Striving for Gender Equality: Representations of Gender in “Progressive” Domestic Violence Policy

Abstract

International feminist scholarship highlights the benefits of approaching domestic violence policy through a gendered lens. Yet to be examined, however, is the extent to which explicitly gendered domestic violence policies may contain barriers that limit the potential benefits of a gendered approach. This qualitative research examines the assumptions embedded in explicitly gendered domestic violence policy in the Australian state of Queensland. Findings suggest that Queensland’s “progressive” domestic violence policy is underpinned by dominant gendered assumptions that reinforce existing unequal social structures. These findings offer important lessons for international jurisdictions that aspire to adopt gendered domestic violence policy.

Keywords

domestic violence discourse policy

Introduction

Domestic violence is an issue of increasing relevance to governments and policymakers across the globe. Crucial to addressing domestic violence is the way policymakers use language to construct the problem as a gendered issue. The importance of this is twofold. First, policies’ problem constructions have the power to significantly influence the development of social and service responses (Bacchi, 2009). Second, many leading contemporary theorists and prominent international organizations argue that understanding and engaging with the gendered determinants of domestic violence is critical if the issue is to be addressed effectively (Abraham & Tastsoglou, 2016; Burnett et al., 2015; Council of Europe, 2011; Flood, 2015; United Nations, 1995; World Health Organization, 2016). Indeed, the United Nations’ (1995) Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action stresses that when addressing forms of violence against women, including domestic violence, “Governments and other actors should promote an active and visible policy of mainstreaming a gender perspective in all policies and programmes” (p. 50). Taken together, this suggests that policies that conceptualize and address domestic violence as gendered may have significant potential to help ameliorate domestic violence.

Contemporary international feminist scholarship has thoroughly explored the impact that policy conceptualizations of domestic violence have on policy outcomes (Berns, 2001; Choudhry, 2016; Hearn & McKie, 2010; Krizsan & Popa, 2014; Morrison, 2006; Pease, 2006; Virkki, 2017). This work highlights the benefits of taking a gendered approach to domestic violence policy, demonstrating that non-gendered policies are often based on a flawed belief of the problem, which acts as a barrier preventing domestic violence from being adequately addressed in practice (Berns, 2001; Choudhry, 2016; Murray & Powell, 2011). What is yet to be examined, however, is the extent to which explicitly gendered domestic violence policies, too, may contain implicit ideologies and assumptions that limit the potential benefits of a gendered approach. Understanding the current limitations of contemporary gendered domestic violence policy is critical if policymakers are to continue to refine and maximize the effectiveness of their policy approaches to domestic violence.

Recognizing the demonstrated benefits of policies adopting a gendered conceptualization of domestic violence, we employ a critical discourse analysis (CDA) framework to examine the assumptions embedded in explicitly gendered domestic violence policy. Crucial to this study is the idea of language, and how language is used in policy to construct different representations of the issue at hand. With this in mind, we begin the article with an explanation of the language we use in our own discussions of domestic violence. We follow this with an examination of the literature that debates the gendered nature of domestic violence and the impact that policy conceptualizations of gender can have on policy outcomes.

Following this, we outline the data examined in the study and the CDA approach we use to analyze them. We draw data from contemporary domestic violence policies in the Australian state of Queensland. Queensland was chosen as the focus for this study due to its recent domestic violence policy reforms. These reforms—and, indeed, Australia’s overarching gendered framework for addressing domestic violence—are lauded for adopting progressive approaches informed by feminist scholarship (Morley & Dunstan, 2016; Theobald, 2011; Western & Mason, 2011). The Queensland context, therefore, provides an important opportunity to study an explicitly gendered domestic violence policy corpus, and examine its potential to address the key aspects of gender that underpin and facilitate domestic violence.

We then present analysis of our findings in which we demonstrate that, despite the policy’s progressive approach, it is underpinned by dominant assumptions that reinforce sexist ideas of men’s superiority and power over women. This serves to significantly undermine the policy’s own key message advocating for the improved treatment of women. We conclude the article by explicitly engaging with the international lessons that can be drawn from this Australian analysis. We argue that the Australian analysis presented in this article provides a mechanism to critically consider the United Nations’ aspiration for governments to develop gendered domestic violence policy, on one hand, and the limitations of international gender-neutral domestic violence policies that are lamented for their inadequacy, on the other.

Terms and Definitions

The terms and definitions used to describe domestic violence play key roles in shaping the problem construction and subsequent policy responses. As Itzin (2000) argues, “how violence is conceptualized and defined will determine what is visible and seen and known . . . and what is and is not done about it through policy and practice” (p. 357). Indeed, the use of the term “domestic violence” has itself been problematized, with a number of theorists arguing that to use terms such as “domestic violence” or “family violence” is to ignore the issue’s gendered nature. Such theorists instead advocate for terms such as “wife battering” and “violence against women” to more meaningfully reflect the problem (Abraham & Tastsoglou, 2016; Choudhry, 2016; Elizabeth, 2003). Although we acknowledge the importance of conceptualizing and portraying this form of violence as gendered, in this article we use the term “domestic violence.” This is because gendered terms, such as “violence against women,” encompass crimes beyond domestic relationships, such as sexual assault by a stranger. “Domestic violence,” on the contrary, relates to violence that is perpetrated by a family member or intimate partner (Douglas & Walsh, 2010). Given that Queensland’s policies primarily use the term “domestic violence,” we mirror this use to ensure the concept we discuss aligns with the concept used in the policies we analyze. Despite its lack of explicit acknowledgment of the gendered nature of the issue, the cultural history of the term “domestic violence” does connote violence perpetrated by a man against a woman (Murray & Powell, 2011).

The literature also debates the appropriateness of the notion of a domestic violence “victim.” Some challenge the term “victim” for passively positioning women as being bereft of agency (Dunn, 2005; Tolton, 2009). In response to such arguments, there has been a rise in the use of the term “survivor.” “Survivor” aims to cast women as active agents in their own lives, and empower them to overcome the trauma of violence (Dunn, 2005). However, depicting women as either victims or survivors is questioned for the inherent simplification of women’s experiences that these binaries represent (Dunn, 2005). With this limitation in mind, we use the term “victim” as, from our perspective, it implies that an act of harm has been done to a woman, and therefore there is a perpetrator responsible (Tolton, 2009). While we acknowledge that the term “survivor” emphasizes the strength and achievements of the woman, Tolton (2009) reminds us that domestic violence is all too often a life-threatening issue and not all victims survive. To use the term “survivor,” then, is to overlook these women, as well as the men who killed them. Furthermore, as the term “survivor” draws attention to the strength and tenacity of the women who do survive, it may suggest that the women who do not survive were lacking in these qualities, again minimizing the role of the perpetrator.

Literature Review

Domestic Violence and Gender

The perception of domestic violence as gendered, or non-gendered, is crucial for the nature of policy representations and responses. Although the feminist movement of the 1970s did much to situate domestic violence within frames of gender inequality, patriarchy, and power, the 1980s saw considerable backlash in public debate that drew attention to the woman perpetrators of domestic violence and thus intentionally undermined its gendered nature (Berns, 2001; Pease, 2006). This work positioned domestic violence as a problem that could be experienced or perpetrated by anyone, regardless of gender.

In the decades since, leading theorists have gradually come to a consensus that domestic violence is a form of patriarchal control exerted by men against their partners (Walby & Towers, 2018). This consensus views domestic violence as a highly gendered issue that is underpinned by both cultural and structural inequalities (Harvie & Manzi, 2011). Gendered power relations within relationships and broader society are now understood to play a critical role in creating an environment that facilitates men’s use of domestic violence against women. This approach challenges more traditional approaches that blame violence on individual characteristics of victims and perpetrators, instead focusing on the gendered social inequalities and power relationships that help to condone and facilitate domestic violence (Murray & Powell, 2011). A gendered approach is thus largely focused on cultural and structural determinants of domestic violence as opposed to individual determinants (Berns, 2001). In doing so, it moves beyond notions of individual responsibility and considers broader systems and structures where domestic violence is enabled and normalized.

Gendered approaches are not beyond reproach, however. Scholars criticize gendered analyses for insufficiently conceptualizing how race, class, disability, age, religion, and sexuality contribute to women’s experiences of domestic violence (McQueeney, 2016). As non-gendered approaches to domestic violence have been found to reinforce gender inequalities, so too have gendered approaches to domestic violence been found to reinforce racial inequalities. This is particularly pertinent to Australia, where Indigenous communities report disproportionately high rates of domestic violence (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2018). Murray and Powell (2011) argue that

while feminist analyses have been rejected by some as not taking into account the specific historical and social contexts of Indigenous people’s lives, others suggest a feminist analysis that addresses “the complexity and diversity of women’s experiences in violent relationships.” (p. 69)

Murray and Powell (2011) thus argue for an approach based on the notion that domestic violence is caused by gender inequality and unequal power relations, which in turn coalesce with various other power imbalances, including those related to race, class, age, and disability.

Another important issue with gendered approaches to domestic violence is that different social actors understand and conceptualize gender differently (Yates, 2018). This point is well-argued by Yates (2018), who differentiates between what she calls big G and small g understandings of gender. Big G understandings tend to view gender as a fixed category that is strongly tied to sex. Small g understandings, on the contrary, view gender as performed and constructed through individuals’ actions. Small g understandings also acknowledge the broader social structures and power relationships that contribute to gender constructions. Yates (2018) argues that big G understandings of gender often form the foundation of approaches that ignore the gendered nature of domestic violence. Or, where such approaches do acknowledge that males are the predominant perpetrators, big G understandings make it difficult to understand the social processes involved in facilitating men’s use of violence. This suggests that gendered frameworks are not homogeneous, and how these frameworks conceptualize gender plays a critical role in shaping efforts to address domestic violence.

Discourse and Policy

Interrogating policy discourse can be an effective way to understand how governments position gender as playing a role in producing and perpetuating domestic violence (Hearn & McKie, 2010). Discourse, simply defined, is the way particular words and forms of language are used to construct a representation of a topic (Bacchi, 1999). Dominant social discourses, including those found in policy, play a significant role in legitimizing certain attitudes and behaviors and influencing social expectations of appropriate behavior (Berns, 2001). In the context of domestic violence, dominant discourses have helped to determine “how domestic violence has been defined, the extent to which individual accounts were believed, the seriousness with which incidents were taken, the priority devoted to policy responses and to determine agencies to be given responsibility” (Harvie & Manzi, 2011, p. 82). Where these discourses fail to situate domestic violence within appropriate gender frameworks, they often inadvertently reinforce the marginalization of women.

