Student Advocate Committee

THE SEVERITY OF DOMESTIC ABUSEAuthor(s): Jonathan Herring

Source: National Law School of India Review , Vol. 30, No. 1 (2018), pp. 37-50
Published by: Student Advocate Committee

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26743931

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Student Advocate Committee is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to National Law School of India Review

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Severity of Domestic Abuse
—Jonathan Herring*

Abstract This article argues that domestic violence should

not be regarded as simply an assault which takes place in the
home. Rather, domestic violence has some special wrongs which
are not present in an assault in the home. This chapter high-
lights four such wrongs. First, that domestic abuse commonly
involves coercive control. Second, that domestic abuse needs to
be seen as a serious abuse of trust. Third, that it causes serious
harms to children present in the home where the abuse takes
place. Fourth, that it contributes to, and reflects the inequalities
faced by women. Once these harms are appreciated, it is clear
that combatting domestic abuse should be a top priority for any
government.

I. Introduction

In the past, domestic abuse was not seen as seriously as violence in the street
or other public places. It was a ‘marital argument’or a ‘private matter’,and there-
fore, best left tothe couple to resolve between themselves and their families. It
was not considered to be a matter which required the involvement of the police.1

In more recent times, it has become more widely accepted that violence in
the home is just as serious as violence in the street. A popular view is that the
location of violence does not matter. A punch in the bedroom is just as bad as a
punch in the pub.The same was sought to be established in early feminist writ-
ings. The fact that the violence was ‘just domestic’should notlead to its severity
being diminished.2
*
Vice Dean and Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, and DM Wolfe-
Clarendon Fellow in Law, Exeter College, University of Oxford. Email: [email protected].
uk.
1
Michelle M adden Dempsey, Prosecuting Domestic Violence (2009).
2
Jonathan Herring, The Serious Wrong of Domestic Abuse and the Loss of Control Defence, in
Loss of Control and Diminished R esponsibility (Alan Reed & Michael Bohlander eds., 2015),

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
38 National Law School of India Review 30 NLSI R ev. (2018)

This article goes a step further, and posits that domestic violence should be
regarded as more serious than violence between strangers. It does this by iden-
tifying some wrongs that are particular to cases of domestic abuse, and do not
arise in situations of violence between strangers. These wrongs are grave, and
their appreciation indicates the importance of formulating an effective response to
domestic abuse.

This article will startby briefly defining domestic abuse. It will then elaborate
in detail on the four particular wrongs of domestic abuse, before finally reach-
ing the conclusion that these wrongs necessitate an urgent response of the law to
domestic violence.

II. Defining Domestic Violence

As per the World Health Organisation (‘WHO’):

“Worldwide, almost one-third (30%) of women who have been

in a relationship report that they have experienced some form
of physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner in
their lifetime. Globally, as many as 38% of murders of women
are committed by a male intimate partner.”3

In the South-East Asian region, 37.7% of women report having been the victim
of domestic abuse.4 A recent major review of studies into domestic abuse in India
found that 41% of women reported experiencing domestic violence during their
lifetime, and 30% reported experiencing the same in the past year.5

The WHO uses the term “intimate partner violence” rather than domestic
abuse. It defines the term as: “Behaviour by an intimate partner that causes phys-
ical, sexual, or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual
coercion, psychological abuse, andcontrolling behaviours.”6

The UK Government uses the following definition:

“Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive,

threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged
16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family

from which this article draws.

3
World Health Organisation, Violence against Women (2017).
4
Id.
5
Ameeta Kalokhe et al., Domestic Violence Against Women In India: A Systematic Review of a
Decade of Quantitative Studies, 12 Global Public Health 498 (2017).
6
World Health Organisation, Responding to Intimate Partner Violence and SexualViolence against
Women: WHO Clinical And Policy Guidelines (2013).

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. 30 The Severity of Domestic Abuse 39

members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can

encompass, but is not limited to:

●● psychological

●● physical

●● sexual

●● financial

●● emotional

Controlling behaviour

Controlling behaviour is a range of acts designed to make a

person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from
sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for
personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for inde-
pendence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday
behaviour.

