Genesis The Podcast

Transforming Perceptions: The Power of Language in Addressing Gender-Based Violence

• Genesis Women's Shelter

Share episode

Can changing just a few words really alter our entire perception of gender-based violence? In this compelling conversation with social scientist Erica Olson, we uncover the profound impact of language on how we understand and address this pervasive issue. We explore the encoding and decoding process of communication, highlighting the importance of precise word choice in shaping public opinion, policy, and the identities of those affected. We analyze the implications of terms like "victim" versus "survivor" and their influence on both societal attitudes and legal frameworks. Erica brings invaluable insight into why person-first language matters and how it can transform the way we support and advocate for people facing intimate partner violence.

Our discussion takes a deep dive into the sinister world of intimate partner terrorism, where abusers manipulate language and gestures to exert control and instill fear. Erica shares poignant examples that reveal how these subtle forms of communication often fly under the radar, misunderstood by those outside the abusive relationship. We examine societal narratives that inadvertently shift focus away from perpetrators, emphasizing the urgent need to adopt active language that holds abusers accountable. By reframing our conversations around violence and sexual assault, we aim to foster better understanding and mobilize communities in the fight against gender-based violence. This episode is a must-listen for anyone committed to making a difference through the power of words.

Speaker 1:

We're recording at the 2024 Conference on Crimes Against Women in Dallas, texas. My guest is consultant Erica Olson, on the topic of how we talk about gender-based violence. I'm Maria McMullin and this is Genesis, the podcast how we talk about gender-based violence is critical to helping victims feel believed, supported and heard, but the language of those conversations is shifting and at times feels confusing or cumbersome. Here to sort through the dialogue is social scientist Erica Olson, the chief operating officer for Respond Against Violence, a nonprofit dedicated to reducing systemic secondary trauma for victims of gender-based violence, and founder of Anasa Consulting, which provides subject matter expertise and technical assistance on violence against women and girls and trauma-informed leadership and practice. Ms Olson is the former director of the New Jersey Domestic Violence, fatality and Near Fatality Review Board and has co-authored curricula, policy, regulations andation. She holds master's degrees in social service and law and social policy. Erica Olson, welcome to the podcast. Thank you, I really appreciate being here.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so we're here today to basically have a dialogue about the dialogue, in particular the dialogue surrounding gender-based violence and the terms or labels used within it. You've told me previously, just offline conversation what we say shapes how we think. Let's expand on that idea in a general way for a minute so we can understand how our words make up what become our opinions and possibly our passions and prejudices.

Speaker 2:

You know, communication itself is a process that language is just one piece of. And the way that communication works is you have a source and you have a receiver, you know, and those are two people, and when we use language, that's one way that we're trying to convey information, but even the source encodes what it is. We're trying to convey information, but even the source encodes what it is they're trying to share with somebody, and lots of things impact that. Just in thinking about language, it's what language do you speak? Is it your first language? Is it your second language? And then it goes through this channel. So for language, it's either speaking or it's writing, and then it has to be received by the other person.

Speaker 2:

Right now I'm using my words carefully, I'm very cognizant, I'm trying to sort of encode how to answer your question. As I understood it, you're a receiver and so on your end, you're going to try to decode what it is I've just said to you, and then, once you decode it, you're going to try to decode what it is I've just said to you and then, once you decode it, you're going to have a meaning. Whatever I've said doesn't necessarily mean you're going to have that same meaning, and so that's how language and communication works and I think a really great example of that in terms of language and how it shapes how we think and what we do. I think I often use the example of swimming. Right, if I were to say to you someone was swimming, you have an idea in your head of what that means, right? But it's essential to that is that they are breathing, that they are conscious, right? What I don't say is that she was swimming while not breathing.

Speaker 2:

For what word? What word do I? What I really use there? Drowning, right, and so you get different visions, right? It really language is just so powerful in that way in general. You know, lira Boroditsky out of UCSD has a lot to say about this, I think. Another good example as labels, as identity. You know, you and I have talked a little bit before about how person first language. Is someone a psychopath or are they diagnosed with psychopathy as an illness? Is someone disabled or do they have a disability? And so I think that's kind of a general way that language really shapes how we think and how we act.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, and I'm a little bit familiar with some of these ideas that you're kind of laying out for us to consider what lens we're going to use when we're thinking about some of the terms that we're about to discuss, and also just general conversation or trying to interpret information or form opinions and so people, first language for people who don't know what that is. That was really. I believe it was kind of devised or promoted by the ADA right.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think it was part of a campaign.

