Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

July 1999,VOl.25, NO.3,275-289

STRENGTHENING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THEORIES:

I"ERSEC"I0NS OF RACE, CLASS, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, AND GENDER
Michele Bograd
Bedford, Mass.

Current family therapy theories and practices of domestic violence place an

important emphasis on gender. Employing the notion of intemectionality, this
article demonstrates how the releuance and applicability of contemporay theories
and practices may be enhanced through the inclusion ofprimay dimensions of
social lfe, including but not limited to race, class, and sexual orientation.
7?xmretical in nature, this article suggestsfuture directionsfor the0y construction
and clinical practice, drawing on literature not easily accessible to most marital
and family therapists.

"An erasure need not take place for us to be silenced. Tokenistic, objectlfying
voyeuristic inclusion is at least as damaging as exclusion. We are as silenced
when we appear in the margins as we are when we fail to appear at all"
(Crenshaw, 1993, p. 116).

A review of the growing, but still small, family therapy literature on domestic violence
discovers just one article (Almeida, Woods, Messineo, Font, & Heer, 1994) that addresses
the salience of race, class, sexual orientation, and gendered asymmetry. How can we
understand what now appear as glaring omissions? Considering my own work as
illustrative of a broader pattern (Bograd, 1982, 1984, 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1988a, 19885, 1989,
1990, 1992, 1994; Yllo & Bograd, 1988), my oversights were due less to blatant racism or
classism (although presumably these also played a part) than to unexamined premises
influenced by then-popular systemic constructs and by my personal and social location. 1
wrote as a feminist with the goal of establishing the reality of domestic violence in a
sociopolitical context where the dimensions of gender and violence against women had
just been introduced into family therapy theories and practices. My goals were to
demonstrate the prevalence of domestic violence and to critique family therapy concepts
and practices that implicated the battered woman in her abuse. Heterosexuality was
assumed. Family therapy constructs led me to examine life within the family, with lip
service to extrafamilial dimensions. This coincided with my perspective as an upper-
middle-class white woman that gender inequality and domestic violence posed the major

In great appreciation to Rhea Almeida, whose vision and courage inspire me, and to Jim Ptacek, who
generously introduced me to a body of literature that expanded my way of thinking.
A portion of this paper was presented as a keynote address, "Revisiting dominant models of battering," at
the annual Culture and Diversity Conference, sponsored by the Family Institute of New Jersey in 1994.
Michele Bograd, PhD, is in private practice, 16 Webber Avenue, Bedford, MA 01730.

July 1999 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 275

Close Next
threats to family life and the development of intimacy. At that stage of theory building,
family therapy as a field paid little attention to the psyche as well as to social constraints,
so the mechanisms between social conditions and individual behavior remained
unformulated. I privileged the dimension of gender over others because it seemed to
offer parsimonious explanatory power and clinical direction. I believed that gender-
sensitive models of domestic violence were universal, relevant to all families and, thus,
race-, class-, and sexual-orientation-neutral. Initially, I understood the additions of
those dimensions as just additions, enriching theory and intervention without requiring
their substantial modification.
However, different values now characterize the field, as social, theoretical, political,
and clinical contexts have evolved. These values promote cultural sensitivity, beginning
acceptance of diverse family forms, and recognition of oppressive social forces. In
general, these values are informed by a focus on the socially constructed nature of human
experience: life experiences and their meanings are qualitatively different for different
individuals due to general and idiosyncratic patterns shaped by social dimensions. Simply
put, once social contexts and meaning systems are taken into account, a rose is not just a
rose, nor a slap just a slap. This position paper is a beginning effort to describe how family
therapy thinking and practice on domestic violence can be strengthened by explicit
inclusion of dimensions such as race, class, sexual orientation, and the gendered
asymmetry of domestic violence. Outside of family therapy, the domestic violence
literature addresses these issues in exciting and thought-provoking ways. Surprisingly,this
literature is often neither acknowledged nor well integrated with family therapy theories
and practices. Therefore, special effort has been made to direct readers to this body of
knowledge. Given the purposes of this article, the literature review is illustrative rather
than comprehensive. The goals of this article are theoretical: to introduce the voices and
experiences of individuals not widely represented in family therapy theories while
describing omissions and their possible consequences for theory and practice. This task
is simplified through the concept of intersectionality.

INTERSECTIONALITY

Through development of the concept of intersectionality, Crenshaw (1992, 1993,

1994) proposes that domestic violence is but one form of oppression and social control.
We exist in social contexts created by the intersections of systems of power (e.g., race,
class, gender, and sexual orientation) and oppression (prejudice, class stratification, gender
inequality, and heterosexist bias). In practice, social dimensions are not merely abstract
descriptions as they are suffused with evaluations that have social consequences. For
example, heterosexual and homosexual are formal ends of a continuum, but one end is
hierarchically valued over the other. These systems are not mutually exclusive, static, or
abstract. They operate independently or simultaneously, and the dynamics of each may
exacerbate and compound the consequences of another.
In this framework, domestic violence is not a monolithic phenomenon.
Intersectionalities color the meaning and nature of domestic violence, how it is
experienced by self and responded to by others, how personal and social consequences
are represented, and how and whether escape and safety can be obtained. Sometimes,
intersectionalities are patterned, as in the life of a poor immigrant woman of color.

276 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 1999

Previous First Next

Sometimes the meaning of that pattern changes in different contexts, as when a light-
skinned black middle-class professional is valued in his community but prejudicially
treated in a court system as a batterer of color.
Most family therapy theories of domestic violence do not address such
intersections. An implicit assumption of many theories and practices is that domestic
violence poses a central threat to the boundaried, protected, inner space of the family.
With the exception of gender inequality, other social dimensions usually are defined as
stressors, rather than as key explanatory factors of the violence, and so primary
attention is paid to intrapsychic, interpersonal, or intrafamilial dynamics. Almeida et al.
(1994) argue that the assumption of a boundaried, safe, domestic sphere reflects not
some universal family reality but the conditions of white middle-class heterosexual
families. In contrast, the family lives of people of color, poor, minority, or homosexual
individuals are marked by frequent, disruptive intrusions of the state (Almeida, 1993).
Here, domestic violence often occurs in the private context of a couple trying to build
intimacy while experiencing racist, heterosexist, or classist discrimination, which often
takes the form of actual violence in the public domain.
From this perspective, intersectionality suggests that no dimension, such as gender
inequality, is privileged as an explanatory construct of domestic violence, and gender
inequality itself is modified by its intersection with other systems of power and oppression.
So, for example, while all men who batter exercise some form of patriarchal control, men’s
relationships to patriarchy differ in patterned ways depending on where they are socially
located. While all women are vulnerable to battering, a battered woman may judge herself
and be judged by others differently if she is white or black, poor or wealthy, a prostitute
or a housewife, a citizen or an undocumented immigrant.

INTERSECTIONALITY AND FAMILY THERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE

Most current family therapy theorizing on domestic violence remains silent regarding
these intersections, unless they are addressed as special cases. But silence is neither
neutral nor benign. It renders many families touched by domestic violence invisible,
relegates some individuals’ experiences outside the realm of clinical concern, and may
guide us to intervene in ways that unwittingly compound clients’ experiences of abuse,
unpredictability, and domination. The impact of intersectionality will be demonstrated by
addressing: (1) the socially structured invisibility of certain victims; (2) who the
“appropriate” victims are and the denial of victimization; and (3) the real-world
consequences of intersections and domestic violence.

i%e Social2y Structured Invisibility of Certain K c t i m

A basic question facing family therapists is: who are the victims of domestic violence?
Evidence of the consequences of intersectionality is immediately visible through
examination of the statistics on domestic violence.
Race and ethnicity. Although race is a standard factor examined in national surveys
on domestic violence, most of the minority research is on black or Latino populations
(Hampton & Gelles, 1994; Kaufman Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo, 1994; Neff, Holamon, &
Schluter, 1995; Straus & Smith, 1990). Little is known about the experiences of battered
individuals in many minority or marginalized communities (Carillo & Tello, 1998). Current

July 1999 JOURML OF MARITAL AND EMILY THERAPY 277

Previous First Next

research on race can be problematic: diverse ethnic groups are often collapsed into a
single category, such as Asians, or the patterns of a single group, such as Mexican
Americans, are overgeneralized to all Hispanics (Campbell, Masaki, & Torres, 1997).
Because of this, “[dlataon partner violence among minority populations are so incomplete
that they preclude meaningful generalizations” (Koss, Goodman, Browne, Fitzgerald,
Puryear Keita, & Russo, 1994, p. 60). Research suggests that the meaning of domestic
violence may differ across racial or ethnic lines, that predictors of husband violence differ
among ethnic groups, and that racial differences disappear when other factors, primarily
socioeconomic status, are controlled (Browne, 1995; Cervantes & Cervantes, 1993; Feldman
& Ridley, 1995; Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, & Bates, 1997; Straus & Smith, 1990).
Social class. Research data suggest that social class is inversely related to the severity
of violence, although domestic violence occurs across all classes (Holtzworth-Munroe et
al., 1997). However, although class is a standard dimension of most research, “inquiries
into the prevalence of violence in the lives of poor women and children remained
startlingly absent” (Browne & Bassuk, 1997, p. 26l), as in the lives of non-English speakers,
the hospitalized or institutionalized, the disabled, the differently acculturated, rural
dwellers, and the incarcerated (Browne, 1995; Gondolf, 1997; National Research Council,
1996). Browne and Bassuk found that high levels of assault and injury characterized their
sample of homeless and poor housed women (one-third of whom had been severely
physically assaulted by their current or most recent partners), that lack of economic
resources seriously compromised the women’s ability to alter their environments, and that
“across the lifespan, the majority of these young mothers had experienced only brief-if
any-periods of safety” (1997, p. 275). Race, gender, violence, and class here intersect: in
1993, over one-third of all woman-headed families lived in poverty, and over half of those
were Black and Hispanic (Browne & Bassuk, 1997).
Gay and lesbian battertng. Invisibility and lack of information also shroud gay and
lesbian battering, even though conservative estimates suggest that half a million gay men
are battered annually (Island & Letellier, 1991) and that the prevalence and severity of
lesbian battering are comparable to that of heterosexual relationships (Coleman, 1997;
Leeder, 1774; Lobel, 1786; Renzetti, 1992). There are few or no available statistics on the
intersections of homosexuality, domestic violence, race, and class,
Gender asymmetry and domestic violence. The invisibility of victims results not only
from silence but also from assuming no differences across victims and perpetrators.
Although most therapists acknowledge that, in heterosexual relationships, men have a
greater capacity to injure women, controversy remains in the field about whether there is
a fundamental asymmetry between men and women who are violent. However, research
suggests that the sociopsychological contexts of the use of violence, its meanings, and its
interactional and psychological consequences are gender specific. For example, men are
more likely to use severely violent tactics, less likely to be injured, and less likely to be
intimidated by their partner’s violence (Cantos, Neidig, & O’Leary,1994; Cascardi & Vivian,
1995; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Neidig, & Thorn,
1995). While men and women alike employ violence to express anger, release tension, or
force communication, women tend to use violence for self-defense, escape, and retaliation,
while men employ violence for purposes of dominance, coercion, control of partner’s
behavior, protecting self-image, and punishment (Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992;