Coercive behaviour

Coercive behaviour is an act or a pattern of acts of assault,

threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used
to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”7

There is much that could be said about these definitions, but they provide a
sufficiently clear picture of the central theme of this paper.8 As is clear from
both these definitions, we are considering the abusive behaviour of people in an
intimate relationship. This need not be restricted to married couples, but can be
extended to anyone who is a part of a close cohabiting relationship.

The focus of this chapter is not on defining domestic violence, but rather iden-
tifying the wrongs that are particular to it. This shall be the subject of the next
section of this paper.

III. Domestic A buse as ‘Coercive Control’

Traditionally, criminal lawyers define crimes in terms of the injury done to

the body. Does the defendant’s act cause a cut or a bruise? Is it just an unwanted
touching? Yet, an assessment of the severity of the harm by focusing on the

Her Majesty’s Government, Domestic Violence and Abuse (2015).

7

8
Michelle Madden Dempsey, What Counts as Domestic Violence, 13 William A nd M ary Journal
of Women A nd The Law 301 (2006).

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
40 National Law School of India Review 30 NLSI R ev. (2018)

extent of bodily impact at the moment in time is a narrow construction of harm.

This way of understanding crimes does not capture the wider context of the rela-
tionship between the parties, and the broader social circumstances within which
the act is done.9 In this way, the law can miss important elements of the wrong.

A good example is the English case of R. v. Dhaliwal.10 The husband in this

case continually undermined and demeaned his wife for a long period of time,
before she finally committed suicide. Each act looked at separately might have
been regarded as no more than an unpleasant remark, a cruel insult at worst.
The English Court of Appeal was unable to find an offence committed by him.11
However, once the final act of suicide is seen in the broader context of prolonged
and regular subjection to belittling remarks, the impact of which were such that
she was reduced to committing suicide, it is difficult to miss the severity of the
alleged behavior.

This is why it is so important to appreciate that domestic abuse is best under-

stood not as simply a series of violent or abusive acts, but rather as a program
of “coercive control” (to use Evan Stake’s phrase),12 or “patriarchal terrorism”, or
“intimate terrorism” (to use Michael Johnson’s phrase).13 Michael Johnson dis-
tinguishes intimate terrorism from what he calls ‘situational couple violence’or
‘mutual violence’. Patriarchal terrorism is, “violence enacted in the service of
taking general control over one’s partner.”14 By contrast, in situational couple vio-
lence or mutual violence, the violence exists, but not with an attempt to control
the relationship. Rather, it is an incident of violence that arises in a moment of
conflict in an intimate relationship, which is not generally marked with inequal-
ity. It involves a lashing out in self-defense, anger, or frustration, rather than an
attempt to exercise control.

We can, therefore, begin to see one of the reasons why an incident of domes-
tic violence can be more serious than an attack on the street—because it is often
part of a programme of coercive control. Psychologist Mary Ann Dutton explains:

“Abusive behaviour does not occur as a series of discrete events.

Although a set of discrete abusive incidents can typically be
identified within an abusive relationship, an understanding
of the dynamic of power and control within an intimate rela-
tionship goes beyond these discrete incidents. To negate the
impact of the time period between discrete episodes of serious
9
Deborah Tuerkheimer, Recognizing and Remedying the Harm of Battering, 94 Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 959 (2004).
10
2006 EWCA Crim 1139.
11
It might now fall under Serious Crime Act 2015, § 54.
12
Evan Stark, Coercive Control(2007).
13
Michael Johnson, Apples and Oranges in Child Custody Disputes: Intimate Terrorism vs.
Situational Couple Violence, 2 Journal of Child Custody 43 (2005).
14
Id., at 44.

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 Maon Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. 30 The Severity of Domestic Abuse 41

violence—a time period during which the woman may never

know when the next incident will occur, and may continue to
live with on-going psychological abuse—is to fail to recognize
what some battered woman experience as a continuing ‘state of
siege’.”15

Mary Ann Dutton and Lisa Goodman, examining the experiences of victims
of domestic abuse, have explored forms of coercion. They view coercion as cov-
ering nine areas of control: “personal activities/appearance”, “support/social life/
family”, “household”, “work/economic/resources”, “health”, “intimate relation-
ship”, “legal”, “immigration”, and “children”.16 Evan Stark comments on the role
of control in domestic abuse:

“Perpetrators commonly spy on or stalk partners even when

they are living together and control their access to and means
of transportation, monitor them at work, and use beepers, cell
phones, or human proxies to monitor their activities.”17

According to a study, in a third of cases involving domestic violence, the man

had sought to prevent the woman from working. In about half the cases, the man
had taken steps to ensure that she remained at home, looking after the children.18
As these descriptions make clear, the aim of this domestic abuse is to dominate
the victim. By diminishing her sense of self-worth, restricting her access to work,
money, and friends, and psychologically manipulating her, the abuser seeks to
render the victim utterly dependent on him. The programme of coercive con-
trol may involve violence, but that may be only one of the tools that are used.19
Where it is used, it ensures and enables further compliance.

The extent of control exercised can be extraordinary. Consider this case:

“Mark restricts Vanessa’s access to money and employment. At

home, Mark keeps all household supplies and toiletries under
lock and key. If Vanessa or her three children need anything
they must prove it is necessary; and only then will he unlock
a cabinet and provide them with it. This includes tooth paste,
tampons, laundry detergent. At dinner, Mark tells the children
to ignore their mother because Vanessa is too stupid to be able
15
Mary Ann Dutton, Understanding Women’s Response to Domestic Violence, 21 Hofstra Law
R eview 1191, 1204 (2003).
16
M ary A nn Dutton & Lisa Goodman, Development A nd Validation Of A Coercive Control
Measure For Intimate Partner Violence (2006).
17
Evan Stark, Commentary on Johnson’s “Conflict and Control: Gender Symmetry and Asymmetry
in Domestic Violence”, 12 Violence against Women 1019 (2006).
18
Stark, supra note 12.
19
Orly Rachmilovitz, Bringing Down the Bedroom Walls: Emphasizing Substance over Form in
Personalized Abuse, 14 William & M ary Journal of Women & Law 495 (2007).

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 National Law School of India Review 30 NLSI R ev. (2018)

to understand their conversations. Instead, Mark tells them she

is there simply to make the food and serve it. Privately, Mark
often tells Vanessa that if they ever separated, the children
would never choose to live with her because they do not respect
her.”20

These physical restrictions can be backed up by emotional abuse. One victim

reports:

“He always found something wrong with what I did, even if I

did what he asked. No matter what it was. It was never the way
he wanted it. I was either too fat, didn’t cook the food right… I
think he wanted to hurt me. To hurt me in the sense… to make
me feel like I was a nothing.”21

This can, tragically, lead to cases where the victims end up blaming them-
selves for the abuse they are suffering. They come to see the abuse as due pun-
ishment for their failure to comply with their partner’s demands.

The coercive control model not only helps explain why some victims fail to
recognize domestic abuse for what it is, but also how others so readily fail to
acknowledge it. Paula Nicolson quotes from Connie:

“At the time I didn’t really know, I did notrecognise it for

what it was because I mean it was things like not speaking to
you, like nudging you and bumping into you and at one point
he pulled my hair and pushed me over, things like that. I just
thought that was sort of life a bit over zealous but I did notre-
ally recognise it from the start off.”22

As this quote shows, the abuse is difficult to prove or explain to an outside

authority. The act of bumping into a person appears trivial when referred to in
isolation. How easy it is to dismiss the concerns as paranoid. Yet as the control
develops, it creates the conditions in which escape from the controller becomes
harder. As Victor Tadros argues: “domestic abuse is not just that the defendant
denies the victim options, but also that he denies her the freedom to recognize
and exploit the options that she has.”23

20
Margaret Johnson, Redefining Harm, Reimagining Remedies and Reclaiming Domestic Violence
Law, 42 U.C. Davis Law R eview 1107 (2009).
21
Tuerkheimer, supra note 9.
22
Paula Nicolson, Domestic Violence and Psychology 35 (2010).
23
Victor Tadros, The Distinctiveness of Domestic Abuse: A Freedom Based Account, 65 Louisiana
Law R eview 989, 999 (2005).

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. 30 The Severity of Domestic Abuse 43

The coercive control model of domestic abuse also, I suggest, provides an

explanation for something that has long puzzled commentators—the strong link
between pregnancy and domestic abuse. Indeed, domestic abuse is the leading
cause of maternal mortality.24 The most plausible explanation for this link is that
the abuser perceives pregnancy as diminishing his control over the body of the
victim. He is no longer the centre of the woman’s attention.25 This leads to vio-
lence in an attempt to reassert control.

As this discussion shows, the problem of domestic abuse raises a very par-
ticular wrong done to the victim: that of coercive control. This is not captured
by the traditional criminal law wrongs of an assault or battery. It means an act
which might, when viewed on its own, be considered trivial, but may take on a
far greater significance when viewed in context.26 It also shows us that we should
not restrict the concept of domestic abuse simply to violent acts. English law has
made some progress inrecognizing the wrong of coercive control by creating an
offence which addresses it specifically in S. 45 Serious Crime Act 2015:

“(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards

another person (B) that is controlling or coercive,

(b) at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally

connected,

(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and

(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a

serious effect on B”.

A programme of coercive control is not just a single attack on the body of the
victim. It is a challenge to their whole way of life, an attempt to rob them of their
autonomy and their dignity.

IV. Domestic Abuse as a Breach of Trust

The second particular wrong of domestic abuse which I wish to highlight is

that it involves a grave breach of trust. Our intimate relationships are keys to our

24
Rebecca O’Reilly et al., Screening and Intervention for Domestic Violence During Pregnancy
Care: A Systematic Review, 11 Trauma Violence A buse 190 (2010).
25
Joan Kelly & Michael Johnson, Differentiation among Types of Intimate Partner Violence, 46
Family Court R eview 467 (2008).
26
Alafair Burke, Domestic Violence as a Crime of Pattern and Intent, 75 George Washington Law
R eview 552 (2007).

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
44 National Law School of India Review 30 NLSI R ev. (2018)

identities.27 Without those close to us to love us,and to be loved by us, our lives
would have little meaning. It is through our caring and loving relationships that
we flourish. John Eekelaar has argued that trust is at the heart of intimacy, and
that it enables love and autonomy to develop.28 It is in being able to be completely
honest and vulnerable with a partner that relationships can deepen, an under-
standing of self can grow, and lives can flourish. But, all of that requires a deep
sense of trust. In a case of domestic abuse, the access gained in the relationship
to private information, bodies, and spaces is misused against the victim. It is a
profound breach of trust. I want to explore three interconnected aspects of that
wrong.

First, in intimate relationships we share “thick interpersonal trust”.29 The ways

in which we expose both physical, emotional, and geographical places is very dif-
ferent in intimate relationships than between, say, work colleagues. We are only
willing to be that open because we trust those we love to take care of us, and
not misuse the information or access that they gain. Yet, in domestic abuse,the
privileged access is used against the victim. Notably, the law seems more ready
to protect confidential information disclosed in a professional relationship, than
to control the misuse of information gained in a personal relationship to exercise
power or control over the other party.

Second, the breach of trust causes a particular harm to the self. Since intimate
relationships are central to our identity and sense of self, when they are used
to send negative messages about us, or degrade our sense of self, the harm is
uniquely personal.30 As Evan Stark writes:

“In the romantic vernacular, love and intimacy compen-

sate women for their devaluation in the wider world. Personal
life does something more. It provides the state where women
practice their basic rights, garner the support needed to resist
devaluation, experiment with sexual identities, and imagine
themselves through various life projects. Coercive control sub-
verts this process, brining discrimination home by reducing
the discretion in everyday routines to near zero, freezing feel-
ing and identity in time and space, the process victims experi-
ence as entrapment. Extended across the range of activities that
define women as person, this foreshortening of subjective devel-
opment compounds the particular liberty harms caused by coer-
cive control.”31

27
Jonathan Herring & Charles Foster, Identity, Personhood and the Law (2017).
28
John Eekelaar, Family Law and Personal Life 47 (2006).
29
Dmitry Khodyakov, Trust as a Process: A Three Dimensional Approach, 41 Sociology 116
(2007).
30
Rachmilovitz, supra note 19.
31
Stark, supra note 12, at 363.

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. 30 The Severity of Domestic Abuse 45

As it is through our relationships that we form our identities as to who we are,

and try and makes sense of the world, domestic abuse turns what should be a tool
for self-affirmation and self-identification into a tool for alienation and self-be-
trayal. The victim almost becomes used as a tool against herself.32 It is not sur-
prising, therefore, that domestic violence causes a wide range of mental health
problems for its victims, ranging from anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress,
and substance abuse, to suicidal tendencies.33

Third, domestic abusersmake use of the information gathered during the rela-
tionship so that the abuse can be personalised, in order to maximise the pain
caused to the victim.34 In Attorney General’s Reference (No. 90 of 2009), where
a sentence of ten years was increased to eighteen in a case of marital rape, the
Court of Appeal explained:

“This is an extreme case of its kind: rape by a husband of his

wife from whom he was separated. The facts that we have nar-
rated demonstrate, and the conduct of his defence confirms, that
the offender deliberately chose to use sexual intercourse with
his wife without her consent as a weapon with which to dom-
inate and humiliate her. This was the woman with whom he
had once had a relationship of genuine affection and who had
borne him two children. There was a grave breach of trust. The
offender used the kind of knowledge that couples have of each
other, which he would have acquired during their moments of
warm intimacy, about a sexual practice that she found wholly
unacceptable. With that knowledge he forced her to submit to it.
Apart from the sheer humiliation and horror, she suffered phys-
ical pain. Having done that, he added to her degradation by rap-
ing her vaginally. The offender’s actions were quite merciless.”35

Therefore, in these three ways, we can see that the abuse of trust in a case of
domestic violence is a very particular and serious kind of wrong.

32
Lynne Arnault, Cruelty, Horror, and the Will to Redemption, 18 Hypatia 155 (2003).
33
Catherine Itzen et al., Domestic A nd Sexual Violence A nd A buse 61 (2010); Ximena Arriaga
& Nicole Capezza, Targets of Partner Violence: The Importance of Understanding Coping
Trajectories, 20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 89 (2005).
34
Stark, supra note 1 2, at 376.
35
2009 EWCACrim 2610, ¶21. For further discussion of marital rape see Jonathan Herring, No
More Having and Holding: The Abolition of the Marital Rape Exemption, in Landmarks In
Family Law (Stephen Gilmore, et al. eds., 2011).

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 National Law School of India Review 30 NLSI R ev. (2018)

V. Domestic Violence and Children

A third particular wrong in domestic abuse is that of harm tochildren, which

has been amply evidenced.36 It is not surprising that children who witness domes-
tic abuse suffer. However, the evidence shows that there are harmful effects
even where the child has not witnessed the violence, but is living in the same
household as the abuse.37 Children raised in families characterised by domestic
violence are 30-60% more likely to suffer child abuse themselves.38 The impact
on children includes behavioral, cognitive, and emotional problems, leading to
depression, anxiety, truancy, and low educational achievement. It also can lead
to interpersonal problems, and poor social skills.39 10% of children who had wit-
nessed domestic violence, witnessed their mother being sexually assaulted.40

In a major review of the evidence, Professor Stephanie Holt concludes:

“Not only can the experience of living with the abuser of their
mother be considered a form of emotional abuse for children,
but may also be considered as a risk factor for the physical and
sexual abuse of children. Furthermore, compromised parent-
ing capacity on the part of both mothers and fathers, and the
presence of additional adversities, may increase the stressors
in children’s lives whilst simultaneously increasing the risk for
negative outcomes for children.”41

All of this means that in cases where children are present in the house, the
domestic violence can correctly be regarded as a form of child abuse.42

The impact of this abuse can extend into adulthood, including, tragically, the
children becoming victims of abuse or abusers themselves. The Royal College of
Psychiatrists explains:

36
The research is summarised in Stephanie Holt, The Impact of Exposure to Domestic Abuse on
Children and Young People, in The Routledge H andbook of Global Child Welfare and Royal
College of Psychiatrists, Domestic Violence: Its Effect on Children (P. Dolan & N. Frost eds.,
2010).
37
Catherine Humphreys & Charlotte Bardbury-Jones, Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding Children:
Focus, Response and Intervention, 24 Child A buse R eview 213 (2015).
38
Catherine Itzen et al., Domestic A nd Sexual Violence A nd A buse 4 (2010).
39
M arianne Hester, Who Does What to Whom? Gender and Domestic Violence Perpetrators 2
(2009).
40
Audrey Mullender, Tackling Domestic Violence: Providing Support For Children Who H ave
Witnessed Domestic Violence (2005).
41
Holt, supra note 36, at 367.
42
Todd I. Herrenkohl et al., Intersection of Child Abuse and Children’s Exposure to Domestic
Violence, 9 Trauma Violence A buse 84 (2008); Patrizia Romito, A Deafening Silence: Hidden
Violence Against Women and Children (2008).

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. 30 The Severity of Domestic Abuse 47

“As adults, children who have witnessed violence and abuse

are more likely to become involved in a violent and abusive
relationship themselves. Children tend to copy the behaviour
of their parents. Boys learn from their fathers to be violent to
women. Girls learn from their mothers that violence is to be
expected, and something you just have to put up with.”43

The law generally recognizes that crimes against children involve a greater
wrong than crimes against others. It recognizes the particular obligation that
adults, particularly those in a parental role, owe to children. It also recognizes
that children often lack the physical, emotional, and social capabilities to respond
to harmful incidents. All of these concerns emphasize the particular wrongful-
ness of domestic violence.

VI. Domestic Violence and Patriarchy

The fourth and final point is that domestic violence helps promote patriar-
chy. Domestic violence reinforces and relies upon power exercised by men over
women in society.44 As the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and
Men puts it:

“Violence against women is a question of power, of the need

to dominate and control. This in turn is rooted in the organiza-
tion of society, itself based on inequality between the sexes. The
meaning of this violence is clear: it is an attempt to maintain
the unequal relationship between men and women and to per-
petuate the subordination of women.”45

Domestic violence reflects the negative attitudes and forces that women face in
society. It also contributes to them. Michelle Madden Dempsey explains:

“The patriarchal character of individual relationships can-

not subsist without those relationships being situated within a
broader patriarchal social structure. Patriarchy is, by its nature,
a social structure – and thus any particular instance of patriar-
chy takes its substance and meaning from that social context. If
patriarchy were entirely eliminated from society, then patriar-
chy would not exist in domestic arrangements and thus domestic
violence in its strong sense would not exist… Moreover, if patri-
archy were lessened in society generally then ceteris paribus
patriarchy would be lessened in domestic relationship as well,
43
Holt, supra note 36, at 2.
44
Stark, supra note 12.
45
Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and
Men Domestic Violence, 12 (2002).

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
48 National Law School of India Review 30 NLSI R ev. (2018)

thereby directly contributing to the project of ending domestic

violence in its strong sense.”46

Michelle Madden Dempsey describes patriarchy as “wrongful structural ine-

quality”. The wrongfulness she separates into sex discrimination, sexism, and
misogyny. Structural inequalities, she explains, are functions of social structures.
A “set of rules and principles that govern activities in the different domains of
social life. When social structures sustain or perpetuate the uneven distribution
of social power, they can be understood as structural inequalities.”47 Domestic
abuse plays this role because it works to reinforce the other social structures that
inhibit women’s access to places of power. Further, it replicates the disadvantages
present in the outside world within the domestic sphere. Of course, it is not just
sexist inequalities that domestic violence perpetuates. It reflects and reinforces-
marginalisation in other spheres as well.48 For example, attempts by male perpe-
trators of abuse to prevent their female partners from entering the workplace or
public arena are imitations of broader attempts to restrict women’s access to the
workplace.

The specific ways in which domestic abuse reinforces patriarchy include the
following: Domestic abuse reinforces the messages sent more broadly by patri-
archy that women should be subservient to men and are inferior to them. The
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women
General Recommendation No. 19 states that domestic abuse is based on, “tradi-
tional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men”.49 Gender
stereotypes typically underpin domestic abuse. Consider, for example, this inci-
dent in the American case, State v. Norman:

“John Norman asked Judy Norman to make him a sandwich;

when Judy brought it to him, he threw it on the floor and told
her to make him another. Judy made him a second sandwich
and brought it to him; John again threw it on the floor, telling
her to put something on her hands because he did not want her
to touch the bread. Judy made a third sandwich using a paper
towel to handle the bread. John took the third sandwich and
smeared it in Judy’s face.”50

46
Michelle Madden Dempsey, Towards a Feminist State, 70 Modern Law R eview 908, 921 (2007).
47
Id., at 910.
48
Discussed in Shazia Choudhry, Towards a Transformative Conceptualisation of Violence Against
Women - A Critical Frame Analysis of Council of Europe Discourse on Violence Against Women,
79 Modern Law R eview 406 (2016).
49
UN Women, Convention on the Elimination of all Forms on Discrimination Against Women
General Recommendation, General Recommendation No. 19, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/
daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19 (1992).
50
State v. Norman, 366 SE 2d 586, 588 (NC App 1988).

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. 30 The Severity of Domestic Abuse 49

The incident echoes the societal message that a woman’s primary role is to
care for her husband and family. That women should try and meet the wishes of
their spouses and children. Accounts of domestic abuse commonly involve behav-
ior which is designed not just to humiliate a partner, but to reinforce a particular
role for women (e.g. as home maker), and a particular status (e.g. as lesser than
men).51 This echoes similar messages found in advertising, street harassment, and
the media.

Domestic violence also reinforces the practical barriers that exist to restrict
women’s access to the labour market, and reinforces traditional roles for women.
Evan Stark reports how domestic abuse intensifies when women seek to gain
independence by, for example, finding employment.52 More broadly, domestic
abuse is often used to deny access to an autonomous life, by restricting move-
ment, economic independence, and association with friends.

The impact of this is that, as Rachel Pain argues, domestic violence results in,
“chronic fear which builds up over the long term and leads to significant trauma
and negative effects on health and well being.”53 This means that victims are
scared to break out of the traditional roles that their abusers demand of them.

Not only does domestic abuse help sustain patriachy, domestic abuse is sus-
tained by and supported by patriarchy. Ruth Gavison explains:

“When women are battered at home, it is not because each par-

ticular victim has triggered an unfortunate ‘individual’ trag-
edy… Social structures are involved, social structures which
are not simply ‘natural’. They are person-made, and they benefit
males.”54

Michelle Madden Dempsey develops this theme in this way:

“The patriarchal character of individual relationships can-

not subsist without those relationships being situated within a
broader patriarchal social structure. Patriarchy is, by its nature,
a social structure – and thus any particular instance of patriar-
chy takes its substance and meaning from that social context.”55

The arguments outlined above make the case for identifying cases of domes-
tic violence which promote patriarchy as raising a very particular kind of wrong

51
Stark, supra note 12.
52
Stark, supra note 12.
53
R ebecca Pain, Everyday Terrorism: How Fear Works In Domestic A buse (2016).
54
Ruth Gavison, Feminism and the Public/Private Distinction, 45 Stanford Law R eview 1, 3
(1992).
55
Dempsey, supra note 46, at 909.

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
50 National Law School of India Review 30 NLSI R ev. (2018)

which deserves a separate isolation and focus. The wrong produced is not sim-
ply one to the individual victim, but is a broader social wrong which reflects and
reinforces patriarchy.

VII. Conclusion

This article has sought to argue that domestic abuse should not be simply
understood as a violent act in a private setting. This understanding fails to appre-
ciate the relational, personal, and social impacts of domestic abuse. When this is
taken into account, the severity of domestic abuse can be revealed.

This article has sought to highlight four particular wrongs contained in domes-
tic abuse. First, that it reflects an attempt to control all aspects of the victim’s
life through coercive control. Second, domestic abuse is a serious breach of trust
that wrongs the very essence of the person. Third, domestic abuse causes seri-
ous wrongs to children, the most vulnerable and precious resource of any society.
Finally, domestic abuse reflects and reinforces negative attitudes and forces that
work against the interests of women. Any society committed to combatting gen-
der inequality must make combatting domestic abuse a priority.

This content downloaded from

14.139.58.147 on Thu, 12 May 2022 11:38:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms