Leaving violent men: A study of women’s experiences of separation in Victoria, Australia
| Author | Danielle Tyson,Crystal Bruton |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865817746711 |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Leaving violent men: A study
of women’s experiences of
separation in Victoria, Australia
Crystal Bruton
Independent researcher
Danielle Tyson
Deakin University, Australia
Abstract
Despite decades of feminist efforts to educate the community about, and improve responses
to, domestic violence, public attitudes towards domestic violence continue to misunderstand
women’s experiences of violence. Underlying such responses is the stock standard question,
‘Why doesn’t she leave?’ This question points to a lack of understanding about the impacts
and threat of violence from an abusive partner on women’sdecisions to leave the relationship.
Moreover, it places sole responsibility for ending the relationship squarely upon women,
assuming women are presented with numerous opportunities to leave a violent relationship
and erroneously assumes the violence will cease once they do leave. This study explores
women’s experiences of separating from an abusive, male partner through women’s narra-
tives (n ¼12) in Victoria, Australia. Findings reveal that fear was a complex influencing factor
impacting upon women’s decision-making throughout the leaving process. The findings show
that women seek to exercise agency within the context of their abusers’ coercively control-
ling tactics by strategically attempting to manage the constraints placed on their decision-
making and partner’s repeated attempts to reassert dominance and control.
Keywords
Agency, coercive control, domestic violence, separation, women
Date received: 24 June 2016; accepted: 13 November 2017
Introduction
International research on family violence has consistently found actual or pending sep-
aration to be associated with an increased risk for domestic and lethal violence towards
women and their children (Brownridge, 2006; Brownridge et al., 2008a, 2008b; Easteal,
1993; Johnson & Hotton, 2003; Mouzos, 2000). It is well established that the risk of
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2018, Vol. 51(3) 339–354
!The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865817746711
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Corresponding author:
Crystal Bruton, Independent researcher, Victoria, Australia.
Email: cbruton85@gmail.com
intimate partner violence escalates when the perpetrator realises that his partner wants to
leave, has left and/or will not return to the relationship (Brownridge, 2006; Hotton, 2001;
Humphreys & Thiara, 2003). It is also well understood that physical violence often starts
during the separation period, even where there has been no history of physical violence in
the relationship. The Victorian Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Framework – referred to as the Common Risk Assessment Framework – which was
launched by the Department of Human Services (DHS) in 2007, recognises separation
as a key risk factor for lethal violence (DHS, 2012). The Royal Commission into Family
Violence (RCFV) also recently acknowledged that violence after separation can include
financial abuse which is often a tactic used by abusive male partners to control their
partners during the separation period and afterwards, which can not only have long-
term impacts on survivor’s economic capacity, but fear of financial consequences can
lead women to remain within the relationship or return to it (RCFV, 2016, p. 21). For
many women, it is safer to stay within a violent relationship than to leave.
Despite the overwhelming evidence identifying the risks associated with separation,
public attitudes still reflect a failure to adequately understand the challenges women face
when separating from a violent, male partner. Findings from the National Community
Attitudes towards Violence Against Women Survey, conducted in 2013, show that just
over half of the 17,517 respondents agreed with the statement that ‘most women could
leave a violent relationship if they really wanted to’, while 78% of respondents agreed
‘it’s hard to understand why women stay’ (VicHealth, 2014, p. 12).
Such popular narratives reflect expectations about how women should b ehave within
these circumstances. Overwhelmingly, women are expected to exercise agency by leaving
or else they are thought to lack agency if they choose to remain wit hin or return to a
violent relationship (Lloyd, Emery, & Klatt, 2009, p. 265). These expectations place the
responsibility for ending the violence solely with the woman, and falsely assume that
women have plenty of opportunities to leave, it is just that they simply refuse to take
them and, that if they did leave, the violence will cease upon separation. Consequently,
such attitudes blame women for the abuse that is perpetrated against them.
In an effort to dislodge the unhelpful attitudes underpinning the stock standard ques-
tion, ‘Why doesn’t she leave?’, recent research has sought to move beyond the stay/leave
binary and develop an understanding of ‘the complex decision-making process of women
affected by [intimate partner violence] IPV’ (Meyer, 2012, p. 181; see also Lindgren &
Renck, 2008; Meyer, 2016). This study builds on the existing research on intimate part-
ner violence and the leaving process through an analysis of 12 in-depth, semi-structured
interviews with women who have separated from an abusive, intimate male partner in
Victoria, Australia. The aim of the present study is, within the Australian context, to
increase understanding of the complexity of women’s decision-making and agency
during the leaving process as influenced by cognitive and behavioural processes, but
also shaped by gendered power and coercive control throughout the relationship,
which often escalates following separation.
Literature review
A significant body of work has focused on the need to understand separation as a complex
process involving multiple decisions and actions over time (Enander, 2008; Enander &
340 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 51(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial