The Language of Violence against Women: Male Voice Domination in the Public and Private Domains

Fransisca Kristanti

doi:10.24071/joll.v22i2.4905

The Language of Violence against Women: Male Voice Domination in the Public and Private Domains

Fransisca Kristanti

Abstract

Violence against women (VAW) has been a long-debated issue for many things, including the authoritative male voice that often reduces (if not diminishes) women’s voice in public and private domains. Often, the lines between the public/private dichotomy become blurred, and the traditional gender perception practiced in the private domain transcends to the public domain. This literature review scrutinizes the authoritative male voice in both the public and private domains within the violence against women discourse. This paper reports that the male authoritative voice is prevalent in both the private and public domains. Yet, the faint lines between the private and public domains cause the interference of a more structural authoritative voice toward the private domain. Even though the language of support enables the victims’ and survivors’ experiences to be verbalized, the support center staff are not all linguistically equipped to effectively elicit and report the experience. This ineffective elicitation and reporting open opportunities for the authoritative male voice to maintain its power in VAW cases.

Keywords

violence against women; male voice; private/public dichotomy; the language of support

Full Text:

PDF

References

Anderson, K. L. & Cermele, J. (2014). Public/private language aggression against women: Tweeting rage and intimate partner violence. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 2(2), 274-293. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.2.2.05and

Andrus, J. (2012). Language ideology, fractal recursivity, and discursive agency in the legal construction of linguistic evidence. Language in Society, 41(5), 589-614.

Andrus, J. (2011). Beyond texts in context: Recontextualization and the co-production of texts and contexts in the legal discourse, excited utterance exception to hearsay. Discourse and Society, 22(1), 115-136.

Bou-Franch, P. (2013). Domestic violence and public participation in the media: The case of citizen journalism. Gender and Language, 7(3), 275-302.

Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Wattam, S. (2015). Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(1), 139-173.

Dalton, E. (2019). A feminist critical discourse analysis of sexual harassment in the Japanese political and media worlds. Women’s Studies International Forum 77. Elsevier Ltd.

de Bres, J., & Dawson, S. (2021). Saint Ashley: Gendered discourse in the commodification of New Zealand’s Director General of Health during Covic-19. Gender and Language, 15(2), 129-157.

de Freitas, L. G., & Bastos, L. C. (2019). Sexual abuse in proceedings of gender-based violence in the Brazilian judicial system. Gender and Language, 13(2), 153-173.

de la Ossa, A. C. (2019). Exceptionalising intersectionality: A corpus study of implied readership in guidance for survivors of domestic abuse. Gender and Language, 13(2), 224-250.

Eades, D. (2012). The social consequences of language ideologies in the courtroom cross-examination. Language in Society, 41(4), 471-497.

Easteal, P. (2001). Less than equal: Women and the Australian legal system. Sydney: Butterworths.

Easteal, P., Bartels, L., & Bradford, S. (2012). Language, gender and ‘reality’: Violence against women. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40(1), 324-337.

Easteal, P., Blatchford, A., Holland, K. & Sutherland, G. (2021). Teaching journalists about violence against women best reportage practices: An Australian case study. Journalism Practice, 1-17. htpps://doi.org/ 10.1080/17512786.2021.1886866

Emandi, A., Encarnacion, J., Seck, P., & Tabaco, R. J. (2021). Measuring the shadow pandemic: Violence against women during COVID-19. UN Women. https://data.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/documents/Publications/Measuring-shadow-pandemic.pdf

Ehrlich, S. (2021). Intersections of race and gender in sexual assault trials. Gender and Language, 5(3), 430-438.

Ehrlich, S. (2019). ‘Well, I saw the picture’: semiotic ideologies and the unsettling of normative conceptions of female sexuality in the Steubenville rape trial. Gender and Language, 13(2), 251-269.

Ehrlich, S. (2014). Language, gender, and sexual violence. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff and J. Holmes (eds). The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality, 452-470.

Ehrlich, S. (2013). Post-penetration rape and the decontextualization of witness testimony. In Heffer, C., Rock, F., and Conley, J. (eds) Legal -lay communication: Textual travels in the legal system, 189-205. Oxford University Press.

Ehrlich, S. (2012). Text trajectories, legal discourse and gender inequalities. Applied Linguistics Review, 3, 47-73.

Fewster, S. (2009, July 23). Judge Questions if Drunken Sex was a ‘Technical Rape’. The Advertiser. Retrieved from http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/judge-questions-if-drunken-sex-was-a-technical-rape/story-e6freo8c1225753064957

Goodman, S., & Walker, K. (2016). ‘Some I don’t remember and some I do’: Memory talk in account of intimate partner violence. Discourse Studies, 18(4), 375-392.

Harris, K. L., Palazzolo, K. E., & Savage, M. W. (2012). ‘I’m not sexist, but…’: How ideological dilemmas reinforce sexism in talk about intimate partner violence. Discourse and Society, 23(6), 643-656.

Hildebrand-Edgar, N., & Ehrlich, S. (2017). “She was quite capable of asserting herself”: Powerful speech styles and assessments of credibility in a sexual assault trial. Language and Law, 4(2), 89-107.

Holoshitz, T., & Cameron, D. (2014). The linguistic representation of sexual violence in conflict settings. Gender and Language, 8(2), 169-184.

Jensen, J., & De Castel, S. (2013). Tipping points: Marginality, misogyny, and videogames. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(2), 72-85.

Jing-Schmidt, Z., & Peng, X. (2018). The sluttified sex: Verbal misogyny reflects and reinforces gender order in wireless China. Language in Society, 47(3), 385-408.

Krook, M. I., (2017). Violence against women in politics. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 74-88.

Langan, D., Hannem, S., & Stewart, C. (2016). Deconstructing accounts of intimate partner violence: Doing interviews, identities, and neoliberalism. Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 219-238.

Lombard, N., & McMillan, L. (2012). Violence against women: Current theory and practice in domestic abuse, sexual violence and exploitation. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Bryan, A. (2011). Recontextualizing participatory journalists’ mobile media in British television news. Discourse and Communication, 5(1), 23-40.

Makoni, B. (2021). ‘A pair of buttocks’ that everybody hates: radical rudeness as a resistance strategy. Gender and Language, 15(4), 549-558.

Stokoe, E. (2012). ‘You know how men are’: Description, categorization and common knowledge in the anatomy of categorical practice. Gender and Language, 6(1), 233-255.

Sutherland, G., Easteal, P., Holland, K., & Vaughan, C. (2019). Mediated representations of violence against women in the mainstream news in Australia. BMC Public Health, 19(502), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6793-2

Tennent, E., & Weatherall, A. (2019). Disclosing violence in calls for help. Gender and Language, 13(2), 270-288.

Tennent, E. (2019). ‘Do you think it’s a crime?’ Building joint understanding of victimisation in calls for help. Discourse in Society, 30(6), 636-652.

Thurlow, C. (2017). ‘Forget about the words’? Tracking the language, media and semiotic ideologies of digital discourse: The case of sexting. Discourse, Context and Media, 20(1), 10-19.

Weatherall, A. (2019). Constituting and responding to domestic and sexual violence. Gender and Language, 13(2), 149-152.

Weintraub, J. (1997). The theory and politics of the public/private distinction. In Weintraub, J., & Kumar, K. (eds). Public and private in thought and practice, (pp. 1-42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/joll.v22i2.4905