Hi all
Should the word 'DOMESTIC' be removed from DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
I wonder the affect of reframing DV to perhaps 'VIOLENCE IN THE HOME'
Hi Proud Hon,
I feel that we should keep the term "Domestic" when discussing Domestic Violence, however I always try to use the term Domestic Violence/Domestic Abuse.
Often families I encounter acknowledge that the violence was only part of a significantly more complex problem.
When the issue of professional use of terminology around this subject has arisen previously I have been keen to ensure the "Violence" part of the wording has remained, yet I felt a strong need to ensure recognition was given to the "Abuse" factors also. Many of the survivors I have been involved with have struggled to gain understanding of this from friends, family and professional agencies.
An interesting point and one I shall continue to mull over.........
Proud Hon,
I'm slightly confused about what effect you think would be gained by reframing the term- after all, domestic simply refers to the home environment. However, not all domestic violence occurs within the home. The definition includes all abuse that occurs within intimate relationships, whether or not the individuals live together and regardless of the location of the violence/ abuse.
What do you think changing the term to 'Violence in the home' would achieve?
Hi my first time on forums.
Here in the State of Victoria Australia, DV has been reframed as "Family Violence" (FV). and family has its broadest definition. Victorian state law is leading the way in Australia in its response to Family violence. The Police have a significant role and MUST take action when responding to family violence incidents, eg press charges and or remove the perp, they can immediately remove the perpetrator under a safety order, requiring a court appearance later where an intervention order can be followed up by the police/victim. Police will also refer by FAX to family violence services who will contact the victim. Also where children are in the family (not just the family home at the time of the FV incident, they are regarded as being victims as well and Police are required to report the matter to the State Child Protection Authority
The issue of the word 'domestic' in DV has lots of old connotations and thinking that goes with that which I feel has tended to down play the impact that Fv has on its victims including the community. It is recognised by Victorian Police that FV is the probably the most dangerous of situations to respond to and the most likely situation to lead to further criminal acts.
queenb: Proud Hon, I'm slightly confused about what effect you think would be gained by reframing the term- after all, domestic simply refers to the home environment. However, not all domestic violence occurs within the home. The definition includes all abuse that occurs within intimate relationships, whether or not the individuals live together and regardless of the location of the violence/ abuse. What do you think changing the term to 'Violence in the home' would achieve?
Hi there, when i wrote this thread I was considering the phrase "An Englishmans home is his castle" or something like that. My reasoning behind my thoughts is that for some individuals what occurs indoors is fair game. And, exactly as you say it: "domestic simply refers to the home environment", I was wondering how many people who are guilty of commiting DV in a DOMESTIC SETTING have grown up beleiving that what happens in the home is fair game but might have the opinion that they would not do such things to their partners/family or to other members of the public outside their safety zone.
So, if we change the language and remove DOMESTIC from the situation, I wondered whether this would affect / change culture and peoples thinking?
There seem to be two different debates: whether "Domestic" is the best term - and whether "Violence" is!
"Domestic" definitely isn't the best term. It means (roughly) "of/at (the) home" - and one of the key points to make very early on in advising or briefing anyone is that the risk of violent assault increases when the victim moves out of the home! (Welcome to the new concept of cognitive dissonance at your moment of life-crisis!)
"Violence" is great for profile-/fund-raising - ie in the public arena. But, again, it's too narrow a term - and, again, it obstructs key thinking-processes. It's blatantly unhelpful in getting prospective clients to self-identify when (eg) they're at the stage of wondering why their partner makes it a priority to check/discuss the mileometer-reading after the school-run every day!
There must come a time when the priority shifts from the public-arena agenda)to the private space / client-level agenda. That time may well have come.
A third question would be how to change the term without confusing everyone else - ie public / at-risk groups / non-specialist agencies etc.
If you change both words at once - eg from the familiar "Domestic Violence" (aka DV) to (eg) "Family Abuse" you'll break contact with an awful lot of people. Big companies can change a name beyond recognition - eg "Norwich Union" to "Aviva", or "Marathon" to "Snickers". They do it by spending a fortune on TV. We can't do that.
I think we have to go in stages.
So we have to choose which stage first! I vote to broaden the "domestic" concept first, then the "violence". That is, something like
"Domestic Violence" > "Domestic Abuse" > "Family Abuse"
rather than
"Domestic Violence" > "Family Violence" > "Family Abuse"
This is my instinct - but, er, why? Probably because the point of the changes is to help victims / prospective clients recognise the issue (and to self-identify). I suspect many are not in fully settled relationships / think of themselves as individuals, in a relationship - but "family" means to them their family of origin, not the relationship within which abuse issues are arising. Am I right about that?
I work with and advise DV organisations both female and male victims (or survivors) and this discussion has merit in that ive always maintained that 'Domestic' put in front of violence somehow diminshes what occurs. Violence outside the family home is still violence and often criminal and almost always abuse.
Violent abuse sums up what happens as it is invariably violent and abusive in all their forms whether that be emotional, psychological, sexual, physical or financial abuse (all of which come under the official Home Office definition of 'domestic violence.')