Speaker 1:

And so instead of saying blind people, we might say people who are blind, but we might also ask the person who is blind how they would like to be referred. Do we even need to bring that up? So it's all about a conversation about you know how an individual identifies with whatever situation or circumstances that they have, and then how they want to be addressed, or not, are they only that thing?

Speaker 2:

Is that all?

Speaker 1:

that they are.

Speaker 2:

And is that who they are, or is it an experience or a part of their life or something that is attributive to them but not the wholeness of who they are? And I think that's where language, particularly with gender and with violence against women there's a lot of back and forth about victim and survivor and who gets to choose. And you know, connotations are really really important on a lot of different aspects, and I think you know, beyond just being able to decide who you identify, as I think it's broad, I think that the language that we use impacts connotations. I think it impacts policy. I think it impacts how the legal system operates and whether or not it takes violent crimes between intimate or ex-intimate partners seriously, if it's even worthy of policy or sentencing or thought.

Speaker 2:

I think maybe a good example is we call it domestic violence.

Speaker 2:

Right, but domestic, you know, particularly in the United States I think elsewhere as well, but I don't want to swim too far out of my lane but domestic implies private, and for a long time, domestic violence or intimate partner violence was not a crime in the United States, and so in order for it to be even considered criminal, it took such a long time, and I think a part of that is because the domestic sphere is seen as private, it's seen as sacred.

Speaker 2:

It's also gendered. Who stays in the home and historically in the United States that's been women. And that work that caretaking work, that cooking, the cleaning, the child rearing is unpaid, it's undervalued and it's really seen as lesser than. And I think all of those things matter Because now, as the movement has evolved and has this issue has evolved. Newer terms are coming up right, newer language. So we're using language like violence against women, violence against women and girls. We might use intimate partner violence, intimate partner abuse, and so the language is evolving as we understand not only the reality of domestic and sexual violence and its different components, but as we understand that our language really impacts how we treat it as a society and within our multiple systems.

Speaker 1:

So, going back to the beginning, what we say shapes how we think, right? So that is part of the reason why language, specifically on these topics not looking at all language, but specifically here is shifting because many women who find themselves in abusive relationships maybe don't see themselves as a battered woman, which is a term, a very old term, that really only went out of use maybe a few decades ago. But the battered women's movement from the, I guess, the 70s here in the United States. Lenore Walker.

Speaker 2:

Battered women's syndrome was a syndrome. Yes, absolutely.

Speaker 1:

Yes, but so we've, we've evolved beyond that, and so women who have these experiences and you and I have even talked about the word experiences like is that really? What is she experienced? It Like the weather? Women who are in this situation may not want to be called battered or may not even see it that way. So let's talk about those terms a little bit the term battered woman, victim, survivor, and so on.

Speaker 2:

Well, I think number one language is shaped by a lot of things, including whatever time period you're in, and it's shaped by norms, but it's also circular, right, this isn't linear or a one-way street. Language shapes and non-language are external environments in turn also shaped language. But I think you know, when you're trying to define something, I think what's really important is who gets to define it, who gets to make up that definition? And then I also think what's really important is what's the purpose, what is it you're trying to capture and what are you trying to convey?

Speaker 2:

So, in the 1970s, when the women's movement, and in particular the battered women's movement, was really trying to raise the importance and the seriousness and to really raise awareness of the real impact of fill in the blank, intimate partner abuse, domestic violence or battering, I think that they chose language that at the time, was both reflective of their time, but that was also strategic, because one of their aims was to get this type of abuse, this type of violence, to be taken seriously, right?

Speaker 2:

So how does one talk about interpersonal violence? That's different than violence between strangers, because violence between strangers was illegal, right, and I shouldn't say between I'm even going to catch myself there Violence by one person against another person if they were strangers was illegal. Violence by one intimate partner against another was not illegal pledged or promised to care for you or love you and has no control over things like your finances and things like that, whereas someone who is pledged to do all those things has really broken a contract. But because it was in the domestic sphere, because it was interrelational, it wasn't considered a crime. So at that time, advocates and allies were really trying to pick language that would describe something that they felt really had the best chance of getting it taken seriously, of getting it covered as a crime with remedies within the judicial, both civil and criminal systems, and so they came up with, you know, battered or abused.