To understand the extent of this issue, scholars have critically analyzed how government policy conceptualizes domestic violence as a gendered issue, and how this gendered conceptualization is manifest in policy discourse (Berns, 2001; Choudhry, 2016; Hearn & McKie, 2010; Morrison, 2006; Pease, 2006). Berns (2001), for example, analyzes domestic violence political discourse that downplays men’s violence and places responsibility for violence on women. She argues that this discourse plays a key role in preventing domestic violence from being situated within a gendered framework, and may help normalize domestic violence and perpetuate an ignorance of the cultural and structural factors that facilitate it.

Analyzing contemporary policy reforms put forward by the European Union, Choudhry (2016) examines and critiques how domestic violence is framed in legislative and policy initiatives. Choudhry (2016) uses a critical frame analysis to examine how the issue is problematized, how solutions are approached, and who is given a voice in policymaking. She finds that when violence against women is framed primarily as a violation of human rights, it is positioned as a social problem in need of state intervention and legal solutions to apprehend perpetrators. On the contrary, when violence against women is framed as an issue of gender inequality, it is linked to the exploitation of women and the need for community action. The latter framing often leads to more integrated solutions aimed at the victim (rather than the perpetrator) and the wider community (Choudhry, 2016).

Hearn and McKie’s (2010) comparative work in Finland and Scotland focuses on how the formation and implementation of each country’s domestic violence policy was influenced by gender and violence-based assumptions. They find that although policy discourse in both countries was similar in placing responsibility onto women, focusing predominantly on physical violence, and encompassing a very narrow conceptualization of intimate partner violence, the two countries’ policies operate slightly differently, and the differences are mediated by national gender norms. Approaches to service delivery, then, largely reflect the patriarchal ideologies embedded in the policy discourse, and can lead to the perpetuation of inequality and suffering of women who experience violence at the hands of their partner.

In the Australian context, Murray and Powell (2011) argue that policies that do not conceptualize domestic violence as gendered place women at a disadvantage. They suggest that law-and-order approaches, in particular, play into patriarchal power systems rather than challenge them. This is because such approaches aim to protect victims from individual perpetrators, thereby using the patriarchal power of the state to protect women from the patriarchal power of men. Underlying gendered power dynamics are left unaddressed, and the issue of women’s marginalization more generally remains unchallenged (Murray & Powell, 2011). The perception of domestic violence as gendered or non-gendered is thus a crucial factor in how policy attempts to address the issue.

Overall, this body of literature demonstrates that a gendered conceptualization of domestic violence is a key component in developing adequate policy responses. Where policies fail to conceptualize domestic violence as a gendered issue, the underlying assumptions often form barriers that prevent the issue from being addressed. Less examined is the extent to which explicitly gendered domestic violence policies may contain discourses and assumptions that limit the potential benefits of a gendered approach. It is not sufficient for domestic violence policy to take into account gender inequities, rather it is important to examine how gender is understood and situated in the policy, and identify how a gendered understanding contributes to the formation and implementation of policy that reduces domestic violence at the systems and structure levels. The present article contributes to the literature by exploring how gender influences contemporary domestic violence policy in Queensland, Australia, and how the knowledge generated from the analysis of Australian policy provides lessons for other economically developed democratic policy jurisdictions.

Research Data and Method

Research Data

Data for the analysis are drawn from the following corpus of Queensland policy documents: (a) Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland (Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, 2015); (b) Queensland Government Response to the Report of the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence (Queensland Government, 2015); and (c) Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Strategy (Queensland Government, 2016). Together, these three documents outline the core policy framework through which the Queensland Government conceptualizes and addresses domestic violence. They also represent a renewed effort by the Queensland Government to address domestic violence in a way that reflects cultural and gendered understandings of the issue (Morley & Dunstan, 2016).

Research Method

Given the importance of discourse in influencing policy outcomes, a CDA framework was employed for this research. CDA provides both a methodological and conceptual framework through which to analyze social practices (Fairclough, 1992). It can be considered an overarching analytical approach that encompasses an extensive “toolkit” of strategies (Fairclough, 1992). CDA allows the analyst to investigate connections between the language use of social actors and the broader social contexts in which the language is situated. It focuses predominantly on exploring social power, particularly language used by those in power to keep others in subordinate positions. Likewise, CDA’s contribution to the domestic violence literature is evident through its capacity to scrutinize how passive and active language is used to appropriate responsibility, and in turn how language used in this way is not neutral, but rather embedded within underlying ideologies (Easteal et al., 2019). Such analysis allows for a deeper understanding of how internalized discourses can impact the way that identities and social relations are constructed, as well as how language is used for political purposes (Fairclough, 1992).

Given this focus, CDA has been used by many studies seeking to understand representations of domestic violence in public discourse, and how these representations impact on how the issue is understood and addressed (Anderson, 2014; Burnett et al., 2015; Easteal et al., 2019; Harris et al., 2012; Hearn & McKie, 2010; Lloyd & Ramon, 2017). Whereas many of these studies use CDA to analyze how media and policy discourses conceptualize domestic violence as a gendered issue, we extend this use by analyzing how a gendered approach may contain implicit ideals and assumptions that undermine its gendered focus. To achieve this, we adopted three tools that fall under the CDA methodology: framing, transitivity, and intertextuality.

Framing refers to the way texts organize discourse to present issues in a particular way. Framing allowed us to consider how the policies utilize facts, opinions, and vocabulary to construct domestic violence as a policy issue (Carvalho, 2008). Transitivity relates to the way texts treat certain people and processes. We used transitivity to interrogate how the policies attribute agency, responsibility, and causality for domestic violence (Fairclough, 1992). Finally, intertextuality relates to the way previous texts have shaped the policies’ meanings. Analyzing intertextuality allowed us to consider the influence of other texts on each of the policies, and understand how the policies perpetuate or challenge existing discourses (Fairclough, 1992). Together, these analytic strategies were employed to examine the ideologies deeply embedded in the policies and consider how these impacted the policies’ overarching approaches to addressing domestic violence. Our analysis identified three key findings relating to: gendering domestic violence, revering men, and overlooking women. We present these findings in turn.

Analysis: Findings and Discussion

Gendering Domestic Violence

Although Queensland’s domestic violence policies explicitly acknowledge domestic violence to be a gendered issue, they also contain a strong use of language that implicitly undermines this approach. On the surface, Queensland policies take a gendered approach to the issue, positioning women as the predominant victims of domestic violence as a result of cultural attitudes and gender inequality.

Acknowledging the disproportionate impact of domestic and family violence on women and recognising the predominance of women as victims allows the nature of the problem to be properly characterised. (Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, 2015, p. 49)

The causes and contributors to domestic and family violence are extremely complex and are founded in cultural attitudes and behaviours, gender inequality, discrimination and personal behaviours and attitudes. (Queensland Government, 2016, p. 2)

Despite this explicit acknowledgment that domestic violence is a highly gendered issue, the policies also emphasize that domestic violence does not only affect women. Indeed, they often reiterate that this form of violence “can affect anyone.”

Domestic and family violence can affect anyone, regardless of age, gender or socio-economic status . . . (Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, 2015, p. 49)

. . . there is a need to change the language used to describe domestic violence. It was recognised that it is not only women that experience violence and that men suffer too. (Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, 2015, p. 55)

This inclusivity is reflected in the language the policies use to discuss domestic violence. The policies generally refrain from using gendered language when referring to victims or perpetrators, instead using terms such as “people experiencing abuse.”

Experiencing abuse at the hands of a partner or family member can result in devastating emotional and personal costs . . . (Queensland Government, 2016, p. 5)

In addition to the types of violence and abuse experienced within relationships in the broader community . . . (Queensland Government, 2016, p. 3)

Queensland’s policies hide the gender of both the victim and the perpetrator. Although this concealment of gender permits the policies to be inclusive of victims of domestic violence who are not women and perpetrators who are not men, it also detracts from a gendered understanding of the issue. Indeed, some theorists suggest that by failing to adequately gender discussions of domestic violence, policies fail to appropriately situate the issue in the patriarchal structures within which it occurs (Berns, 2001; Choudhry, 2016). The findings from this research support this.

Importantly, however, the report of the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland (2015) offers one example of how a lack of gendered language can be beneficial for overcoming sexist responses to domestic violence victims. Of the policies we analyzed, this Taskforce Report placed the most emphasis on the idea that while domestic violence is a predominately gendered issue it is not exclusively perpetrated by men against women. In recognizing domestic violence as a highly gendered issue while simultaneously understanding that it is not only a gendered issue, the Taskforce Report positions victims as requiring protection because they are victims of a legitimate crime and are at an increased risk of being victimized again. This is a positive finding because, as Salter (2016) and Abraham and Tastsoglou (2016) argue, where victims of domestic violence are perceived to be primarily women, victim protection is often positioned in a highly sexist way. That is, responses attribute traditional feminine values to women, who are assumed to be weak, unable to protect themselves, or require men to support them. As such, victims of domestic violence are paternalistically positioned to need protection because they are women. In its use of gender-neutral language, the Taskforce Report positions women as requiring support because they are victims, and provides a chance for the policy to move beyond some of the paternalistic and patriarchal ideals that government policies often reproduce (Murray & Powell, 2011). Having said that, using gender-neutral language is not the only way to achieve this end goal. Indeed, if policies did not tend to view and position women victims in a sexist way, then gender-neutral language would not be required to ensure victims who are women are not revictimized because of their gender.

As well as using gender-neutral language, Queensland’s policies make frequent use of passive constructions, which hide the agency and responsibility of male perpetrators (Lamb, 1991). Our analysis illustrated how the policies use passive constructions to portray domestic violence as an entity unto itself, rather than a deliberate act undertaken by men against women.

Domestic violence does not discriminate. (Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, 2015, p. 182)

. . . the victim may be subject to one or more forms of violence or corrective control. (Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, 2015, p. 71)

A significant body of literature discusses the issues involved in hiding perpetrator agency in this way (Coates & Wade, 2004; Henley et al., 1995; Lamb, 1991). This literature suggests that passive constructions conceal both the seriousness of the violent incident and the responsibility of the perpetrator. By using passive voice and hiding perpetrator agency, Queensland policies can be seen as inadvertently reinforcing the idea that domestic violence is not a serious issue and men who perpetrate are not fully responsible for their actions. Henley and colleagues (1995) stress that such use of passive language to obscure perpetrator agency is not necessarily intentional, but rather a result of unconscious biases informed by deeply held cultural attitudes that are supportive of the gender hierarchy.

Revering Men

Where Queensland’s domestic violence policies do discuss men, they overwhelmingly position them as having the ability to end domestic violence. Indeed, the policies specifically aim to “engage with” and “empower” men to take action against domestic violence.

Any prevention strategies that involve men need to occur alongside strategies to change attitudes, as well as strategies to empower men to take action. (Queensland Government, 2015, p. 178)

However, the policies do not encourage men to reflect on their own cultural attitudes and behaviors. Rather, they encourage men to “speak out against” the domestic violence being committed by others. In doing so, the policies position men as being primary leaders and in key positions of power to help influence others’ attitudes toward violence through rhetoric.

Male community and business leaders are in a powerful position to stand up and speak out about domestic violence. (Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, 2015, p. 117)

The heart of The Male Champions of Change strategy involves men of power and influence forming a high profile coalition to achieve change on gender equality issues in organisations and communities. (Queensland Government, 2016, p. 18)

This suggests that rather than challenge the social structures that afford men more social power than women, men should instead exploit their social power to influence others to change their attitudes and behaviors toward women. Importantly, we are not suggesting that men should not be encouraged to hold each other to higher standards; rather, we see it as problematic that such encouragement is occurring in the absence of efforts to question and challenge the systems and structures that afford men their social power and influence.

The idea of men having a role in addressing domestic violence is further supported by the policies’ discussions of engaging men and boys in prevention efforts. The policies argue that prevention efforts should engage men, as domestic violence is a “men’s issue.” This idea is supported by Flood (2015), who argues that prevention efforts must engage men because masculine ideals play a key role in facilitating domestic violence, and because men represent the majority of perpetrators. However, rather than suggesting that domestic violence is relevant to men because men are predominantly the perpetrators, the policies suggest that men are implicated because women they know and care for may be affected.

Domestic violence is a men’s issue because their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and friends are being harmed. (Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, 2015, p. 176)

Here, the policies imply that it is men’s responsibility to protect women from other men’s domestic violence, as they would not want their own female relations to be harmed in this way. While the intent of this argument may be to make victims more relatable to men, it also serves to undermine women’s value. In suggesting that men should help prevent violence because they would not want their own loved ones to suffer, it relegates women to being defined by their relationships to men, and the latter taking action to progress their interests. Indeed, feminist activists emphasize that we must end domestic violence because victims are people and deserve the same respect and rights to safety as men, not because victims are loved by men (Clark-Flory, 2013). Towns and Terry’s (2014) research from New Zealand demonstrates that men are more likely to challenge other men’s violence toward women—even if the perpetrators were mates—when men value women for who they are as individuals.

The policies further emphasize divisions between men and women by suggesting that prevention efforts be targeted toward traditionally masculine social fields.

[Sports] Training and games provide opportunities to engage boys and men in conversations and actions around understanding domestic and family violence, without the involvement of women and in a traditional or stereotyped “masculine” environment [emphasis added]. (Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, 2015, p. 105)

This excerpt specifically positions sport as a traditionally masculine field. It makes no attempt to problematize sport as inherently male, nor engage with the well-noted links between sport, masculinity, and violence (Messner, 1990). Rather than challenge the juxtaposition of women and sport, the Taskforce Report reifies it (Roach, 2016). In fact, the Report validates sport as a traditionally masculine area, and the phrase “without the involvement of women” even suggests a desire for certain areas to remain male-dominated. This serves to reinforce the acceptability of excluding women from certain social domains, which is arguably a key factor helping to perpetuate gender inequality and, in turn, facilitating a social environment in which men’s use of domestic violence against women can prosper.

Although many scholars argue that it is indeed crucial to engage men in domestic violence prevention efforts, these scholars also warn against the perils of approaching men’s engagement in a way that reflects and reinforces problematic gender ideals (Abraham & Tastsoglou, 2016; Flood, 2015; Salter, 2016). The policies’ treatment of men and masculinity indicates a strong respect for traditional masculine values. The way in which the policies encourage men to take a stand against domestic violence reinforces ideas of men’s voices being socially valued over those of women. It also reflects the assumption, and structural inequality, that men are more likely than women to be community leaders, and are more likely to have social power to influence others. The policies pay little attention to female leaders who may be in equally powerful positions to speak out against domestic violence. Indeed, research suggests that society, and in particular the media, has historically presented and perceived women who speak out about domestic violence in a highly critical and derisive way (Lind & Salo, 2002; Rhode, 1995). The policies’ failure to highlight the importance of women’s voices on the issue may serve to reinforce society’s negative perception of women who criticize gendered social issues, and its reluctance to take such women seriously.

Overlooking Women

Where the policies have a tendency to position men as leaders with the ability to end domestic violence, they also tend to overlook the rights and experiences of women, despite their explicit calls for increased gender equality. For example, among discussions of the disproportionate burden of domestic violence on women, the policies reinforce a key policy goal:

All Queenslanders live safely in their own homes and children can grow and develop in safe and secure environments. (Queensland Government, 2016, p. 13)

This demonstrates that, despite domestic violence being a highly gendered problem having detrimental effects on women, the key goal of the policies makes no reference to improving the lives, status, or experiences of women. Instead, it has a more general focus on “all Queenslanders” and “children.” While we do not dispute that all Queenslanders and children deserve to live and grow safely, targeting these general groups over women neutralizes the issue and draws attention away from the key role that gender inequality plays in facilitating domestic violence. Moreover, and similar to the strategies noted above about men preventing violence because women whom they care about are harmed, the policy emphasizes that men ought to stop domestic violence for the benefit of children. Although this may be a strategic move to garner action from those who are not necessarily interested in women’s rights, it draws attention away from the important issue of women’s historic marginalization, and the abuse they have suffered at the hands of men (Bumiller, 2013).

Problematically, the policies also contain implicit suggestions that victims hold a level of responsibility for men abusing them. The policies by no means suggest that victims deserve to be abused, but rather imply that it is up to the victim to improve or manage their situation. For example, despite the policies’ explicit aims to reduce the onus on women to leave violent situations, as demonstrated by the first excerpt below, the second excerpt directly contradicts this by stating that the goal of service intervention is to prevent women from returning to violent partners, rather than actually ending the violence itself.

The reforms . . . aim to recognise the victim’s perspective, prioritise their safety and reduce the onus on them to take action or to leave. (Queensland Government, 2016, p. 16)

Integrated services [should] . . . support survivors to become independent and not return to violence. (Queensland Government, 2016, p. 17)

Thus, there remains an implicit assumption that leaving a violent situation is the best way to address the issue in the short term, and it is the victim’s responsibility to remove themselves with the help of support services. This discourse is problematic as it draws on dominant gender ideals around male breadwinner roles, and men thus being more entitled to the family home than women and children (Murray & Powell, 2011). Moreover, even in the presence of integrated services, the literature has long demonstrated that women return to domestic violence because societal gender inequities represent fundamental barriers to them achieving economic independence and housing security (Sanders & Schnabel, 2006; Tually et al., 2008).

The policies further suggest that women are responsible for preventing men from abusing them. It positions victims’ lack of self-respect as a key issue in allowing domestic violence to occur.

. . . a genuine cultural shift in the way communities view and respond to domestic and family violence hinges around education of community members, including children, to have self-belief and respect. (Queensland Government, 2015, p. 58)

. . . education for young women about respect for themselves and their bodies. (Queensland Government, 2015, p. 61)

On one hand, this may suggest that if women respected themselves and their bodies more, they would not put themselves in situations where men are able to abuse them. On the other hand, it may be implying that women stay with their abusive partners because of a lack of self-confidence. Either way, this places the focus on women, suggesting that they are to blame for violence committed against them and are responsible for removing themselves from violent situations. This reduces domestic violence from an issue that is deeply embedded in gendered power relations, to an individual issue that women can help prevent through changing their own beliefs and behaviors. Thus, where the policy encourages men to help change others’ behavior to end domestic violence, it encourages women to change their own behavior. This shifts responsibility for domestic violence away from men and onto women, and ignores the structural conditions that have long constrained women’s autonomy.

Holding women responsible for domestic violence is by no means a new phenomenon (Douglas & Walsh, 2010; Easteal et al., 2019). This is particularly true when children are involved. Indeed, Douglas and Walsh (2010) argue that mothers who seek support after their partner abuses them are often held responsible for ending the violence by child protection officers. As traditional gender roles position women as the primary caregivers of children, it is often women who are blamed for failing to protect their children when their male partners are violent (Douglas & Walsh, 2010). Society, services, and the law thus tend to judge mothers more harshly than they judge perpetrators. Although Queensland policies contain relatively limited judgment, they do imply that women can, and should, take steps to end the violence being perpetrated against them.

Conclusion

Given their explicit focus on changing cultural attitudes and behaviors toward women as a means of preventing violence, Queensland’s contemporary domestic violence policies provide an important example of a new generation of policy that understands domestic violence to be a primarily gendered issue. This approach positions women as the predominant victims of domestic violence as a result of cultural attitudes and gender inequality. It thus aims to challenge problematic cultural attitudes toward women. In doing so, it particularly focuses on men having a key role to play in challenging such attitudes.

Despite the policies’ gendered focus, however, our research finds that they contain numerous implicit sexist ideals and assumptions that reify the oppression of women. Indeed, they take for granted men’s control of certain social spaces, reinforcing ideals of male dominance. These ideals view men’s voices as having greater social value than women’s voices, and take the standard of men being in positions of leadership and influence as unproblematic. Furthermore, where the policy encourages men to help change others’ behavior to end domestic violence, it encourages women to change their own behavior to prevent violence being perpetrated against them. This effectively shifts responsibility for domestic violence away from men and onto women. In doing so, the policies help to reinforce the pervasive gender inequalities that facilitate the very existence of domestic violence.

Our findings thus have important implications for policymakers in the domestic violence sphere, both in Australia and internationally, and point to specific aspects of policy that require greater attention. First, policymakers should take care to avoid the use of gender-neutral language. Although such language may allow the policy to be inclusive of victims of domestic violence who are not women and perpetrators who are not men, it detracts from a gendered understanding of the issue. Second, policymakers should avoid using passive constructions. Passive constructions help to obscure perpetrators’ deliberate actions and fail to ascribe perpetrators with responsibility for these actions. Third, although it is important to engage men in domestic violence prevention efforts, it is equally important for policymakers not to approach men’s engagement in a way that reflects and reinforces problematic gender ideals. This includes valuing men’s voices and leadership roles over those of women. Similarly, engaging men in preventing domestic violence is important, but the motivation to engage men should be about the rights of women, not the implication to men when “their” women and children are harmed. Finally, policymakers should take care not to imply that women are responsible for preventing violence committed against them. This reduces domestic violence from an issue that is deeply embedded in gendered power relations, to one that women can ostensibly prevent by changing their own behaviors.

Our findings also have important implications for broader debates around the benefits of taking a gendered approach to domestic violence policy. The United Nations is one of several prominent international organizations that strongly endorses the centrality of states developing explicitly gendered domestic violence policies (Council of Europe, 2011; United Nations, 1995; World Health Organization, 2016). Indeed, the international literature unambiguously laments the ineffectiveness and profound limitations of domestic violence policy that is gender neutral (Berns, 2001; Choudhry, 2016; Murray & Powell, 2011). Virkki (2017), for instance, observes that gender-neutral domestic violence policy both fails to address the underlying issue of gender inequality and results in services and programs that are unable to adequately support victims’ needs. Our analysis of Australian domestic violence policy offers important lessons for international jurisdictions that aspire to adopt gendered domestic violence policy.

The research presented in this article serves as an important reminder that if international domestic violence policy is to fully encapsulate the essence of the United Nations’ declaration, simply adopting a gendered lens is inadequate. Indeed, our analysis shows that domestic violence policy that is gendered can also embody elements that are simultaneously sexist and thus reproduce unequal gendered hierarchies and reify the subordination of women. To be effective, then, policy must engage with gender in ways that transcend language and normative principles, and must act as a mechanism to drive broader public policy changes to address structural gender inequities (Kuskoff & Parsell, 2019). It is therefore important that international movements toward gendered domestic violence policies both examine the contradictions that can exist in gendered policy, and examine the limitations inherent in policy when it is not part of a broader vision of societal and public policy change to disrupt patriarchal social structures, norms, and institutions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Andrew Clarke and Associate Professor Michael Flood for their guidance and feedback on earlier iterations of this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

ORCID iD

Ella Kuskoff

Author Biographies

Ella Kuskoff is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland, in affiliation with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families Over the Life Course (Life Course Centre). Her research interests include gender, disadvantage, social policy, and research translation.

Cameron Parsell is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow and Director of Research. He is the co-chief investigator on several national studies that examine the nature and outcomes of newly emerging models of intervention directed toward permanently ending homelessness. His primary area of research is poverty, homelessness, social services, and charity aimed at addressing social disadvantage.

References

Abraham

Tastsoglou

(2016). Addressing domestic violence in Canada and the United States: The uneasy co-habitation of women and the state. Current Sociology, 64(4), 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116639221

Anderson

(2014). A critical discourse analysis of Victoria’s current domestic violence policy and its potential effects on those it’s created to serve. Publicus Consilium, 54, 57–65.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2018). Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia 2018. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/d1a8d479-a39a-48c1-bbe2-4b27c7a321e0/aihw-fdv-02.pdf.aspx?inline=true

Bacchi

(1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. Sage.

Bacchi

(2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson Australia.

Berns

(2001). Degendering the problem and gendering the blame: Political discourse on women and violence. Gender & Society, 15(2), 262–281.

Bumiller

(2013). Feminist collaboration with the state in response to sexual violence: Lessons from the American experience. In Tripp

A. M.

Ferree

M. M.

Ewig

(Eds.), Gender, violence, and human security: Critical feminist perspectives (pp. 191–213). New York University Press.

Burnett

Ford-Gilboe

Berman

Ward-Griffin

Wathen

(2015). A critical discourse analysis of provincial policies impacting shelter service delivery to women exposed to violence. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 16(1–2), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527154415583123

Carvalho

(2008). Media(ted) discourse and society: Rethinking the framework of critical discourse analysis. Journalism Studies, 9(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700701848162

10.

Choudhry

(2016). Towards a transformative conceptualisation of violence against women: A critical frame analysis of Council of Europe discourse on violence against women. Modern Law Review, 79(3), 406–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12190

11.

Clark-Flory

(2013, February 13). Stop calling us wives and moms. Salon. https://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/stop_calling_us_wives_and_moms/

12.

Coates

Wade

(2004). Telling it like it isn’t: Obscuring perpetrator responsibility for violent crime. Discourse & Society, 15(5), 499–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504045031

13.

Council of Europe. (2011). Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e

14.

Douglas

Walsh

(2010). Mothers, domestic violence, and child protection. Violence Against Women, 16(5), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210365887

15.

Dunn

. (2005). “Victims” and “survivors”: Emerging vocabularies of motives for “battered women who stay.” Sociological Inquiry, 75(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2005.00110.x

16.

Easteal

Holland

Dunne Breen

Vaughan

Sutherland

(2019). Australian media messages: Critical discourse analysis of two intimate homicides involving domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 25(4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218780364

17.