278 JOURNAL OF MAIUTAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 1999

Previous First Next

Dobash et al., 1992; Hamberger, Lohr, & Bonge, 1994; Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin,
1997; Saunders, 1988; Stets & Straus, 1990). Examining victims of husband abuse and wife
abuse, Christian, O’Leary, and Vivian (1994) found that victimized wives reported more
negative impact and more frequent and severe injuries than did victimized husbands, and
female perpetrators experience more depression than male perpetrators (Vivian & Malone,
1996). Vivian and Langhinrichsen-Rohling(1994) suggest that highly victimized wives tend
to be more unilaterally victimized than highly victimized husbands. Different patterns
describe male and female batterers and their spouses (Hamberger, 1997). For example,
over two-thirds of women arrested for battering their husbands were in relationships with
husbands who initiated assaults more than 50% of the time (Hamberger & Potente, 1997).
Patterns of homicide are gendered (Browne, 1994; Browne & Williams, 1993).
Research on severely violent men suggests that “[olnly husband violence produces
fear in the partner. It is largely this difference that accounts for the unique ability of
husbands to use violence as a means of psychological and social control” (Jacobson,
Gottman, Waltz, Rushe, Babcock, & Holtzworth-Munroe,1994, p. 986). In couples where
the man has been quite violent, wives are verbally aggressive in reactions to husbands’
violent behaviors, while husbands are violent in response to a variety of nonviolent wife
behaviors; gender differences, in effect, exist in verbal arguments (Jacobson et al., 1994);
and “nothing the women did predicted the onset, offset, increase, or decrease of male
violence” (Jacobson, 1994, p. 100) at the interactional level (Babcock, Waltz, Jacobson, &
Gottman, 1993; Cordova,Jacobson, Gottman, Rushe, & Cox, 1993) or over the longitudinal
course of violence in the marriage (Jacobson, Gottman, Gortner, Berns, & Shortt, 1996).
Care must be taken not to generalize from one population to others, since the
chronicity, level, frequency, and types of violence may be important distinguishing factors
among couples and their dynamics. Currently, family therapy theories and their related
practices are conceptualized without reference to a target population or the severity of
violence. This theoretical omission implies that a theory or set of practices is equally
applicable to all violent individuals and their family members. Family therapy theories and
practices would be strengthened if their relevance to specific populations was explicit,
since different populations will likely require modification of theory and practice.
Statistics and social value. Complicated reasons explain the lack of statistics on
gender asymmetries in domestic violence and on diverse ethnic, racial, and sexual
orientation groups-much less on a broad range of intersections. A primary reason is
whether individuals have access to and seek legal or clinical remedies in the institutions
that provide the database for much family violence research. But the lack of statistics is
not neutral. The invisibility of certain populations reflects more their social importance in
the eyes of the dominant culture than the absence of domestic violence in their midst. The
lack of statistics is also not of minor consequence. These statistics are fundamental to the
distribution of funds and the creation of social policy, which in turn shape the
development of mental health initiatives, the availability of services, and the possibility of
safety for disenfranchised populations.

W o the Yppropriate”VictimsAre and the Denial of Victimization

Family therapy, theory, and interventions are dedicated to aiding all victims and
perpetrators of battering. Yet do our theories, most often written in neutral universal
language, illuminate the experiences of all touched by domestic violence, or do they

July 1999 JOURNAL OF MARE4L AND FAMILY THERAPY 279

Previous First Next

unintentionally force those whose experiences differ from the mainstream to the margins?
As therapists, can we be free from socially constructed stereotypes of racial and ethnic
groups, or of who batters and who is battered? The intersection of race, class, sexual
orientation, and gendered violence often influences whom therapists define as “real”or
“appropriate”victims, which implicitly denies the victimization of others. These definitions
also inform social policy and informal practices.
First, victimization can be denied by rendering it invisible or undescribed. For
example, in labeling all batterers “he” and all victims “she,”lesbian and gay battering
disappear (Letellier, 1994), as does husband abuse. Social action strategies often focus
on white, middle-class women in efforts to challenge stereotypes of poor, minority,
battered women. These strategies not only draw attention to the plight of all women
but can unwittingly defocus concern from poor women of color who remain unseen
or defined as dehumanized Other and undeserving of services (Crenshaw, 1994). In
focusing on domestic violence within the socially legitimated form of marriage, silence
exists concerning evidence that the prevalence of domestic violence is higher among
cohabiting or unmarried couples (Browne, 1995; Browne & Williams, 1993; Holtzworth-
Munroe et al., 1997).
Victimization can also be denied when social stereotypes are employed to neutralize
or obscure the presence of human suffering (Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1993). For example,
gay men are often not diagnosed as battered because men are not defined as victims,
because the gay relationship is judged as neither intimate nor legitimate, or because of
assumptions that homosexual domestic violence is a fight between equals (Letellier, 1994).
However, preconditions for defining violence as mutual include the equal size of the
combatants, equal training and socialization in the use of violence, equal propensities to
use violence, and equal ability to inflict pain and to instill fear. This suggests that the
sociopsychological and temporal contexts of violence must be examined carefully, as a
distinction must be drawn between “bidirectional” and “mutual” violence (Vivian &
Langhinrichsen-Rohling,1994). Stereotypes also deprive battered women of care, justice,
and services. Women who fight back are often judged as undeserving of protection
because they violate social definitions of the helpless or passive victim (Kanuha, 1996).
Less empathy is afforded battered individuals who are prostitutes, substance abusers,
incarcerated, or HIV positive (Richie, 1996). Typifications of the appropriate victim are
codified in social policy: in some states, domestic violence legal statutes are written in
language that ensures services and protection to heterosexual persons only.
Victimization is also denied when domestic violence is defined as culturally normal
for groups different from the dominant white culture. Defining domestic violence as
“culturally relative” minimizes the extent of domestic violence in white families; ignores
the complexity of other cultures’ values concerning respectful intimate relationships and
conflict resolution (Fry & Bjorkqist, 1997); trivializes the ongoing evolution of other
cultures; may confuse cultural expectations with other social, psychological, or relational
factors; and diverts attention from how oppressive cultural practices may rigidlfy in
dangerous forms in a context of discrimination by our dominant culture (Cervantes &
Cervantes, 1993; R. Almeida, personal communication). In an analysis of race and family
violence, Hawkins (1987) examines the finding that black men who murdered their female
partners received less punishment than white men. He argues that this reflects mainstream
assumptions and practices about the normality and intractability of violence among poor

280 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y l?€ERAPY July 1999

Previous First Next

black families, the devalued status of black life, and the perceived dispensibility of lower-
class people of color. As Crenshaw writes in a quote relevant to the lives of many
disenfranchised groups, “[elven when the facts of our stories are believed, myths and
stereotypes about black women influence whether the insult and injury we have
experienced is relevant or important” (1992, p. 1470).

Real World Consequencesof Intersectionsand Domestic Violence

While discussion of intersectionality may seem abstract, it relates to real and life-
threatening consequences, as the ramifications of social location reverberate through
psyche, family relations, cornunity support, and institutional response. The trauma of
domestic violence is amplified by further victimization outside of the intimate
relationship, as the psychological consequences of battering may be compounded by the
“microaggressions”of racism, heterosexism, and classism in and out of the reference
group (Hardy & Laszloffy, 1994; Hill & Rothblum, 1996; Kliman, 1994). Efforts to seek
safety in the domestic sphere often entail profound social risks beyond retaliation by the
batterer. Individuals may have internalized ideologies antithetical to disclosure of
violence or to help seeking, such as a Vietnamese woman taught that saving face and
family unity preempt individual safety (Lee, 1997) or a gay man who believes that his
physical retaliation for his abuse makes him a batterer rather than a victim (Letellier,1994).
Since Jews tend to be seen as a model minority free from domestic violence, the Jewish
battered woman may be constrained by her community from going public for fears of
tarnishing the Jewish image and inviting anti-Semitism. Kosher shelters are rare, and as
she grapples with domestic violence itself, she must also decide whether to honor herself
as a woman deserving of safety or as a Jew, as if she is not both. Disenfranchised groups
such as Palestinians in Israel (Haj-Yahia, 1996) or Catholics in Protestant Northern Ireland
(Cullen, 1997) may be forced to seek safety from individuals who are enemies in political
contexts. As a member of several devalued identities, a dark-skinned, black, battered
lesbian may fear that naming her battering will subject her partner to racist reaction from
mainstream culture, confirm stereotypes of blacks as violent, expose her to skin color
biases within her social group, and alienate her from the community that provides
protection from a prejudiced society (Comas-Diaz, 1994; Kanuha, 1990, 1996).
Simultaneously, because of external and internalized homophobia in and out of her
community, she may feel pressured to deny the abuse to protect herself from being
outed, to maintain the image of a successful lesbian relationship, or to minimize
significant risk because of the lack of legal protection around issues such as child custody
(Almeida et al., 1994; Rasche, 1995; Robson, 1995).
Victims may sometimes employ certain intersections and social stereotypes to buy
freedom. A gay man who is closeted or light-skinned individuals may be able to pass and
so obtain services or privileges that would be otherwise denied them, but at the cost of
defining themselves deceptively (Almeida, 1993; Almeida et al., 1994). Incarcerated, black,
battered women are tutored not to mention their children in court to avoid confirming
stereotypes of the welfare mother, while incarcerated, white, battered women are taught
to weep about their children to capitalize on images of conventional white motherhood
(Richie, 1996). In the service of safety, the conscious manipulation of images fundamentally
estranges the battered individual from the truths and integrity of his or her life, a poignant
repetition of dynamics often experienced with the batterer. As Crenshaw writes, “To

July 1999 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 28 1

Previous First Next

speak, one risks the censure of one’s closest allies. To remain silent renders one
continually vulnerable to the kinds of abuse heaped upon people who have no voice”
(1992, p. 1472).
Furthermore, when certain groups are not deemed “legitimate”victims, services may
be scarce or nonexistent, and access to and the nature of available services may be
strongly influenced by social location. There are few services for battered husbands, and
responses to female heterosexual batterers may be insensitive to the woman’s own victim-
ization (Hdmberger & Potente, 1997). Programs for gay and lesbian batterers and their
victims may not be funded in some states because sodomy is still considered a crime, and
public hate crimes, much less domestic violence, remain unaddressed. Many clinics do
not have bilingual services, severely hindering nowEnglish speaking women from
obtaining safety. A disproportionate percentage of court-referred batterers in urban areas
are men of color, but there are few racially specific programs with experienced minority
staff (Gondolf, 1997; Williams, 1994; Williams & Becker, 1994). In efforts to bridge cultural
gaps, minority clients are assigned to inexperienced paraprofessionals of their own culture,
who themselves lack power in institutional systems.
Social service providers may respond to different kinds of victims in frankly punitive
and discriminatory ways. While sometimes this is intentional, often service providers enact
the prejudicial and unintended consequences of well-meaning social, legal, or clinical
policy. Some battered women advocates report that judges have asked the batterer to
interpret for the non-English speaking battered woman; more progressive judges have
refused to proceed legally in the absence of a neutral interpreter, thus denying the women
services. Battered women can lose custody of their children once it is learned that
children have witnessed domestic violence, and children have been remanded to the care
of the batterer, who appears to offer a more stable home than the mother does once she
flees to shelter (Geffner, 1997). Some shelters do not permit adolescent boys. A battered
woman must choose between not seeking safety for herself or leaving sons at home,
opening herself to charges of desertion. Crenshaw (1994) describes how immigration
policy unintentionally trapped battered women with their abusers when a ruling decreed
that length of marriage was one of the preconditions for legal papers. After outcry from
the battered women’s movement, the policy was amended so that exceptions to cohabi-
tation were made upon testimony by social service personnel. But because of cultural and
linguistic barriers, women most vulnerable to abuse (such as immigrants or undocumented
refugees) often lack access to services necessary for that protection.
The formal presence of legal and social services may not reflect their actual accessi-
bility or availability,which may be a function of cultural, racial, or economic privilege, A
review of 176 medical records of suicide attempts at a New Haven hospital found that one-
third of all battered women attempted suicide on the same day that they visited the
hospital with injuries attributable to the abuse, and, in contrast to nonbattered women who
attempted suicide, the battered women were more often sent home and/or received no
mental health referral (Stark & Flitcraft, 1995). The authors suggest that battering may be
the single most important cause of female suicidality, especially among black or pregnant
women, and that “[tlhevery problems caused by social inequalities based on sex, class,
race, sexual orientation, or age propel women to seek help from a system that reproduces
and stabilizes those inequalities”(Stark & Flitcraft, 1995, p. 58).

282 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY July 1999

Previous First Next

 CONCLUDING COMMENTS

This article argues that domestic violence does not have a singular impact on all
families. Not only do different patterns of domestic violence have different consequences
for different families, intersectionality asks us to integrate into theory and practice the
simple recognition that, for many families, domestic violence is not the only or primary
violence shaping family life. Intersectionality also requires that we develop theories that
go beyond single-factor descriptions of domestic violence, such as gender inequality.
Intersectionalitiesand asymmetries are quite complex. Individuals may or may not differ
on dimensions including but not limited to gender, size, class position, culture, disability,
skin color, age, the use of violence, and race. These intersections shape meaning systems
and concrete avenues for escape. As new theories and techniques are developed, models
and practices must be anchored in descriptions of the contexts in which they were
developed and the populations that they are intended to serve. Rather than assuming their
universal applicability, it is crucial to ask: Who is excluded and why (Kanuha, 1996)?
Until recently, family therapy theories have tended to give an incomplete picture of
how domestic violence develops between individuals, how it is situated in the lives of
individuals at risk for violence and oppression of many sorts, and how external ongoing
objective dimensions of situations shape the nature and character of individual experiences
of and responses to domestic violence (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). Domestic violence poses
a fundamental question still being debated by marital and family therapists: “Isthe problem
of wife abuse so philosophically and topographically distinct from other marital problems
that one must dismiss systemic explanations of behavior” (Margolin & Burman, 1993, p.60)?
Similarly, the beginning study of the diverse social contexts of battered individuals and
their partners leads to the question: Can present theories and practices encompass
intersectionalities without significant modification, or must we more radically expand
current ideas and interventions?
While answers to these questions await future experimentation and insights, some
family therapists are already creatively addressing these concerns. However, they are not
yet employing the construct of intersectionality, which I suggest is a useful tool for
capturing some of the complexity and layers of domestic violence. As earlier interactional
models of domestic violence are being replaced, two somewhat divergent models of
intervention seem to be emerging in marital and family therapy. One is based on the
stance that theoretical lenses that seem to be logically contradictory can be simultaneously
held in view as the therapist takes a “both/and’ position (Goldner, 1990; Goldner, Penn,
Sheinberg, & Walker, 1990). Criminal, psychodynamic, feminist, and interactional stances
all give partial pictures of domestic violence. The therapist tries to enhance flexibility by
shifting between lenses-and, at times, layering them-in order to bring to light, language,
and understanding the many levels of domestic violence. Although not neutral regarding
the use of violence, the therapist tries to create a space separate from the legal and criminal
structures. In contrast, another approach focuses more on asymmetries as a primary
condition for why a man uses violence against his partner and focuses as well on the
asymmetries that violence creates and sustains. In this model, the therapist takes a
stronger position to counterbalance asymmetries and inequalities and often explicitly
sequences when levels of asymmetries and violence are addressed in treatment gory,
Anderson, & Greer, 1997;Vivian & Heyman, 1996). For example, Almeida et al., (1994) and

July 1999 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FMILY THERAPY 283

Previous First Next

Almeida, Woods, Messineo, and Font (1998) begin with the premise that family therapists
must start their analysis and treatment of domestic violence at the sociopolitical level and
move to the interior of the family. This group dramatically expands therapeutic
possibilities by intervening in relevant communities, addressing multiple oppressions
while confronting personal responsibility, and creating public stnictures of accountability
to address how mainstream social institutions may not provide safety for women and the
disenfranchised (Almeida & Bograd, 1991). Some of the differences between these
emerging models are significant concerning therapeutic stance and positioning, clinical
technique, and the nature of advocacy and coordination with other larger systems
pertinent to batterers and their families. Care must be taken not to polarize frameworks
still in development, however, since no outcome research suggests the efficacy of one over
the other, and since they may be applicable to somewhat different treatment populations.
Their differences also provide fertile ground for theory development.
From my perspective, one of the most critical and provocative areas for future theory
development is the degree and nature of human choices in contexts of violence at the
personal and social levels. Somewhat broadly speaking, two positions have typified
popular ideas about responsiblity and domestic violence: (I) both parties are equally
responsible for the violence; and (2) the perpetrator is unilaterally responsible. Similarly,
popular concepts of agency (acting for oneself) and victimization tend to assume that one
capacity exists in the absence of the other (Kanuha, 1996). Again, approaches to personal
choice in oppressive social contexts have tended to rest on the premise either that all
individuals can create safe lives or that the disenfranchised are helpless victims in an
unresponsive and unchanging hostile world.
Family therapists have begun to create paths through simplified descriptions of victim
and victimizer, accountability and loss of control. In clinical practice, this can take the
form of either exploring the choices abusive men make as they experience themselves as
being out of control or constructing therapeutic agendas in which the abuser takes respon-
sibility for his behavior and the partner takes responsibility for her self-protection (Jenkins,
1990). Controversial though it is, it is important to clarify the victim’s responsibility,which
may be enhanced by developing notions of relative responsibility. A focus on a victim’s
responsibility may help him or her to examine when he or she has not made self-
protective choices, can teach active strategies of resistance, and can challenge the passivity
which is often a consequence of abuse (Lamb, 1996). Such ideas may clarify, for example,
how to intervene with perpetrators who are victims (a batterer who was him- or herself
an abused child) and victims who themselves perpetrate (as when battered women abuse
their children).
However, it is crucial that theoretical ideas of responsibility be linked to those of
constraint (Dell, 1989; Serra, 1993). The allocation of responsibility to recipients of violence
becomes victim blaming when formulations do not include how the true threat of danger
limits choice, how adaptations to living with violence may compromise internal integrity,
and how social location profoundly restricts paths to safety. Even as there is a range of
banterers, victims are coerced to varying degrees and have had varied opportunities to take
action (Lamb, 1996). Some victims make the only choices possible due to constraints on
many levels. When therapists ignore or minimize these constraints, the victims’ behavior
is often labeled dysfunctional and not understood as necessary adaptations to circum-
stances (Almeida et al., 1998). In these contexts, “therapists need to be aware that what

284 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 1999

Previous First Next

initially appears to be resistance or denial in survivors may actually reflect coping styles
related to experiences of class, race, and gender oppression” (McNair & Neville, 1996, p.
116). Victims do not create crises, but some have the power to ameliorate them, within
limits. In a quote that can be generalized to victims of both genders, “[wlhere possible,
we should build on the limited control women are already exercising in contexts that allow
for little or no control” (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988, p. 146).
The framework of intersectionality can provide a map through this tangled context.
hchie (1996) demonstrates the power of this approach through an analysis of how black
and white incarcerated battered women have been differently entrapped in their lives. She
examines intersectionality at the multiple and interactive levels of gender identity, family-
of-origin experiences, internalized gender roles and expectations, intimate relationships,
biased institutional practices, and hierarchical institutional arrangements based on race,
class, and ethnicity. Her illuminating book demonstrates: (1) abuse is constituted,
experienced, and addressed by intersectionalities that shape psyche, interpersonal
experiences, family relationships, community location, and social value; ( 2 ) safety for
individuals experiencing abuse from intimates is severely constrained by social location
and its impact on internal experience as well as on avenues of escape; (3) within a context
of constraints, individuals make rational choices in efforts to optimize protection, although
these choices may be compromising intrapsychically, interpersonally, and legally; (4) the
actions of victims, maladaptive in some contexts, derive from resistance to domination and
efforts to achieve autonomy; and (5) efforts to obtain help may be misread or punished
in ways that confirm the ongoing abuse and reinforce behaviors, such as compliance and
self-blame, that increase vulnerability to violence.
Moral responsibility is not a question that can be decided by fiat, but one that must
be examined in context. Examining the responsibility of victims need not entail lessening
the perpetrators’ responsib s, but family therapy concepts may need to be expanded
to make this possible. Most critically, given the evidence that mental health institutions
can play a pivotal, if unintended, role in maintaining patterns of abuse, the framework of
intersectionality compels therapists to examine how professional and personal responsi-
bility resides in our offices and goes beyond them.
It is incumbent upon those of us in the field who already have power and prestige to
shoulder the responsibility of expanding our models, examining our practices, and giving
voice to those who are silenced among us. This cannot be done without fear and discour-
agement, as those of us who live in safe contexts experience the risks of speaking out,
and as we understand more clearly how in the lives of the invisible, the marginal and the
disenfranchised, every move toward safety entails risk and may intenslfy danger. It is
sobering and distressing to realize that although anti-domestic violence work has
promoted greater safety for some individuals, many remain in a position as dangerous and
vulnerable as ever (Richie, 1996). The words of the Jewish Talmud remind us, “It is not
your job to finish the work, but you are not free to walk away from it.”

REFERENCES

Nmeida, R. (1993). Unexamined assumptions and service delivery systems: Feminist theory and racial
exclusions. Journal ofFeminist Family 7hm.,5, 3-23.
Almeida, R., & Bograd, M. (1991). Sponsorship: Men holding men accountable for domestic violence. In
M. Bograd (Ed.), Feminist approachesfortreating men infamily therapy (pp. 243-2591, Binghamton,
Ny: Haworth.

July 1999 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 285

Previous First Next

Almeida, R., Woods, R., Messineo, T., & Font, R. (1998). Cultural context model: Revisioning family therapy,
race, culture, gender, and sexual orientation in clinical practice. In M. McGoldrick,J. Giordano, & J.
Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.), (pp. 414431). New York: Guilford.
Almeida, R., Woods, R., Messineo, T., Font, R., & Heer, C. (1994). Violence in the lives of the racially and
sexually different: A public and private dilemma. In R. Almeida (Ed.), F*ansions of feminist family
theory through diversity (pp. 99-126). New York: Haworth Press.
Babcock, J., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N., & Gottman, J. (1993). Power and violence: The relation between
communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 61, 40-50.
Bograd, M. (1982). Battered women, cultural myths, and clinical interventions: A feminist analysis. In New
England Association for Women in Psychology (Eds.), Currentfeminist issues in psychotherapy(pp.
69-77). New York: Haworth.
Bograd, M. (1984). Family systems approaches to wife battering: A feminist critique. AmericanJournal
of Orthopsychiaty,54, 558-568.
Bograd, M. (1986~). Family therapy and violence against women. In M. Riche (Ed.), Women and family
therapy (pp. 34-50). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Bograd, M. (1986b). Holding the line: Confronting the abusive partner. Family Therapy Networkq 10,
44-47.
Bograd, M. (1987). Case commentary on "Neutrality vs. social control: A systemic approach to violent
couples." Family Therapy Networkel; 11, 56-57.
Bograd, M. (1988a). Case commentary on "Protecting the children of battered women." Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 3, 476483.
Bograd, M. (l988b). How battered women and abusive men account for domestic violence: Excuses, justifi-
cations or explanations? In G. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor,J. Kirkpatrick, & M. Straus (Eds.), Coping with
family violence: Research andpolicypenpectives (pp. 60-77). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bograd, M. (1989). Case commentary on "After the shouting stops.'' Family Theram Networkq 13,64-74.
Bograd, M. (1990). Why we need gender to understand human violence. Journal oflnterpersonalWolence,
5, 132-135.
Bograd, M. (1992). Values in conflict: Challenges to family therapists' thinking. Journal of Marital and
Family Theram, 18, 245-256.
Bograd, M. (1994). Battering, competing clinical models, and paucity of research: Notes to those in the
trenches. Counseling Psychologist, 22, 593-597.
Browne, A. (1994). Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence outcomes and policy implications.
American Psychologist, 48, 1077-1087.
Browne, A. (1995). Reshaping the rhetoric: The nexus of violence, poverty, and minority status in the lives
of women and children in the United States. GeorgetownJournal on Fighting Poxrty, 3, 17-23.
Browne, A., & Bassuk, S. (1997). Intimate violence in the lives of homeless and poor housed women:
Prevalence and patterns in an ethnically diverse sample. American Journal of Orthopsycbiatv, 67,
261-278.
Browne, A., &Williams, K. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethal violence: Trends from 1976 through 1987.
Gender and Society, 7, 78-98.
Campbell, D., Masaki, B., & Torres, S. (1997). "Water on the rock: Changing domestic violence perception
in the African American, Asian American, and Latino communities. In E. Klein, J. Campbell, E. Soler,
& M. Ghez (Eds.), Ending domestic violence: Changing public perceptiorwbalting the epidemic.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cantos, A,, Neidig, P., & O'Leary, K. (1994). Injuries of women and men in a treatment program for
domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 115124.
Carillo, R., & Tello, J. (Eds.). (1998). Family violence and men of color Healing the wounded male spirit.
New York: Springer.
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health
correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178-1 184.
Cascardi, M., & Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender and severity
of violence Qfferences. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 265-293.

286 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY July 1999

Previous First Next

Cewantes, N., & Cervantes,J. (1993). A multicultural perspective in the treatment of domestic violence. In
M. Hansen & M. Harway (Eds.), Battering andfamily therapy: A feministpenpective (pp. 156174).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Christian, J., O’Leary, K, & Vivian, D. (1994). Depressive symptomatology in maritally discordant women
and men: The role of individual and relationship variables. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 8, 32-42.
Coleman, V. (1997). Lesbian battering: The relationship between personality and the perpetration of
violence. In L. K. Hamberger & C. Renzetti (Eds.), Domesticpartner abuse (pp. 77-101). New York:
Springer.
Comas-Diaz,L. (1994). LatiNegra: Mental Health Issues of African Latinas. In R. Almeida (Ed.), Expansions
of feminist family theoy through diversity (pp. 35-74). New York: Haworth.
Cordova, J., Jacobson, N., Gottman, J., Rushe, R., & Cox, G. (1993). Negative reciprocity and communi-
cation in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Abnormal Psycholoa, 102, 559-564.
Crenshaw, K. (1992). Race, gender, and sexual harassment. Southern California Law Rm’ew, 65,
146771476,
Crenshaw, K. (1993). Race, gender, and violence against women. In M. Minow (Ed.), Family matters:
Readings on family lives and the law (pp. 23G232). New York: New Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality,identity politics and violence against women
of color. In M. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), Republic nature ofprivate violence (pp. 95-118). New
York: Routledge.
Cullen, K. (1997) Northern Ireland making up ground on domestic violence. Boston Globe, Oct. 25, p. A2.
Dell, P. (1989)). Violence and the systemic view: The problem of power. Family Process, 28, 1-14.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital
violence. Social Problem, 39, 71-91.
Feldman, C., & Ridley, C. (1995). The etiology and treatment of domestic violence between adult partners.
ClinicalPsychology: Science and Practice, 2, 317-348.
Fry, D., & Bjorkqist, K. (1997). Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternativesto violence. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Geffner, R. (1997). Family violence: Current issues, interventions, and research. In R. Geffner, S. Sorenson,
& P. Lundberg-Love(Eds.), Violenceand sexual abuse at home: Current issues in spousal battering and
child maltreatment (pp. 1-25). New York: Haworth.
Goldner, V. (1992). Making room for bowand. Family Tberapy Networkeq 16 5 G 2 .
Goldner, V., Penn, P.. Sheinberg, M., & Walker, G. (1990). Love and violence: Gender paradoxes in volatile
attachments. Family Process, 29, 345364.
Gondolf, E. (1997). Batterer programs: What we know and need to know. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 12, 83-98.
Haj-Yahia, M. (1996). Wife abuse in the Arab society in Israel: Challenges for future change. In J. Edleson
& 2. Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interuentions with battered mmen and their families (pp. 87-101).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hamberger, K. (197). Female offenders in domestic violence: A look at actions in their context. In R.
Geffner, S. Sorenson, & P. Lundberg-Love (Eds.), Violence and sexual abuse at home: Current issues
in spousal battering and child maltreatment (pp. 117-119). New York: Haworth.
Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J,, Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. (1997). An empirical classification of motivations for
domestic violence. ViolenceAgainst Women, 3, 401-423.
Hamberger, L. K., & Potente, T. (1997). Counseling heterosexual women arrested for domestic violence:
Implications for theory and practice. In L. K. Hamberger & C. Renzetti (Eds.), Domesticpartnerabuse
(pp. 5 5 7 5 ) . New York: Springer.
Hampton, R., & Gelles, R. (1994). Violence toward Black women in a nationally representative sample of
Black families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 105-119.
Hardy, K., & Laszloffy, T. (194). Deconstructing race in family therapy. In R. Almeida (Ed.), @amions
of feminist family theory through dive&& (pp. 5-33). New York: Haworth.
Hawkins, D. (1987). Devalued lives and racial stereotypes: Ideological barriers to the prevention of family
violence among blacks. In R. Hampton (Ed.), Violence in the Blackfamily (pp. 189-205). Lexington,
MA: Lexington.

