Paint the world orange. It’s about time.
Orange the World.
Violence against women is an uneasy and harsh reality. Everybody knows it exists but too few people want to acknowledge it and even fewer will engage in a discussion about it. Violence against women is estimated to cost countries up to 3.7% of GDP. Violence against women manifests in many forms — which we read about in the news. These are the more public forms. The kind that happen to other women in some other city, state or country and are reported in the media, inciting temporary public outrage. The kind that the UN had to start a campaign for, for the world to notice. But only for 16 days in the year. One of the types of violence which is spoken about the least and sadly happens the most frequently and is so very close to home is intimate partner violence. IPV.
For the uninitiated, IPV includes physical, sexual, psychological and economic violence, as well as coercive control, carried out by an intimate partner. This can include, control over women’s social interactions and autonomy, control of children and parenting, verbal, emotional, economic control and threats of abuse and violence. WHO[1] estimates 1 in 3 women worldwide have been subjected to IPV. The most prevalent and common is emotional abuse followed by sexual and physical abuse — by the Intimate. Partner. You know, the “One” you agreed to share all aspects of your life with. The “One” who agreed to support you — in sickness and in health. The Intimate. Partner.
If we live in a society which conditions us to believe that women are not equal to or less than men, that women are dependent, mentally and physically weaker and therefore it is “normal” to treat them that way — that’s how they will be treated. Not only by men but other women too. IPV is “normalized” as a result of this collective mind set. It happens so frequently, in so many homes that the abusive behaviour is accepted by the woman, her family members and the larger community. Studies on IPV have found that cultural norms regarding the acceptability of IPV were strongly associated with the risk of violence. A study by the World Bank[2] found that a large proportion of both men and women from South East Asian countries (which include India) feel that IPV is justified. The “normalization” of IPV implies that for some women it becomes a detrimental part of their existence. They suffer in silence as there is limited or no recourse. Given that women’s participation in labour force is also limited, these women are likely to be financially dependent on their abusers. They may have no escape. Those that are participating in the work force can face a different set of challenges.
IPV survivors can experience severe, long term mental health consequences including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and eating disorders. There is growing evidence that the mental health challenges that IPV survivors suffer from directly impact their ability to perform paid work and even stay employed for long periods.
Women with a history of IPV tend to have a more disrupted work history, are consequently on lower personal incomes, have had to change jobs more often and are employed at higher levels in casual and part time work than women with no experience of violence. The abuse affected their ability to get to work, negatively affected their work performance because they were distracted, tired, or unwell as a direct result of the violence. IPV survivors are reported to earn 60% of what women with no history of IPV earn. The physical and emotional abuse impacting a woman’s ability to work and earn thus snowballs into economic and financial abuse. This destructive outcome is absolutely by the abuser’s design and not by chance.
An IPV survivor who manages to leave the abusive partner may be able to find paid work but the mental health issues tend to persist. Treatment can be perceived as costly and therefore not availed or these issues may go undiagnosed. Not only further hampering potential earnings for a survivor but also putting them at risk of addictions and self-harming behaviours. The chances of undiagnosed mental health disorders is higher in countries where these are stigmatized and proper mental healthcare facilities are not available easily. Double whammy.
The point is that India’s dropping female labour force participation may not only be about child care, elder care, household demands, family status, social norms and safe transport. The point is that in India, the average woman earns less than 50% of the average man. The point is that in a patriarchal setup nobody wants to talk about IPV — out of fear, shame, guilt, embarrassment or denial. Because nobody wants to talk about, it stays hidden. Women are not taught to recognize it, don’t teach their daughters to recognize it, and the cycle continues.
Policies aimed at increasing female labour force participation and women’s empowerment need to incorporate the effects of IPV on women’s ability to work and earn. The decision whether to work (for pay) or not is never made in a vacuum — it is not just about income or financial independence. There are a certain set of circumstances within which a woman, conditioned to be other regarding and self-sacrificing, makes this decision. Sometimes, her decision making may be compromised by fear, anxiety and/or depression. This reality needs to be addressed in the larger context of women centric policies.
It is about time we orange the world — orange our policies for women by daring to tread into the reality of IPV and it’s devastating impact, providing the appropriate help to those who really need it.
Pick up your brush. Orange the world.
[1] (2021) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women
[2] (2021) Social Norms and Gender Equality: A Descriptive Analysis for South Asia, World Bank, Jessy Amarachi Ezebuihe, Maurizio Bussolo, Ana Maria Munoz Boudet, Tasmia Rahman, Nayantara Sarma