An open, publicly assessable survey was conducted to determine the extent to which the views of the general public would differ from the views shared within the focus groups. Participation in the survey generated 312 valid responses, spanning all 9 provinces. Nineteen participants were included in in-depth interviews. These included leaders, activists and decision makers in social justice, community- based organisations, government, faith-based organisations and helping professions.
RESEACH FINDINGS
The GBV response sector is at risk
Sixty-four percent of respondents in the survey indicated that they have some contribution (work/volunteering) to the GBV response sector. A total of 71 % of respondents indicated that they have been victims of GBV.In total 45.72% of all survey respondents have been victims of GBV and work in the GBV response sector. This was echoed within the focus group, where many participants indicated that they both work in the sector and had been victims of gender-based violence. The burnout rate of the social sector is approximately 80% within five years. GBV responders who work trauma-adjacent and who have personal history of GBV are at increased risk of re-traumatisation, secondary traumatisation and eventually, burnout. The damage being caused to the sector through burnout and further traumatisation of its workers undermines the efficacy of the work being done. There is a strong call for deep psychosocial support and healing work, including resilience and trauma-informed leadership training to capacitate the GBV response sector and reduces losses due to trauma. Interestingly and shockingly fear of being judged by others (stigma) provided an enormous barrier to accessing services with 71.6% of respondents rating it as a “big barrier”.
KEY FINDINGS What is GBV?
When asked what they understood by the team “gender-based violence” participants across all three data collection methods indicated that it affected mostly women and children, had much to do with an imbalance of power targeted at vulnerable groups and can be physical, emotional, sexual, economic, verbal, psychological. Intriguingly, the number of respondents who emphasised men as victims of GBV was high. This indicates a notable shift in community perceptions around GBV and the social messaging which has been embedded regarding roles the different genders occupy in terms of victimisation. Furthermore, the mentioning of non-physical abusive acts such as financial abuse indicates that a broader understanding of GBV is emerging. Considering that GBV is driven by power differences based on the vulnerability of certain gender groups, ie women, children and LGBTQI+ community, would it be reasonable to refer to heterosexual males as being victims of GBV? The consideration here is whether the drivers or causes of “GBV” against men are the same as those for the vulnerable groups named above. The risk is that referring to men (outside of LGBTQI+) as victims of GBV may severely undermine the focus on the prelisted vulnerable groups, thus diluting efforts to address the causal systemic and patriarchal factors of GBV.
November 2023 | Collective Action Magazine
78
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease