The most dangerous place in the world for a woman is at home, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The statistics support this: 30% of women worldwide suffer from intimate partner violence or IPV (WHO Fact Sheets), and 85% of all female homicides are committed by a current or former intimate partner (UNODC). In a world in which freedom seems closer at hand than ever, these facts beg the question: are freedom and IPV correlated?
IPV is behavior by an intimate or ex-partner that causes harm (Garcia-Moreno et al.). This is a gendered issue, with 24.8% of women surveyed by the National Institute of Justice stating that they had suffered from IPV compared to 7.6% of men surveyed (Tjaden and Thoennes). Though men and women can both be victims of IPV, this paper will focus on female victims, since women are predominantly impacted by this type of violence (WHO Fact Sheets). Though this paper focuses on the discussion of gender in IPV, IPV is not limited to heterosexual couples; an estimated 1 in every 5 same-sex relationships are affected (Calton et al.). The discussion of IPV is imperative now: according to Sana Malik and Khansa Naeem in a 2020 paper, the COVID-19 pandemic has made women more susceptible to IPV as they are impacted more economically by the pandemic, rendering them more vulnerable to imposed isolation by their abusers. Indicators and reports of IPV have increased on all continents since the pandemic (Hicks et al.).
The relative freedom of countries is evaluated using the Human Freedom Index (HFI). This index measures the freedom of individuals in their countries, considering economic and personal freedom, with the former including analysis of freedom in governmental rule and regulation of the legal and economic systems; the latter includes rule of law, religious choice, civil society, and relationships (Vásquez et al. 14-15).
Additionally, this paper uses John Locke’s definition of innate rights: the natural rights to life, liberty, and property, including ownership of self (Natural Rights). A free society recognizes these rights and implements no other obstacles to free action besides the protection of them (Butler et al. 20-21).
In the discussion of the relationship between IPV and freedom, it must first be acknowledged that IPV is an indicator of the lack of freedom as an encroachment upon the natural rights of the victims. One type of IPV, intimate partner stalking, illustrates this point well: based on the U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 503,485 women are stalked by intimate partners annually (Tjaden and Thoennes). This privacy violation is not just a violation of legal rights, but also a violation of natural rights, particularly the right to ownership of one’s personal wellbeing. By trespassing on another’s private life, perpetrators of IPV are violating victims’ freedom. Other forms of IPV, including physical assault and rape, violate victims’ natural rights by threatening their lives with physical violence. As previously noted, natural rights are the basis of a free society, and thus a society that does not protect victims of IPV cannot be called a free society. Fortunately, IPV is being recognized as a violation of natural rights, and countries are taking steps, such as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in the USA, to address it.
However, being a victim of IPV has implications far beyond physical harm as it impacts the education and economic aspirations of victims, and creates feelings of internalized blame. According to a 2018 report by Cynthia Hass and Alona Del Rosario, 78% of victims reported that they were unable to receive education because their abusers restricted their financial access. 83% of victims reported that jobs and opportunities were disrupted by IPV. In 1995, IPV costs in the USA amounted to $4.1 billion in medical care alone (Hahn and Postmus). The cost of such violence is felt dearly by both the victims and their countries.
Even more alarming than the economic statistics is the way the victims began to perceive themselves. Victims reported internalizing degrading comments. They also reported feelings of helplessness against the threats abusers made towards the physical well-being of themselves or their dependents. Many stated that even after they escaped the situation, their traumatic experiences continue to affect their lives (Hess et al. 19-32).
Although IPV is an indicator of the lack of freedom, it is not always negatively correlated with freedom. This paper will discuss three countries, the USA, Syria, and Estonia, to best explore this relationship. These countries were selected based on the correlation between their HFI ranking and their ranking on the 2021 US News ranking of “Best Countries for Women”, ranked by consideration of human rights, gender equality, income equality, progress, and safety (US News).
The USA is a developed country in North America and is ranked 15 on the HFI 2021 rankings, indicating a comparatively high level of freedom out of the 165 countries ranked. In this paper, it stands as an example of countries that are free and with less IPV. Syria is a developing country in West Asia and is ranked 165 out of 165 countries on the HFI 2021 rankings. Syria represents countries that are both less free and more endangered by IPV.
An interesting paradox is Estonia, a developed country in Northern Europe, which is ranked 4 in the HFI 2021 rankings, but is ranked at a low 33 out of the top 73 best countries worldwide for women. In this paper, it will represent countries that are free but have more instances of IPV than their levels of freedom would suggest.
The USA is known as the land of the free, and its ranking on the HFI (15) is indicative of the credibility of the name. While America is vocal about its shortcomings, it is ranked well on rankings for women’s safety, ranking 18 in 2021 US News ranking. This could, in part, be due to American culture’s emphasis on equality: in “Democracy in America”, French author Alexis De Tocqueville commends American equality. Modern-day America is still engrossed in the process of achieving equality in all its forms, notably gender equality. Though IPV has not been completely eradicated in America, since the #MeToo movement and others, domestic violence has not strayed too far from the public consciousness. The aforementioned recent reauthorization of VAWA, for instance, is a marked step towards equality in America, and adds a protective layer for victims of IPV (Gangitano).
Syria is entirely on the other end of the spectrum when it comes to freedom and IPV. Syria has been embroiled in a civil war since 2011, and the political instability in Syria has resulted in low rankings in terms of both freedom and treatment of women, with Syria experiencing one of the largest humanitarian crises in the twenty-first century. Women in Syria in particular suffer rape, kidnapping, and even induced puberty (UNFP). Violence against women is normalized, with attempts to challenge this belief often seen as a betrayal of family and societal values (Alsaba and Kapilashrami). Syria, therefore, is representative of countries that remain unequal and are not free.
In both cases mentioned above, freedom and IPV are correlated. But in some countries, this is not the case, as in Estonia. Estonia is ranked at 4 on the HFI ranking, and values of freedom are prominent in Estonian history. For instance, the Estonian Song and Dance Festival has been a tradition in the country since 1869 and is the zeitgeist of a freed Estonia: during the Soviet occupation of the country, the festival kept national identity alive (Hellrand). The presentation of the Song of Freedom in 2014 at such a highly esteemed cultural festival indicated the value at which Estonians hold freedom (Magi). Yet though Estonia is ranked high in freedom, women in Estonia do not fare as well as this freedom ranking would suggest. It is ranked 33 on the US News ranking, and according to the UN Women Count, 4.2% of Estonian women between the ages of 15 and 49 have suffered from IPV at the hands of a partner in the past 12 months. In terms of legal frameworks that promote gender equality, Estonia is ranked lower than the rest of Europe. Even more troubling is the large information gap in Estonia on gender, including the lack of comparable methodologies to measure violence against women, which makes the creation of gendered legislation more difficult. Estonia is an example of a country that is relatively less free for women than one might expect based on its economic and personal freedom.
Though it may be irrational to hope to completely eradicate IPV, there are still ways to lessen IPV and create freer and more equal societies that can be implemented now.
First, it is important to delve deeper into the issue of domestic violence and ask why it occurs. There are many reasons for IPV, amongst them religion, toxic masculinity, and gender stereotyping (Tripp and Affi). Often, abusers have an idealized masculine identity, and when that is challenged, it makes them more susceptible to aggression and violence (Harmful masculinity and violence). Perpetrators of violence often believe themselves to have an inherent right to harm the victim. Countries can deal with the core of this issue by increasing education about gender and promoting gender equality, lessening the belief that men should be dominant and women should be subservient.
Besides primary prevention, it is also important for victims of IPV to feel safe speaking up. This would help lessen the vulnerability and perceived helplessness of a victim, as they would know that they have the power to escape the situation. Too often victims of IPV are subject to “victim blaming”, with society often attempting to justify a perpetrator’s actions rather than recognizing the violence that is out of place in a world that prizes civility. In a study published in 2012 by Eve Waltermaurer, every single country had at least one incident of IPV justification, with reasons ranging from infidelity to not having chores done. It is because of this victim blaming and the patriarchal societal structure that women often feel pressured to keep the IPV to themselves, and to continue to bear it rather than seek out help. In order to help these victims, the government can provide institutions such as those mentioned in the Violence Against Women Act in the US, including hotlines for victims to call and housing protections for victims who are unable to stay in their homes for fear of an intimate partner (NHLP). These programs show victims that their stories are heard and they are supported by the government.
Another way to help victims of IPV is to offer them a way out of the situation. Victims are oftentimes trapped by their economic dependence on an abuser, and their fear of being unable to re-enter society after imposed reclusion (Hahn and Postmus). The best way to combat this is to offer financial literacy and asset building programs that teach victims how to be economically independent (ANHA). This safety net makes it easier for the victims to leave their abusers.
These proposals are not without their flaws. The stigma surrounding the discussion of IPV and all forms of domestic violence make it harder for the victims to speak up about the abuse they suffer, and make it less likely for them to reach out to get help. Additionally, the elimination of IPV is a long-term issue, with short term results not likely. Research and studies need to continue to promote discourse around this topic, so the issues of IPV and domestic violence are not set aside until they are truly solved.
Too often the emphasis in the discussion about intimate partner violence focuses on the “intimate partner” aspect of the issue, rather than recognizing the “violence” as the true problem. And while IPV is related to the lack of freedom, “freedom” is such a holistic concept that even with relatively high occurrences of IPV, countries can still be classified as “free” by current standards, as shown in the case studies presented in this paper. Regardless, until the day that IPV is dealt with in a satisfactory way and addressed as a national emergency by all countries, there can be no society in the world that can truly declare themselves to be “free”.
Works Cited
Alsaba, Khuloud, and Anuj Kapilashrami. “Understanding Women’s Experience of Violence and the Political Economy of Gender in Conflict: The Case of Syria.” Reproductive Health Matters, vol. 24, no. 47, 2016, pp. 5–17., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2016.05.002.
ANHA. “How Do We Build a Society Free of Domestic Violence? - Anha: HAWARNEWS: English.” Hawarnews.com, Https://Hawarnews.com/En/, 26 Nov. 2021, https://hawarnews.com/en/haber/how-do-we-build-a-society-free-of-domestic-violence-h27791.html.
Butler, Eamonn, and Ali Salman. “The Moral and Economic Benefits of Freedom.” Foundations of a Free Society, Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 2013, pp. 20–21.
Calton, Jenna M., et al. “Barriers to Help Seeking for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, vol. 17, no. 5, 2016, pp. 585–600., https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015585318.
De Tocqueville, Alexis. “Excerpts from Democracy in America, 1835-1840.” AP Seminar Performance Task 2: Individual Research-Based ..., 2022, https://apcontent.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/AP_Seminar_2022_PT2_Final.pdf.
Gangitano, Alex. “Biden Signs Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.” The Hill, The Hill, 16 Mar. 2022, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/598472-biden-signed-reauthorization-of-the-violence-against-women-act/?rl=1.
Garcia-Moreno, Claudia, et al. “Understanding and Addressing Violence against Women: Intimate Partner Violence.” Edited by Jacqueline Campbell et al., World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 2012, https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-RHR-12.36.
Hahn, Sur Ah, and Judy L. Postmus. “Economic Empowerment of Impoverished IPV Survivors.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, vol. 15, no. 2, 2013, pp. 79–93., https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013511541.
“Harmful Masculinity and Violence.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, 2018, https://www.apa.org/pi/about/newsletter/2018/09/harmful-masculinity.
Hellrand, Maris. “Estonian Song Celebration Timeline.” Estonian World, 6 July 2019, https://estonianworld.com/culture/estonian-song-celebration-timeline/.
Hess, Cynthia, and Alona Del Rosario. “Educational, Career, and Economic Effects of IPV.” Dreams Deferred: A Survey on the Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Survivors’ Education, Careers, and Economic Security, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2018, pp. 19–32.
Hicks, Patrice M, et al. “The Possible Impact of Increased Physical Intimate Partner Violence during the Covid-19 Pandemic on Ocular Health.” SAGE Open Medicine, vol. 9, 2021, p. 205031212110352., https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121211035263.
Magi, Kaileen. Nikon D810 | The Song of Freedom at the Estonian Song & Dance Festival. Nikon Europe, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCDsPbUORtc. Accessed 23 Apr. 2022.
Malik, Sana, and Khansa Naeem. “Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Women: Health, Livelihoods & Domestic Violence.” 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24350. Accessed 23 Apr. 2022.
“Natural Rights.” Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2001, https://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html.
NHLP. “Know Your Rights: Domestic Violence and Federally Assisted Housing .” VAWA 2013 Packet - NHLP, 2014, https://nhlp.org/files/VAWA-2013-Packet.pdf.
Tjaden, Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes. “Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence against Women.” PsycEXTRA Dataset, 2000, https://doi.org/10.1037/e514172006-001.
Tripp, Aili Mari, and Ladan Affi. “Domestic Violence in a Cultural Context.” American Bar Association, vol. 27, no. 2, 2004, pp. 32–36., http://www.jstor.org/stable/25806395. Accessed 23 Apr. 2022.
UN Women. “Country Fact Sheet: UN Women Data Hub Estonia.” Country Fact Sheet | UN Women Data Hub, 2021, https://data.unwomen.org/country/estonia.
UNFP. “UNFPA Calls for Urgent Funding to Protect Health and Safety of Women and Girls Affected by Syria Crisis.” United Nations Population Fund, 2020, https://www.unfpa.org/press/unfpa-calls-urgent-funding-protect-health-and-safety-women-and-girls-affected-syria-crisis.
UNODC. “Key Findings.” Global Study on Homicide 2018, UNODC, Vienna, 2018, p. 10.
US News. “Best Countries for Women | U.S. News Best Countries.” US News, 2021, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-women.
Vásquez, Ian, et al. The HUMAN FREEDOM INDEX 2021: A Global Measurement of Personal, Civil, and Economic Freedom. Cato Institute and Fraser Institute, 2021.
Waltermaurer, Eve. “Public Justification of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of the Literature.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, vol. 13, no. 3, 2012, pp. 167–175., https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012447699.
WHO Fact Sheets. “Violence against Women.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 2021, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women#:~:text=Worldwide%2C%20almost%20one%20third%20.
Comentarios