perspectives (for an in-depth review of the continuum of intersectionality, see Mehrotra, 2010).
The reauthorization of VAWA leads us to believe that legislators and policy makers are at least attending to the protection of U.S. residents. It is, however, concerning that those who reauthorized VAWA (and were preoccupied by these sticking points) are also accountable for military personnel, of whom, according to some research, 80% of female and 42% of male cadets and midshipman experience sexual victimization (Snyder, Fisher, Scherer, & Daigle, 2012). Until recently, sexual assault crimes occurring during military service were not addressed and mostly ignored. In 2011, 28 veterans filed a class action lawsuit (Cioca v. Rumsfeld) against the U.S. military for failing to protect them, safeguard them from retaliation, and provide justice (House Armed Services Committee Hearing: 3, 2013). The case was dismissed on the basis of the judge’s determination that “the alleged harms are incident to [the victims of] military service.” In other words, sexual violence is to be expected as part of a military career. Advocates are cautiously hopeful that the recent ignorance expressed by lawmakers Todd Akin (R-MO); the highly publicized trials at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas; and the conviction of Sergeant Luis Walker to 20 years in jail for rape, adultery, and aggravated sexual assault; or Academy Award Nomination documentaries, such as The Invisible War, will compel Congress to take notice and perhaps action.
Although the judge’s ruling and the delay in the reauthorization of VAWA based on these sticking points is unconscionable, it highlights the reality that, in the United States, violence against women and violence based on sexual and gender expression or immigration status are still considered the natural course of life. Ultimately, the hard-fought reauthorization of VAWA is a bittersweet, perhaps even a dangerous, victory. VAWA was passed (with two of the three sticking points resolved) in the eleventh hour about-face by the opposition. It is likely that the Republicans, in particular, gave way because of recent failed election pressures and their perceived distance from emerging major minority groups. In the end, it is not at all clear that Congress truly agrees with the promotion of social justice for all members of our society. After a century of civil rights legacy and an active women’s movement (whose roots are in the domestic violence and sexual assault movement), we still accept interpersonal violence and all its intersectionality, such as race, class, and homophobia, as part of the fabric of our lives. Thus, VAWA is an everyday concern.