Speaker 1:

I have to admit it does get your attention, and if that was part of the reason that it was chosen, then it certainly makes sense to me. It just to your point, though, it's from a time period that doesn't exactly align any longer with how we view gender-based violence and all the other things that are happening, Because now it's not just quote unquote wife beating, it is many, many, many other things. It perhaps always was.

Speaker 2:

No, that's absolutely true and, again, that's why I think what's the purpose of the language? Who is it serving? So when we're talking about the criminalization of intimate partner violence against women, domestic violence, sexual assault, then we're going to use terminology that fits within that schema, fits within the actual legislation, because that's what prosecutors are bound by, that's what law enforcement is bound by. It's a specific code with specific terms and an act of behavior has to meet those terms or not meet those terms in order for a criminal or civil legal remedy to follow. Stick to a legal definition. If we only legalize our language and the broader conversations and understanding, we have reduced abuse to a very narrow thing that we are willing to address or not address. There's financial abuse, there's emotional, there's psychological, there's mental abuse. There's financial abuse, there's coercive control, there's reproductive coerc. There's psychological, there's mental abuse, there's financial abuse. There's coercive control, there's reproductive coercion. There are a lot of behaviors that are on the continuum of abusive and traumatic and harmful, that have both incredible short-term and long-term effects, that never result in somebody laying a hand on anybody else, right? So I know Kit Gruelle often uses the term intimate partner terrorism or intimate terrorism for situations where the threat of harm or murder is there, but the abuser or the batterer or the perpetrator never has to follow through, or maybe does something only once, which really signals then to his partner I can go this far, don't make me go farther. And they don't have to do that.

Speaker 2:

So one example that I think is how abusers communicate with their partners, their victims, and it's often not what most of us would think of as a threat. When we hear, oh, he threatened me. Or even if we're asking a survivor, did he threaten you? The language she uses, language that we use, may not invite real understanding. She might say no in an interview. So let's say that she's in a police interview, or let's say that she's working with a counselor and somebody is trying to understand her level of lethality or her level of risk, or what's even happening here, and somebody says did he threaten me? What does that mean to her? On its face, it might seem simple. But what do you mean by threat? And it's not just semantics. And here's an example there was a survivor and she was very athletic. And it's not just semantics.

Speaker 2:

And here's an example there was, there's a survivor, and she was very athletic, and so she was on a sports league and she had teammates and she was sleeveless. You know she frequently was doing her sports sleeveless and her husband would frequently come by or call her and check on her and to everyone else it seemed romantic. And as the weather got chillier he would say don't forget your sweater. Or he'd look at her and he'd say I'll be back to pick you up. Do you want me to bring your sweater? Do you need me to bring your sweater? So language, just take that language. Her teammates were like that's so sweet. They saw that as romantic. They thought, oh, that's so sweet. He wants you know, he's looking out for her. He wants to do some sweet thing. Maybe she's going to get chilly after a game. She's all sweaty Eventually.

Speaker 2:

What she shared is that it was a signal because he surveyed everything that she did, everything that she said, and he was sort of getting this feeling like that she might leave him or she might disclose the abuse and he would always grab her or shove her or throw her on her arms because she could cover them up. And so it became code, which was are you going to behave, are you going to not say anything or do I need to bring your sweater? Quote unquote. That meant something incredibly different to her. That was a threat to her, and that's how language can. It's about connotation and it's about nuance, and it's about who gets to define it, who gets to say what that meaning is.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, In that particular example it is so subtle and it can only be understood by the two people who are in that relationship. Subtle and it can only be understood by the two people who are in that relationship and it would not be immediately clear to anyone observing that this could be an abusive relationship.

Speaker 2:

No, there's an African proverb that I love and it says I think it's the true tale of the lion hunt can never be told as long as only the hunter tells the story. Right Again, when we talk about language, let's also talk about, you know, narrative. Again. Who gets to define? Who gets to name? Who does that serve? I think about this when we talk about the agent in it. So, for example, when we talk about violence against women and girls, we often focus on it to them as if it's happened. Right, like it's the way you said, like it's the weather. Right, she doesn't go home and bump into his fist. Right, she doesn't go home and be told that she is a worthless, disgusting, stupid, useless piece of garbage that will never be anything. It doesn't just happen to her.

Speaker 2:

But it's fascinating to me that, across systems, whether that's the legal system, the medical system, the public health system, even in advocacy, in community-based nonprofits and shelters, in funding agencies, across government, what do we count? We don't count the men who abuse, the men who are violent. We count abused women. We might count the number of times an individual was abused. We might count the number of times an individual was abused. We might count the number of women abused. We might break it up into how many women of color, how many LGBTQ, but we're always counting the recipient, we're not counting the actors, and that influences everything that influences. It's just insidious. It's insidious in our funding language. It's insidious in how we count things. The abuser has just become absent. And so I call that. We normalize violence. We naturalize it as if that's just the cost of being a woman. It's just the thing. A woman, it's just the thing. But it's not inevitable, right? But we have oh my gosh, there's decades of social science research that shows that domestic violence, in particular domestic violence, homicides, are predictable, they are preventable, they are not inevitable.

Speaker 2:

And language impacts that, because we don't say husband shoots wife, we say woman shot, and I know some people are a little bit tired of it, and so sometimes I feel like analogies can really help people understand. And so we have to move from passive to active, or we need to move from what's called agentive to non-agentive or no causation. And you and I joked about the reporting around Dick Cheney. So the situation where there was a lot of coverage about Dick Cheney shooting a good friend on a hunting expedition and what disappeared in a lot of the language was both the actor and the cause. Those things are two, they're really related.

Speaker 2:

And so if we went down stair steps, you could say Cheney shot Whittington. That's the most basic thing. You could give descriptive language how Dick Cheney accidentally shot his best friend and hunting partner. You could say Whittington got shot by Cheney. Other taglines say Whittington got shot by Chaney. Other taglines were Whittington got shot while out hunting. There's no actor. You still have a little bit of causality, but you don't how. Who's doing the shooting? Another one I always liked Whittington was injured. Okay, it's not that, it's not true. Right, this is not about truth, but this is about conveying someone's reality, the gravity, the impact, and I think my favorite favorite one was something like Cheney flushed out a mallard, fired a round and then saw Whittington fall down. You don't even have you don't really have an actor or causation. There's no tie there.

Speaker 1:

And so sometimes, well, it doesn't even say that Whittington was shot, it just says that. I mean, you could infer that perhaps, but it doesn't say it.

Speaker 2:

That's exactly right, and so it doesn't connote the impact of the action and it doesn't connote who is doing it. And the reason that that's important is because policy is shaped by language, and the majority of the policies on gender-based violence in the United States today are based on fixing women. Everything is based on the onus is on the victim, so services, but she needs to move to a shelter, she needs to figure out how to get daycare, she needs to figure out how she's going to get a job. Everything is about what she's doing. That's not appropriate, nor will it actually solve the problem. You don't put the onus of solving the problem on the people who are suffering and they are the subjective receiver of the problem. You have to focus on the ones doing the harm, definitely, and you can't focus on them until you name who they are, who you identify.

Speaker 1:

Let me ask you a couple of questions along those lines. So what would be the ideal headline for a woman who was shot by her abusive husband?

Speaker 2:

abusive husband shoots wife.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so that's how we would say that. And then let's go back to the example of drowning, because you said something interesting there and I just want to kind of like expand on it just a little bit. So drowning and strangulation are two ways that abusive partners would murder their wife or their victim, and they're very often thought to be easy to cover up. So let's talk about the language around strangulation and around drownings one more time, so we can kind of really understand the example that you gave about swimming while not breathing.

Speaker 2:

Sure, I think that really comes into play not only with asphyxiation, but I often use it more in terms of sexual assault. So, for example, you don't say consensual sex versus non-consensual sex. I would never use that term non-consensual sex because sex is always consensual. We can agree about whether there are gray areas or not gray areas, but sex is always consensual. Just like swimming, you are always breathing. There's never a time when you're swimming that you're not, you are incapacitated and that you cannot breathe. We call that drowning. So I would say, for example, it gets reported as non-consensual sex frequently, particularly with date rape or marital rape. It's not non-consensual sex, it's rape or it is sexual assault, because sex is specific, just like swimming is specific, and swimming always happens while you're breathing. It doesn't happen when you don't. We have a word for that, and so that's when I typically try to use that example of swimming and drowning versus consensual and non-consensual sex. It's really being able to understand sexual violence and how we talk about it and how that matters.

Speaker 1:

And I think that those terms are. You know they're some of the harder ones to hear and the harder ones to say. You and I have had several conversations about the word rape in particular, which is some people call it sexual assault, sexual violence. In some states rape means very specific things that may be different in others, but the reality is that rape is a tough word to say, it's a tough word to hear and it's awful for the victim. But to your point, calling it non-consensual sex really does make it a lot easier for someone to hear. The term does not convey the same level of horror or disgust that the word rape does and should when it is a terrible act of sexual violence and that goes right back to the point of the words battered woman a really hard term to hear and you know exactly what it means when you hear it.

