Domestic Violence or Simply Violence?
Reading Time: 10 minutes
In promoting awareness of domestic violence, and conveying the message that domestic violence is never acceptable, the current campaign against domestic violence is addressing the attitudes and expectations that can be particularly helpful to understanding why some become perpetrators and others are more likely to resign themselves to being victims. This calls for a focus on the conditioning and expectations of both victim and perpetrator. However, while the current focus on women tends to be largely on women as victims of domestic violence, women’s expectations of both themselves and their partners can play an important role.
Thanks in large measure to Rosie Batty, Australian of the Year for 2015, domestic violence has gained more prominence, and prompted increased government action. Nevertheless, those seeking to identify the nature, prevalence, causes and suitable remedies for domestic violence continue to confront some fundamental problems.
There is a lack of uniformity in the legal language used to describe ‘domestic violence’. The adoption of other terms, such as ‘domestic abuse’ and ‘domestic and family violence’ in some Australian jurisdictions, has created some confusion, particularly in comparisons.
How these terms are defined, also matters, as it determines who, what relationships and what actions are covered. The lack of nation-wide uniformity in the definition and scope of legislation, is proving to be a hurdle to the determination of the nature and extent of the problem. For example, in Tasmanian law the term ‘family violence’ only applies to spouses or partners, while in other states and territories, legislation extends the definition of domestic violence (or its equivalent) to cover not only violence between intimate partners (including in some cases those who don’t live together), but also relatives, family members, carers and children.
Not only do various Australian laws cover different people and relationships, the behaviours being targeted also differ across Australia. At the Commonwealth level, the Family Law Act defines ‘family violence’ as behaviour that is
• violent,
• threatening or
• other behaviour by a person, that
- coerces a member of the person’s family or
- causes the family member to be fearful.
The Family Law Act provides examples of what is meant by ‘other behaviour’. The behaviours listed as being covered include:
• deprivation of liberty,
• stalking,
• repeated derogatory taunts,
• intentionally killing or injuring a family pet
• denying financial autonomy,
• exposing children to domestic violence (including witnessing such violence)
• unreasonably withholding financial support to dependent family members, and
• unlawfully depriving family members contact with family, friends or culture in the community.
The particular significance of these examples is that at least the last two are often not considered to amount to domestic violence. The mention of stalking is also noteworthy as not all state legislation covers stalking.
Differences, in state and territory legislation, as to who and what behaviours are covered has caused the accuracy and significance of available statistics to be questioned and for suggestions to be made that any reliance on such statistics could lead to unfounded inferences.
Domestic violence statistics may also be inaccurate for other reasons. An increase in the number of reported instances of domestic violence may reflect victims’ greater willingness to approach police, rather than an increase in the number of actual domestic violence incidents. Another aspect of the recording of incidents of domestic violence that is questioned, flows from the evidence based view that domestic violence is greatly under-reported. On this basis it has been suggested that the prevalence of domestic violence in Australia is most likely a much greater problem than available statistics suggest. A further significant limitation of domestic violence statistics is that they measure the number of victims and not the number of incidents. On this basis, it is argued that, as 65% of women have been found to experience more than one incident of violence at the hands of their current partner, the incidence of domestic violence against women is far more numerous than current statistics based on reporting would suggest.
In spite of these limitations, published statistics, capable of meaningfully enlightening the nature and scale of domestic violence, are still readily available. For this reason I will not reproduce numerous statistics, but will instead only set out some of those that are particularly relevant to, and set the context for, this paper. They are sourced from publications by a number of organisations including: the Australian Bureau of Statistics, White Ribbon Australia, Australian Institute of Criminology, Council of Australian Governments, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Our Watch.
The following statistics are unquestionably alarming:
• On average one woman is killed by her partner or formed partner each week in Australia.
• One in four women has reported being assaulted physically or sexually by a partner or former partner
• One in four children are exposed to domestic violence (exposure that has been shown to increase a child’s risk of developing mental health, as well as behavioural and learning difficulties)
• Domestic violence is the main cause of homelessness for women and their children
• Indigenous women and girls are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of family violence
• Two out of every five assaults and one out of every three sexual assaults reported to the police is in the context of domestic violence
• While violence against men is most likely to be perpetrated by other men outside the domestic context, most violence against women is likely to be perpetrated by the woman’s intimate partner
• Although figures vary greatly, up to 90% of perpetrators of domestic violence against intimate partners or former partners, are men
• Around 95% of all reported acts of violence are committed by men
• While the number of women who perpetrate domestic violence has been assessed to be as low as 10%, it has grown by over 150% in the last decade.
Awareness of the prevalence of domestic violence has led numerous government and private sector initiatives to be undertaken. Making the public aware of the pervasive nature of domestic violence appears to have been the main thrust of recent and current government and community organisation campaigns against domestic violence. Attitudes towards violence In domestic and family situations have also been targeted by advertising and publicity stressing that violence against women is never acceptable. Empowering existing and potential victims has taken the form of a ‘whole of government’ approach, through which a range of issues such as finances, housing and support can be addressed and help identified. Members of police forces and thejudiciary have received training and information on handling domestic violence matters. Special domestic violence courts have been set up for indigenous victims of domestic violence. These initiatives are designed to empower women to leave abusive relationships and situations.This approach is a significant advancement on the previous approach which focused almost solely on physical safety and on the punishment of perpetrators.
In promoting awareness of domestic violence, and conveying the message that domestic violence is never acceptable, the current campaign against domestic violence is addressing the attitudes and expectations that can be particularly helpful to understanding why some become perpetrators and others are more likely to resign themselves to being victims. This calls for a focus on the conditioning and expectations of both victim and perpetrator. However, while the current focus on women tends to be largely on women as victims of domestic violence, women’s expectations of both themselves and their partners can play an important role.
An example may be provided by the victim of domestic violence who in reporting being assaulted by her husband states, ‘I didn’t even burn his dinner this time’. The statement reveal’s an acceptance that some violence is deserved and to be expected by a wife. Such an attitude, studies suggest, is very likely to have its origins in the victim’s childhood home, where her father may have come home and beaten his wife regularly. This to the girl came to represent a relationship with a man and married life. Not surprisingly, this girl grew into a woman who was highly likely to be attracted to violent men.
While current initiatives are to be applauded, to be truly effective in combatting domestic violence, they need to become part of an overall strategy to eradicate all violence in our society. And if that sounds too ambitious, at the very least to make violence unacceptable, and not just when it constitutes a crime.
The campaign against domestic violence needs to become a part of a greater campaign against violence wherever it was occur and whatever the relationship between the perpetrator and victim.By focusing only on domestic violence we may be seen to be signalling that at times the resort to violence against those not in a domestic or family relationship with us may at times be justified. Another way of looking at this is to suggest that presently our society considers that it is not the resort to violence that is always wrong but rather that it should never be used against those closest to us or against certain categories of people. On this basis, for example, we have campaigns targeting violence against women. While clearly needed, as in addition to female victims of domestic violence, some 300,000 Australian women annually report being assaulted in other violence, if the focus remains confined to female victims of violence, it may suggest to some that violence against men is acceptable, at least in some circumstances. I would suggest that it is naïve of us to think that it is possible to target and eliminate violence against certain victims.. A so called ‘man’s man’ may idolise his girlfriend or bride, and may not even envisage ever assaulting her, yet in later years he may bring his aggressive physical or verbal violence home. If we are to address the causes, and not just the symptoms of domestic violence, we must strive to eliminate violence against anyone or anything. Children need to be taught this and dissuaded from not only engaging in bullying or physical violence but to also not be cruel to animals, as according to the Graduation Hypothesis a child’s cruelty towards animals is a good predictor of their violent behaviour as an adult.
A further basis for needing to see domestic violence in the broader context of all violence is that if we stop and look around, we will notice that society conveys mixed messages about violence. News reports use adjectives such unprovoked attack, innocent victim, and even the Pope has suggested that it is reasonable to resort to violence if provoked. We tend to glorify reckless violent behaviour in our heroes. The resort to violence, threats, bullying have recently regained prominence in international affairs and politics. As a result, diplomacy, discussion and negotiation have been increasingly labelled as signs of weakness.
How society perceives women also needs to be considered if the causes of public and domestic violence are to be identified. Perceptions of women as property, or as inviting sexual and physical violence, appear to be fuelled by how women are often portrayed, particularly in films, pornography and sexual games. It has been suggested that such degrading messages play an important role in acts of violence against women. While there is some debate regarding a direct link between popular and social media and gaming on the one hand and violence towards women on the other, there is little doubt that our society is being desensitised to violence.
While it is important to confront all violence and not just domestic violence, it is also necessary to distinguish domestic violence from other violence in order to be able to identify and appropriately respond to the largely distinct causes and effects of domestic violence.
Traditionally, society has distinguished between domestic violence and violence against strangers because violence against strangers was an offence and socially unacceptable, whereas a man’s home was seen to be his castle and his wife and children as his possessions. Consequently what he did to his wife and children was considered to be nobody’s business. Even today, some men facing court for domestic violence offences will demand to know what right others have to be meddling in their marital or domestic affairs. In some cases such views may be maintained by custom (briefly discussed, below),or as I intend to discuss in my next post, by fundamentalist religious beliefs.
A dominant partner’s sense of possession of his spouse children and even family, can often lead to violence against the weaker partner, a former partner, children, other dependents, or against a third party seen to be interfering with his right of possession. The strong protective male partner who comes to believe that he knows what is best for his female partner, may find it too difficult to accept that she no longer wants to be with him. Many such men do not stop at violence – when violence fails they can kill their former intimate partner and often themselves. In many such cases, threats of restraint orders, having to face court, or even of going to prison, do not deter a man who is unwilling to accept that his intimate partners can leave him. In such cases, existing legal remedies are simply inadequate to protect the victim of domestic violence. Such cases appear to suggest that a two prong approach of focusing on the causes of domestic violence and campaigning to make all violence socially unacceptable, may prove to be more appropriate and successful.
The emotional bond frequently present between the perpetrator of the violence and the intimate partner victim, also distinguishes domestic violence from most other acts of violence. This bond in many cases deters the victim from reporting the violence or seeking assistance. When the situation gets out of hand and the law is involved, such a victim may protest against her partner being charged or punished. It is quite common for victims to forgive perpetrators, and have legal orders revoked, only to again seek legal protection when next in need of protection. This, at least to some extent, has explained (if not justified) the previous, less than enthusiastic police response to domestic violence callouts.
A further issue which distinguishes domestic violence is that victims of domestic violence are often deterred from seeking assistance due to their economic dependence on the perpetrator of violence. This factor cuts across all socio-economic lines. A battered wife who has not worked outside of the home, whose worldly possession are tied up in the family home, and whose financial affairs had always been looked after by her abusive husband, will most likely find it very difficult to even envisage the options of leaving the family home or having her abusive husband removed, leaving her on her own.
The imbalance of power between partners, an almost constantly present feature of domestic violence, is often further exacerbated by the dominant partner’s derogatory taunts, put downs and belittling, which tends to leave the weaker partner convinced that without the abusive partner, she would not be able to manage, and hence cannot leave him. It takes a lot for a person in that position to accept that her rights are as important as his. This of course is made all the more difficult by the reality known to the victim, that by challenging his power and control, she may provoke his violence, as he seeks to restore his power and dominance. The power that a man seeks to exert at home may also reflect his lack of power outside of the home. A man who is belittled and bullied at work, may come home to bully the one person he can, his wife.
Living in a country of migrants, it is important not to forget racial and cultural issues relevant to causation or remedies specifically relevant to domestic violence. Citing the findings of studies which appeared to validate her explanation, a young Vietnamese woman offered an explanation for why her father, reportedly once a peaceful man, gradually became violent and verbally aggressive following the family’s migration to Australia. She suggested that her father’s position in the family had changed from that of knowledgeable and respected head of the family, with many important contacts, and an authority recognised by his family and the community, to someone who had to rely on his children’s interpreting and knowledge. He no longer had contacts, his wife and children did not obey him as they once had, and his daughters wore western clothes and associated with non Vietnamese men. Worst of all, his eldest daughter brought shame upon the family by studying to become a lawyer. Arguably, he sought to regain standing and authority by using verbal and physical aggression.
For other men, especially those who came to Australia from patriarchal countries, resort to violence may flow from their customary role as the protector of female family members. When women in such a family reject this protection or act contrary to their designated customary role, the male ‘protector’ may resort to violence, and on occasion may kill to ‘protect family honour’.
In my next post, I will deal with Domestic Violence and Religion, an issue that has long been swept under the carpet because it is considered irrelevant, inconvenient or embarrassing. When raised, it has tended to lead to crude stereotyping, or being conveniently repackaged.
———-
This post is a personal commentary on some of the causes of domestic violence and responses to this social phenomenon. It is based on my experiences as a lawyer specialising in domestic violence law and, law academic lecturing on and researching domestic violence. My interest and involvement continues through my Tribunal work in Guardianship and Child Protection.
(Visited 21 times, 1 visits today)