July 1999 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY 287

Previous First Next

Hill, M., & Rothblum, E. (Ed.) 0 6 ) . Classism and feminist therapy: Counting costs. New York: Haworth.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A,, Smutzler, N., & Bates, L. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband
violence, part 111: Sociodemographic factors, relationship factors, and differing consequences of
husband and wife violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior 2, 285-307.
Island, D., & Letellier, P. (1991). Men who beat the men who love them. New York: Harrington Park.
Jacobson, N. (1994). Contextualism is dead: Long live contextualism. Family Process, 33, 97-100.
Jacobson, N., Gottman, J,, Gortner, E., Berns, S., & Shorn,J. (1996). Psychological factors in the longitudinal
course of battering: When d o the couples split up? When does the abuse decrease? Eolence and
Victims, 11, 371-392.
Jacobson, N., Gottman, J,, Waltz, J,, Rushe, R., Babcock, J., & Holtzworth-Munroe,A. (1994). Affect, verbal
content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a violent husband. Journal of
Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 62, 929-988.
Jenkins, A. (1990). Invitations to responsibility The therapeutic engagement of men who are violent and
abusive. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre.
JOT, B., Anderson, D., & Greer, C. (1997). Intimate justice: Confronting issues of accountability, respect
and freedom in treatment for abuse and violence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23,
399419.
Kanuha, V. (1990). Compounding the triple jeopardy: Battering in lesbian of color relationships. In L. Brown
& M. Root (Eds.), Diversity and complexity in fminist therapy (pp. 169-1841, Binghdmton, Ny:
Harrington Park.
Kanuha, V. (1996). Domestic violence, racism, and the battered women's movement in the United States.
In J. Edleson & 2. Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interuentionswith battered women and theirfamilies (pp.
3450). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaufman Kantor, G., Jasinski, J., & Aldarondo, E. (1994). Sociocultural status and incidence of marital
violence in Hispanic families. Violenceand Victims,9, 207-222.
Kliinan, J. (1994). The interweaving of gender, class, and race in family therapy. In M. Mirkin (Ed.),
Women in context: Toward a feminist reconstruction of p5ychotherapy (pp. 2 S 4 7 ) . New York:
Guilford.
Koss, M., Goodman, L., Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L., Puryear Keita G., & Russo, N. (1994). No safe haven;
Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Lamb, S. (1996). The trouble with blame: Victims,pwpetraton, and responsibility. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling,J., Neidig, P., & Thorn, G. (1995). Violent marriages: Gender differences in levels
of current violence and past abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 159- 175.
Lee, E. (Ed.). (1997). Working with Asian Americans:A guidefor clinicians. New York: Guilford.
Leeder, E. (1994). Treating abuse infamilies: A feminist and community approach. New York: Springer.
Letellier, P. (1994). Gay and bisexual domestic violence victimization: Challenges to feminist theory and
responses to violence. In L. K. Hamberger & C. Renzetti (Eds.), Domestic partner abuse (pp. 1-21).
New York: Springer.
Lobel, K. (Ed.) (1986). Naming the violence: Speaking out about lesbian banm'ng. Seattle: Seal.
Margolin, G., & Burman, B. (1993). Wife abuse versus marital violence: Different terminologies,
explanations, and solutions. Clinical Psychology Revim, 13, 5%73.
McNair, L., & Neville, H. (1996). African American women survivors of sexual assault The intersection of
race and class. In M. Hill & E. Rothblum (Eds.), Classism and feminist therapy: Counting costs (pp.
107-118). New York: Haworth.
National Research Council (1996). Undentanding violence against women. Washington, DC: National
Academy.
Neff, J., Holamon, B., & Schluter, T. (1995). Spousal violence among Anglos, Blacks, and Mexican
Americans: The role of demographic variables, psychosocial predictors, and alcohol consumption.
Journal of Family Wolence, 10,1-21.
Rasche, C. (1995). Minority women and domestic violence: The unique dilemmas of battered women of
color. In B. Raffel Price & N. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenden,

288 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 1999

Previous First Next

 victim, and m r h (2nd ed.), (pp. 246261). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Renzetti, C. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Richie, B. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered black women. New York:
Routledge.
Robson, R. (1995). Violence against lesbians. In B. Raffel Price & N. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminaljustice
system and wmen: Offenders, victims, and m r k e n (2nd ed.), (pp. 312-320). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Saunders, D. (1988). Wife abuse, husband abuse, or mutual combat? A feminist perspective on the
empirical findings. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feministpeqpectiveson wife abuse (pp. 9CL113).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, M., & DeKeseredy, W. (1993). The return of the "battered husband syndrome" through the typifi-
cation of women as violent. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 20, 249265.
Serra, P. (193). Physical violence in the couple relationship: A contribution toward the analysis of the
context. Family Process, 32, 21-34.
Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1988). Personal power and institutional victimization:Treating the dual trauma of
woman battering. In E Ochberg (Ed.), Post-traumatic therapy and victim of violence (pp. 115-1511.
New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1995). Killing the beast within: Woman battering and female suicidality.
InternationalJournal of Health Sem'ces,25 43-64.
Stets, J., & Straus, M. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psycho-
logical consequences. In M. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk
factors and adaptations to violence in 8145families (pp. 227-244). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M., & Smith, C. (1990). Violence in Hispanic families in the United States: Incidence rates and
structural interpretations. In M. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in Americanfamilies; Risk
factors and adaptations to violence in 8145families (pp. 151-166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Vivian D., & Heyman, R. (1996). Is there a place for conjoint treatment of couple violence? I n session:
Psycbotherapv in Practice, 2, 25-48,
Vivian D., & Ianghinrichsen-Rohling,J. (197). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? A
gender-sensitive comparison. In K. Hamberger & C. Renzetti (Eds.), Domestic partner abuse (pp.
23-52). New York: Springer.
Vivian, D., & Malone, J. (1996). Relationship factors and depressive symptomatology associated with mild
and severe husband-to-wife physical aggression. violence and victim, 12, 1-19.
Williams, 0. (194). Group work with African American men who batter: Toward more ethnically sensitive
practice. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 91-103.
Williams, O., & Becker, R. (194). Domestic partner abuse treatment programs and cultural competence:
The results of a national survey. violence and victim, 9, 287-295.
Mlo, K., & Bograd, M. (Eds.). (19%). Feministperspectiveson wife abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

July 1999 JOURNAL OF MAREAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY 289

Previous First