Shelters unprepared for domestic violence among same-sex couples

Violence in gay and lesbian relationships is just as common as in heterosexual ones, yet very few seek shelter from abusive partners, and professionals are not adequately trained to tackle these issues.

Two out of three local domestic violence shelters evaluated in a study on Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence (SSIPV) appeared to be not well prepared to cater for gay, lesbian and bisexual victims.

With the exception of one service, shelters also do not have a specific plan on how to tackle SSIPV. This was justified by it apparently being limited to only a few cases thus far. The study evaluated the services of three out of five shelters operating in Malta.

Moreover, knowledge, awareness, and training on SSIPV are still lacking within domestic violence shelters and professionals working in the field.

This is one of the conclusions of a study by Kirsty Farrugia and Beverley Abela Gatt published in ‘Mapping the Rainbow’, edited by Dr Marcelline Naudi and Dr Claire Azzopardi Lane of the University of Malta.

Internationally, studies show that that SSIPV seems to be increasing and affects one-quarter of lesbian-gay-bi individuals. This data is comparable to reported rates of domestic occurring in abusive heterosexual relationships.

Studies show that amongst the LGBTIQ+ community, bisexual female women seem to be more at risk, both in heterosexual and lesbian relationships, owing to the role that jealousy plays in intimate partner violence, which may lead to more frequent triggers of violence.

Unfortunately, the idea of an abusive lesbian relationship is often not seriously considered as it challenges the notion of a ‘safe lifestyle’ among women. Moreover, women fighting with other women and men fighting with other men are often considered “mutual battering”.

In the absence of any local research on the matter, the authors carried out six interviews with service providers to explore whether the services offered locally are effective for lesbian, gay and bisexual victims. They inquired about the experience the service providers had when working with SSIPV victims, if they ever worked with clients who experienced SSIPV, and if they ever had training on addressing the issue.

But professionals’ knowledge in relation to SSIPV was mostly found lacking, with most believing that SSIPV will only be an issue in the future. None of the shelters and services included in the study had different arrangements or practices when working with SSIPV victims. It resulted that while one of the participants stated that SSIPV victims are treated equally, they contradicted themselves by stating that the victims had a ‘condition’. This continued to demonstrate that knowledge and training are needed.

There are also barriers within the shelters, as LGBTIQ+ victims come last, with priority being first given to heterosexual women and their children. The professionals interviewed had only worked with female victims and very few professionals had worked with gay male victims.

To address this issue the study proposes that services employ a full-time male professional to eliminate the present gender gap in the field. This is because not every male victim may feel comfortable disclosing personal details to female workers. Moreover, the study questions the stereotype that gay male victims only feel comfortable confiding with women, and warns that it should not be assumed that such victims feel comfortable opening up to female professionals.

The study proposes greater collaboration between the MGRM’s LGBTIQ+ support service and service providers to exchange the knowledge needed. “LGBTIQ+ individuals themselves may prefer to seek aid from a service which does not specifically focus on and aid LGBTIQ+ individuals.”