The public psyche however typically sees DV meaning men hitting women and this is not the case at all. Or is it in Joe Public's mind that while 1 in 4 women suffer DV, 1 in 6 men do - These being the offiicial Home Office stats.
Unfortunately, its not just Joe Public that sees DV as men hitting women, as I have often come across social care professionals who take (almost) that view. Its only in the past couple of years that housing professionals in homeless sections have routinely begun to ask males presenting as homeless whether they are vitims of DV, whereas they have always asked females presenting! Old attitudes and perceptions take time to change.
DV is a misnomer and whether its labelled Violent Abuse or something closer to what invariably goes on, the bigger issue is a rethink and education on what the ubiquitous label "Domestic Violence" involves and manifests.
I have until now deliberately omitted the abuse suffered just by children witnessing DV - This is often overlooked and especially so with the children of males as victims. Does anyone know of specific policies and procedures dealing with this specific issue? If they do they are as rare as hens teeth. Further a simple question - what is worse the physical violence suffered by an adult or the emotional and psychological abuse suffered by witnessing children? A difficult one - so why do solutions and indeed public approbation focus on the adult impact?
DV needs much greater wider debate and thought amongst professionals and Joe Public and maybe, just maybe, renaming it something more representative such as Criminal Abuse or Criminal Violent Abuse would set that education process in motion?
The judge
I think family violence is perhaps a more appropriate expression
PS Are there any jobs going in Aus? I've been thinking about going for a while now but I'm unsure how to get sponsorship
I prefer the description "Domestic Abuse"
It is a mistake to assume that the victims are always or predominantly female.
Or another name for it could be Domestic Bullying.
It is often about Power and Control.
How different is it from Bullying in the Workplace? Can we analyse ALL bullying? Can there be a multi agency and multi profession study of Bullying.
jelly_tot04: The judge I think family violence is perhaps a more appropriate expression PS Are there any jobs going in Aus? I've been thinking about going for a while now but I'm unsure how to get sponsorship
migration expert-just google them-do online application to find out 'points'
Sorry Jelly Tot.
have not revisted this forum. Lots of jobs going here in Oz. Each state is differnt in it welfare history etc. Not sure if socail work is still on the list of wnated occupations but a migrant expert or conacting the Ausie Consulate might be a good start.
Good luck
Is it not simply just 'Violence' / 'Assault' / 'Threatening behaviour' - instead of perpetuating trying to 'sanitise' / justify / excuse it by using different terminology that, by and large, is demeaning and unhelpful to the victims?
I thought that was what Nigel Kennedy used for practice at home?
Rupert M: Is it not simply just 'Violence' / 'Assault' / 'Threatening behaviour' - instead of perpetuating trying to 'sanitise' / justify / excuse it by using different terminology that, by and large, is demeaning and unhelpful to the victims?
redana:SPeye; you are quite wrong to think that the impace of DV on children is overlooked. It is widely recognised in children's services that DV is considerable factor in significant harm to a child. The policies and procedures dealing with this are the same ones that protect children from all types of abuse and neglect. For example, woking together to safeguard children etc etc. So, if police attended DV incident in family, they would refer to health, education and children's services. It is recognised that there is a clear link between DV and other types of abuse of children. I have yet to meet a childcare professional who would fail to recognise this.
interestingly Id say that the recognition of the clear link wasnt the experience i had of working in a school - there were at least 2 families who were notorious for dv and it was sort of ignored by all - a fact that has me holding my head in despair having the knowledge i do now. Though this was 5 years ago. IME many teachers still think its none of their business and a domestic problem to be sorted out by the family - which is a crying shame. Though you do still get a lot of teachers that dont think the the internet should play a part in education
In Itself children witnessing abuse to others is seen as significant harm -2004 Act
I believe the term DV comes from the Police's response in the 60s/70s - it's just a domestic
Yes, witnessing / being exposed to DV by children is a ground for Care Proceedings.
romeo2001: redana:SPeye; you are quite wrong to think that the impace of DV on children is overlooked. It is widely recognised in children's services that DV is considerable factor in significant harm to a child. The policies and procedures dealing with this are the same ones that protect children from all types of abuse and neglect. For example, woking together to safeguard children etc etc. So, if police attended DV incident in family, they would refer to health, education and children's services. It is recognised that there is a clear link between DV and other types of abuse of children. I have yet to meet a childcare professional who would fail to recognise this. interestingly Id say that the recognition of the clear link wasnt the experience i had of working in a school - there were at least 2 families who were notorious for dv and it was sort of ignored by all - a fact that has me holding my head in despair having the knowledge i do now. Though this was 5 years ago. IME many teachers still think its none of their business and a domestic problem to be sorted out by the family - which is a crying shame. Though you do still get a lot of teachers that dont think the the internet should play a part in education
I would make a distinction between those whose bread and butter is safeguarding and those in other sectors, who appear to only have basic knowledge of safeguarding.