Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive and devastating social problem that is estimated to occur in one of every four opposite-sex relationships and at least one of every five same-sex romantic relationships. These estimates may not represent violence against those who identify as transgender or genderqueer, and very little comprehensive research has been conducted on IPV within these populations. One statewide study on IPV found rates of IPV were as high as one of every two transgender individuals. In order to cope with the effects of abuse or leave an abusive partner, many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and genderqueer (LGBTQ) IPV survivors seek support from others. However, LGBTQ IPV survivors may experience unique difficulties related to their sexual orientation and gender identity when seeking assistance. This article reviews the literature on LGBTQ IPV and suggests three major barriers to help-seeking exist for LGBTQ IPV survivors: a limited understanding of the problem of LGBTQ IPV, stigma, and systemic inequities. The significance and consequences of each barrier are discussed, and suggestions for future research, policy, and practice are provided.

In the domestic violence field, a survivor-centered approach to services is a shared ideal, but there is little empirical work demonstrating its importance. This study filled that gap, focusing on a key outcome—safety-related empowerment. We gathered data from 177 intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors seeking community-based services, and after one session with an advocate, results revealed a significant change in two of three subscales of the Measure of Victim Empowerment Related to Safety (MOVERS) measure: Internal Tools and Expectations of Support. There was no change in Trade-Offs (pursuing safety causing new problems). More survivor-defined practice predicted greater changes in empowerment, over and above severity of violence, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and demographics.

The significant sex-based discrepancy in violent crime suggests that something about maleness or masculinity contributes to this pattern. Research on masculinities clearly indicates that if men struggle to meet masculine gender role expectations, they are likely to report distress (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; O’Neil, 2008). Empirical work demonstrates that failing to meet these expectations causes some men to become aggressive (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), but literature has not fully elucidated the psychological experience of that connection. To better understand the role threatened masculinity may play in fomenting male aggression, we created a new measure of threatened-masculinity shame-related responses. We then explored how these experiences related to aggression. The Masculinity and Shame Questionnaire is a scenario-based measure of shame-related responses to threatened masculinity: feel shame, escape, prevent exposure, and externalize blame. In a validation study with heterosexual males (n = 460), we found strong evidence for validity of the Masculinity and Shame Questionnaire among heterosexual men and a clear connection between threatened-masculinity shame-related responses and self-reports of a tendency to be physically aggressive. Threatened-masculinity externalization of blame mediated the relationship between threatened-masculinity shame-related responses and self-reported physically aggressive behaviors. Further, regression analyses showed that threatened-masculinity shame-related responses account for variance in self-reported physically aggressive behaviors above and beyond the variance accounted for by general shame. Results suggest the threatened-masculinity shame dynamic is critical to consider in violence prevention and intervention work.

Highlights Financial stress is a key predictor of classism among college students. Financial stress predicts classism across immigration status and race. For U.S. born students, higher reported social class predicts greater exposure to classist narratives.

State‐sanctioned violence (SSV) has resounding effects on entire populations, and marginalized communities have long persisted in the work toward liberation despite continued SSV. This paper aims to bridge the gap between the vast scholarship on resilience and the practical challenge of sustaining and thriving in communities targeted by SSV. We use the theoretical frame of the Transconceptual Model of Empowerment and Resilience (TMER) to articulate the process of resilience and the resources that support it: maintenance, efficacy, skills, knowledge, and community resources. As a practical frame, we ground our application of the model in the experiences of the first two authors in their own communities. Centering examples from the Black Lives Matter movement and the CeCe McDonald Support Committee, we use our theoretical and practical frames to explore the scholarship on resilience relevant to resisting SSV, and we identify mechanisms for supporting community stakeholders' efforts to move toward liberation from SSV. We discuss implications for future research and activism, and we include a toolkit with suggested strategies as an appendix for psychologists, activists, and community stakeholders to consider as they work to facilitate community resilience and build a society free from SSV.

No abstract