Speaker 2:

And it's meant to right, because we feel that it's important to convey how horrible it is. I think back to I think it was Bobby Knight, who was the basketball coach, who said something is like rape If it's inevitable, just lay back and enjoy it. But what he's mixing up is sex versus rape and it's chicken and the egg Like. We have a nasty reaction right when we hear that. A lot of people. That's an awful thing to say, but it's awful because you have an understanding and a comprehension of how awful rape is. If we use whitewashed language, if we use soft language because we don't want to traumatize our audience or we think they can't handle that language, then are we doing a disservice. Because now we're not educating people in our churches and our schools and our neighborhoods and our society. How bad rate it.

Speaker 2:

We don't convey the sheer terror, the horror and even like when I apply for funding or I'm doing an educational training, I can tick off the short and long-term effects of sexual assault or domestic violence. I can talk about depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder. I can talk about GI and somatic issues, headaches, inflammation, pain. I can talk about the long-term effects where survivors often turn to substance abuse or they have an increased risk of diabetes, heart conditions. They end up having financial repercussions. They may not be able to hold a job. Even when I tick those off, it's 2024. And even when I say them like that, they become a checklist Again. They become what I call naturalized, normalized. Yeah, we know, we know. Yeah, they have to go see a therapist. Yeah, it's kind of depressing. Yeah, they have a hard time after it is someone taking over your body.

Speaker 1:

So then, thinking back on just the past 30 minutes of this conversation and all of the terms that we've tossed around, how do people decide what words to use when talking about these things?

Speaker 2:

I think there are some words that have been hotly debated, but what I would say is that I think the right approach to take is to figure out what people want to be called. Literally, it's giving them agency, and that's actually a trauma-informed principle, so kind of like the Bechdel test that we use for female representation in the film, I think. I think there's a framework, and so some survivors will want to be called survivors, some victims will want to be called victims. They'll want that because it's fresh and it connotes what's happening to them. So I think the way to think about language is unlike having a dictionary with very specific terms. What I would suggest is that I would sort of apply a sort of a principled test based on trauma-informed principles, and that is, allow people to name themselves whatever they want to be when that's possible. Ask them Just straight up. Ask them what are you more comfortable with? Victim, survivor, something else For those that are causing harm again, that's really tricky.

Speaker 2:

And in the absence of, if you're in a particular field where you are constrained again, if we're talking about, if you are talking in a legal setting or you need to be speaking to a legal audience, then yes, you would use perpetrator. If you're working in a community setting, you might use abuser, because it's not always physical, or you might use the term person using harm. That's more in the restorative justice circles. I think it was just always important to talk about it again, making sure that there is an agent and a cause. Don't leave out who is doing the harm and how they're doing it, and I think, talking about it in ways that really reveals the actual experience of a victim or survivor, that really does connote the real harm and damage and terror that these people go through every day.

Speaker 1:

Very smart ideas. So, erica, thank you so much for being on the show and talking with me today.

Speaker 2:

Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it, Maria.

Speaker 1:

Attention Spanish-speaking listeners. Listen to the end of this podcast for information on how to reach a Spanish-speaking representative of Genesis.

Speaker 3:

Atención hispanohablantes escucha este podcast hasta el final para recibir información de cómo comunicarse con el personal de Genesis en español.

Speaker 1:

If you or someone you know is in an abusive relationship, you can get help or give help at genesisshelterorg or by calling or texting our 24-7 crisis hotline team at 214-946-HELP 214-946-4357. Bilingual services at Genesis include text, phone call, clinical counseling, legal services, advocacy and more. Call or text us for more information. Donations to support women and children escaping domestic violence are always needed. Learn more at genesisshelterorg slash donate. Thanks for joining us. I'm reminding you always that ending domestic violence begins when we believe her, génesis.

Speaker 3:

El podcast anuncia servicios bilingües disponibles en Génesis. Women's Shelter y Support. Shelter and support. If you or a known person is in an abusive relationship, you can receive help or give help at genesisshelterorg or by calling or sending a text message to our 24-hour crisis line at 214-946-4357. Genesis bilingual services include text messages, calls, advice, legal services advice and more. Call us or send us a text for more information. Donations are always needed to support women or children escaping domestic violence. Learn more at our website at genesisshelterorg. Thank you for joining us. Remember that ending domestic violence begins when we believe in the victim. Thank you.