[nfb-talk] Domestic violence clarification
Sheri Wells Jensen
swellsj at bgnet.bgsu.edu
Wed Oct 3 10:20:46 CDT 2007
Hi, Folks,
I thought I might clarify the point because it's statistically likely
that at least a couple folks on this list (given that it's a largish
list) are probably at the moment living in an abusive situation.
As we all know, because of a variety of social factors and attitudes,
people who are blind have a high unemployment rate and accessability
barriers abound. That's why we organize: because these things need
to be overcome. A woman who does not have sufficient income or equal
access to literature about domestic violence that might help her escape or
who lives in a place without decent public transportation really is
more vulnerable. I'm not more vulnerable because I am a woman who
physically can't see: I'm more vulnerable to abuse because society
systematically teaches that I'm less valuable, less employable, less
capable and encourages those perceptions. Abusers, products of
society like all of us, seek women they can control and women with
disabilities are ready targets because of those perceptions.
The social services that are set up to deal with domestic violence
are suitable for any blind person when those agencies are
accessible. Again, as we all know, agencies vary in terms of how
accessible they are.
Again, no, I'm not suggesting there need be a division. Perhaps
though, some attention paid to making sure we educate ourselves about
domestic violence makes good sense. I'd be glad to help out with that cause.
Peace,
Sheri
At 10:58 PM 10/2/2007, you wrote:
>Ahem. Is it not stereotyping to say that the blind, as a class,
>necessarily are limited in their transportation options? That puts too
>much emphasis on the automobile and, frankly, I'd bet that most victims
>of domestic violence have valid drivers' licenses. A good many of the
>limitations on the part of those subject to domestic violence are
>self-imposed, even if they are logical (i.e., the fear of leaving and,
>for example, going to a womens' shelter).
>
>In any event, it is my opinion that this is not a subject NFB should get
>into.
>
>Mike Freeman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sheri Wells-Jensen
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Domestic violence Division?
>
>
> Mike and all,
>
> It's important to separate the two kinds of violence we're talking
>about
> here since they need to be addressed in very different ways:
>
> I have no clear idea whether blind folks are more or les likely to be
>mugged
> than sighted folks in general: probably about the same if you take
>this as a
> measure of the number of pedestrians robbed or attacked by strangers
>rather
> than the number of people in general who may or may not be found
>walking as
> opposed to driving cars. An argument can be made that a self-defense
>class
> (or several) might help in these cases.
>
> The other kind of violence is systematic and occurs within the
>confines of
> an intimate relationship: between spouses or lovers for example.
>there are
> stats to show that there are classes of people who are more vulnerable
>here:
> anyone, for example with limited transportation options or who is
>under
> economic stress. A self-defense class isn't the answer in these
>cases.
>
> It's not my intention to start a discussion of what causes domestic
>violence
> in general. Rather, I meant to ask whether the NFB might already be
>thinking
> about this issue since eric broughtit up.
>
> Peace,
>
> Sheri W-J
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Bullis" <mabullis at hotmail.com>
> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Domestic violence Division?
>
>
> >A new division is seldom the answer to what ails. You rightly point
>out
> >the
> > options such as self defense training. I think it also comes down
>to
> > good
> > training. Blind people who walk around with their heads down and
> > hesitantly
> > are probably more vulnerable to attack than others. I think that
>sighted
> > people who walk around like this are also victimized more often as
>well.
> > Often local police forces have self defense training which involves
>how to
> > keep onesself from looking like a victim or a target.
> >
> > Again though, I don't think the problem of blind people being mugged
>has
> > ever been demonstrated to be greater than among the sighted
>population.
> > So,
> > I would suggest that a monitor article describing the problem and
>some
> > solutions might be in order.
> > Mike Bullis
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>[mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> > Behalf Of Sheri Wells-Jensen
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:36 PM
> > To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Domestic violence Division?
> >
> > Hello, Folks,
> > If we mean domestic violence as it is usually defined (violence
>between
> > intimate partners), it's certainly the case that women with any kind
>of
> > disability are more vulnerable than general statistics might
>suggest. I'm
> > not sure if a division as such is what is needed, but it would be
>nice to
> > know if the NFB has any kind of resources for women caught in such
> > relationships.
> > Peace,
> >
> > Sheri W-J
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eric Calhoun" <eric at pmpmail.com>
> > To: <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:18 PM
> > Subject: [nfb-talk] Domestic violence Division?
> >
> >
> >> Is there any interest in starting a Domestic Violence Division of
>the
> >> National Federation of the Blind? Too many times we hear of blind
>people
> >> get accosted, either because they have had no self-defense
>training, or
> >> people feel that, "i won't _ever happen to me!" Women are the most
> >> vulnerable for getting mugged.
> >>
> >> Earlier, Nfb of Florida members were horrified to learn that one of
>their
> >> leaders was being robbed and attacked.
> >>
> >> Any comments from the membership please?
> >>
> >> Eric
> >> -
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfb-talk mailing list
> >> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
--
Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen
423 East Hall
English 380: http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/english/linguistics/eng380/
English 518: http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/english/linguistics/eng518/
English 615: http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/english/linguistics/eng615/
--
More information about the nfb-talk
mailing list