Elizabeth

(2003). Separating from violent male partners: A resistant act in the midst of power relations. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 4(3), 62–80.

18.

Fairclough

(1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.

19.

Flood

(2015). Work with men to end violence against women: A critical stocktake. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1070435

20.

Harris

Palazzolo

Savage

(2012). “I’m not sexist, but . . .”: How ideological dilemmas reinforce sexism in talk about intimate partner violence. Discourse & Society, 23(6), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512455382

21.

Harvie

Manzi

(2011). Interpreting multi-agency partnerships: Ideology, discourse and domestic violence. Social & Legal Studies, 20(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663910384907

22.

Hearn

McKie

(2010). Gendered and social hierarchies in problem representation and policy processes: “Domestic violence” in Finland and Scotland. Violence Against Women, 16(2), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209355185

23.

Henley

Miller

Beazley

(1995). Syntax, semantics, and sexual violence: Agency and the passive voice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(1), 60–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X95141004

24.

Itzin

(2000). Gendering domestic violence: The influence of feminism on policy and practice. In Itzin

Hammer

(Eds.), Home truths about domestic violence: Feminist influences on policy and practice (pp. 356–380). Routledge.

25.

Krizsan

Popa

R. M.

(2014). Frames in contestation: Gendering domestic violence policies in five central and eastern European countries. Violence Against Women, 20(7), 758–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214543386

26.

Kuskoff

Parsell

(2019). Preventing domestic violence by changing Australian gender relations: Issues and considerations. Australian Social Work, 73(2), 227–235.

27.

Lamb

(1991). Acts without agents: An analysis of linguistic avoidance in journal articles on men who batter women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(2), 250–257.

28.

Lind

R. A.

Salo

(2002). The framing of feminists and feminism in news and public affairs programs in U.S. electronic media. Journal of Communication, 52(1), 211–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02540.x

29.

Lloyd

Ramon

(2017). Smoke and mirrors: U.K. newspaper representations of intimate partner domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 23(1), 114–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216634468

30.

McQueeney

(2016). Teaching domestic violence in the new millennium: Intersectionality as a framework for social change. Violence Against Women, 22(12), 1463–1475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215626808

31.

Messner

(1990). When bodies are weapons: Masculinity and violence in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 25(3), 203–220.

32.

Morley

Dunstan

(2016). Putting gender back on the agenda in domestic and family violence policy and service responses: Using critical reflection to create cultural change. Social Alternatives, 35(4), 43–48.

33.

Morrison

(2006). Changing the domestic violence (dis)course: Moving from white victim to multi-cultural survivor. UC Davis Law Review, 39, 1061–1120.

34.

Murray

Powell

(2011). Domestic violence: Australian public policy. Australian Scholarly Publishing.

35.

Pease

(2006). Governing men and boys in public policy in Australia. In Marston

McDonald

(Eds.), Analysing social policy: A governmental approach (pp. 127–144). Edward Elgar.

36.

Queensland Government. (2015). Queensland Government response to the report of the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence, Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland.

37.

Queensland Government. (2016). Domestic and family violence prevention strategy 2016-2026.

38.

Rhode

(1995). Media images, feminist issues. Signs, 20(3), 685–710.

39.

Roach

(2016). Gender discrimination in sport: The irrelevance of the strength, stamina and physique exception. Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Association, 96, 20–33.

40.

Salter

(2016). “Real men don’t hit women”: Constructing masculinity in the prevention of violence against women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(4), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865815587031

41.

Sanders

Schnabel

(2006). Organizing for economic empowerment of battered women. Journal of Community Practice, 14(3), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v14n03_04

42.

Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland. (2015). Not now, not ever: Putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland. Queensland Government.

43.

Theobald

(2011). A long history: The National Plan in context. Parity, 24(8), 6–8.

44.

Tolton

(2009). Legitimation of violence against women in Colombia: A feminist critical discourse analytic study [Doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland]. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:203523

45.

Towns

Terry

(2014). “You’re in that realm of unpredictability”: Mateship, loyalty, and men challenging men who use domestic violence against women. Violence Against Women, 20(8), 1012–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214546232

46.

Tually

Faulkner

Cutler

Slatter

(2008). Women, domestic and family violence and homelessness: A synthesis report. Flinders Institute for Housing, Urban and Regional Research.

47.

United Nations. (1995). Beijing declaration and platform for action: Fourth World Conference on Women. https://www.un.org/en/events/pastevents/pdfs/Beijing_Declaration_and_Platform_for_Action.pdf

48.

Virkki

(2017). At the interface of national and transnational: The development of Finnish policies against domestic violence in terms of gender equality. Social Sciences, 6(1), Article 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6010031

49.

Walby

Towers

(2018). Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817743541

50.

Western

Mason

(2011). What about research? Comment on the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. Parity, 24(8), Article 28.

51.

World Health Organization. (2016). Global plan of action to strengthen the role of the health system within a national multisectoral response to address interpersonal violence, in particular against women and girls, and against children. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/252276/9789241511537-eng.pdf;jsessionid=FD91EA67029834C36805CB9BEC5C43D1?sequence=1

52.

Yates

(2018). Power, process, plumbing: Big G and small g gender in Victoria’s family violence policy subsystem. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(4), 568–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12265