Language Matters: How We Talk About Violence

The way violence is described can influence how people understand it.

A sentence can focus attention on the actions of the person harmed:

Why didn't she leave?

Or it can direct attention towards the conditions created by the person using abuse:

What made leaving difficult or unsafe?

Both questions may appear to be about the same situation, but they encourage us to look in very different directions.

One examines the victim.

The other examines the violence, coercion, barriers and risks surrounding them.

Language that keeps responsibility visible can help us better understand domestic and family violence, sexual violence, child sexual abuse, coercive control and other forms of abuse.

Keep responsibility visible

Where the facts are known and it is appropriate to do so, clearer language identifies the action and the person responsible for it.

For example:

Instead of:
She was subjected to financial abuse.

Consider:
Her partner controlled her access to money.

Instead of:
There was violence in the home.

Consider:
One family member used violence against another.

Passive language is not always wrong. But when it repeatedly removes the person responsible for harmful behaviour, it can unintentionally shift attention away from accountability.

Victim-blaming isn't always obvious.

It can appear in questions that focus heavily on what the victim did, did not do or should have done differently.

Questions such as:

• Why didn't she leave?
• Why did she go back?
• Why didn't he fight back?
• Why didn't they report it?
• Why was she drinking?
• Why did they continue speaking to the person?
• Why didn't the child tell someone?
• Why didn't they just say no?

These questions can overlook fear, coercion, grooming, financial dependence, threats, isolation, trauma, concern for children, disability, immigration status, housing insecurity, social pressures and many other factors.

They may also imply that preventing the violence was the victim's responsibility.

A more useful question is often:

What did the person using abuse do to restrict the other person's choices?

That question directs attention towards behaviour, power and responsibility.

Violence and abuse are sometimes described using language that makes them sound like ordinary relationship difficulties.

Terms such as:

may be inaccurate when what is actually occurring is intimidation, coercion, stalking, sexual violence or an ongoing pattern of abuse.

Conflict and abuse are not the same thing

People in healthy relationships can disagree, argue and become angry with one another.

Abuse involves behaviour that harms, intimidates, coerces, controls or violates another person.

Coercive control is not simply a “difficult relationship”.

Sexual violence is not simply a “misunderstanding about consent”.

Stalking is not romantic persistence.

Financial abuse is not someone merely being “better with money”.

Recognising the behaviour accurately is an important part of recognising the harm.

“They lost control” can hide deliberate behaviour

Violence is sometimes explained by saying someone:

• snapped
• lost control
• saw red
• was pushed too far
• couldn't help themselves

These phrases can make abusive behaviour sound involuntary.

But many forms of abuse involve repeated decisions and patterns of behaviour.

A person may monitor someone's movements, control access to money, isolate them from family, threaten them, humiliate them, track their phone or punish resistance over an extended period of time.

These behaviours are not adequately explained by a single moment of lost control.

A clearer description focuses on the behaviour

Instead of:
He lost control and hit her.

Consider:
He used physical violence against her.

Instead of:
She pushed him too far.

Consider:
He chose to respond with violence.

Responsibility for violence belongs with the person who uses it.

Respect people's language about themselves

Some people identify strongly with the word survivor.

Others prefer victim, particularly when talking about crime, injustice or accountability.

Some use both.

Others prefer neither.

Where possible, respect the words people use for themselves.

We should also avoid treating someone's lived experience as public property simply because they have spoken about it.

Disclosure does not remove a person's right to privacy, dignity or control over their own story.

Children are not responsible for stopping abuse or finding the right words to explain it

Children may not understand that what is happening to them is abuse.

They may be frightened.

They may have been threatened.

They may love or depend on the person harming them.

They may have been groomed into believing the behaviour is normal.

They may fear that they will get someone into trouble, break up their family or not be believed.

And some children may not yet have the language or developmental capacity to explain what has happened.

Because of this, language around disclosure matters.

Instead of:
The child failed to disclose the abuse.

Consider:
The child was not yet able to disclose what was happening.

Instead of:
The child kept it secret.

Consider:
The circumstances surrounding the abuse made disclosure difficult or unsafe.

The responsibility for child abuse always belongs with the person who committed the abuse — never with the child for not stopping, resisting or disclosing it.

The aim is not simply to replace one approved phrase with another.

It is to become more aware of where our language places responsibility.

Speaking carefully about violence does not mean abandoning fairness, evidence or legal accuracy.

It is possible to respect people who disclose violence without presenting every allegation as proven.

It is also possible to support fair legal processes without defaulting to disbelief, suspicion or victim-blaming.

Accuracy and compassion can exist together.

Graphic, dramatic or voyeuristic language can sometimes turn another person's harm into content.

Detailed descriptions may be unnecessary to explain the seriousness of violence and can be distressing for people with lived experience.

Violence is serious because of the harm it causes — not because of how dramatically we describe it.

At Safety From Violence Is A Right™, we aim to use language that is clear, accurate and centred on responsibility.

But we can choose words that help people understand violence more clearly rather than reinforcing the attitudes that allow it to be minimised, excused or misunderstood.

Understanding the language surrounding violence can help us recognise harmful attitudes, challenge victim-blaming and have better conversations about abuse.

Continue exploring the issues, behaviours and systems that shape people's experiences of violence.