How Much Do Words Matter? Batterer, Bully, Abuser?

Perhaps, we in the field of domestic violence have failed victims and survivors by how we talk about what happens when a woman lives with an abusive partner or is still abused even when they are estranged. Violence against an intimate partner is different from other types of violence. So, we try to explain domestic violence in unique language. Maybe that is a disservice to victims and survivors.

First, we who worked in this field forty years ago tried to explain that domestic violence and battering refers to not only physical acts, but also a pattern of abusive acts that may not necessarily be illegal. I remember when I first tried writing about battering and my autocorrect kept telling me it wasn’t a word. As the whole world didn’t get on board with that concept and our language, some of us began using the term “domestic abuse” rather than domestic violence and battering.

Still, trying to describe how some domestic violence isn’t always actual physical violence, writers like Evan Stark and Lisa Aronson Fontes have explained the unique aspects of coercive control. Thanks to their efforts, we know what coercive control is. Yet many people, including legislators, juries, and judges, do not truly understand the impact of coercive control on current and future functioning.

As I write this, the nation is reeling from the assassination attempt at a political rally. Though an investigation will provide more information, already we are hearing snippets of the shooter’s past. Most notable to me is that he was bullied when he was younger. And what I see is a cadre of well-meaning, law-abiding, concerned citizens nodding in ascent as this incident is now even more evidence about how bullying can affect your life – both at the time of the bullying and later in life. We don’t excuse acting out. However, as we begin to understand it, we can create ways to prevent bullying. There are anti-bullying efforts in many disparate settings.

I am puzzled, though, that this rationale is not understood when we talk about – and prosecute – women who use force in intimate partner relationships. If we talk about it at all, we try to have our communities and our criminal justice system understand that most women who use force have been the victim of (again unique language) coercive control.

So, maybe instead of terms like batterers, abusers, and persons who cause harm, we should simply understand batterers, abusers, and persons who cause harm as bullies. No one is surprised to hear that a shooter has a history of having been bullied. That fact doesn’t excuse him. It does prompt the community to understand the dynamics and aftermath of bullying – even inspires efforts to prevent it.

Abuse of an intimate partner is unique from other violence. And we should never stop trying to explain how and why it is different because we won’t “fix it” until we recognize the unique dynamics of gender-based and relationship-based abuse. Nevertheless, maybe we should build on the language people already know and understand about bullying.

I do not condone women’s use of force against an intimate partner. Though perhaps if we understand it as a reaction to bullying, we might come together to stop blaming women. And until we get that point across, I intend to use the known language as well as the more appropriate unique language. I’ll say, let’s talk about domestic violence and abuse, about perpetrators and people who cause harm, and let’s talk about bullies in intimate partner relationships.