CCJ334 Assessment 1: Written assessment

Name -

ID

Introduction

The course readings have greatly defined domestic and family violence (DFV) as a patterned system of coercive control, as opposed to individual occasions of conflict, exemplified by Bancroft (2022) and the Duluth Power and Control Wheel (Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, 2015). These trends are not evenly spread out; rather, DFV presents itself differently among gender, sexuality, and Indigenous status. This essay outlines three significant differences in DFV by sex, how it changes when members of the LGBTIQ+ community and the Indigenous communities are involved, and the importance of ensuring that these variations are acknowledged to effectively prevent them. It is based on the required assessment standards and, therefore, using only the assigned course readings, the discussion explains how gendered and structural dynamics determine the experiences of victims and tactics of perpetrators.

Sex differences in domestic violence

It displays the fact that DFV is gendered, and there are distinct differences in the ways men and women become victims and perpetrators of abuse. Instead of implying gender symmetry, the literature focuses on highlighting that patterned coercive control is overwhelmingly exercised by men, and most of the woes of current patterns befall women.

A. Mode of Coercive control vs. Situational conflict

The work by Bancroft reveals that the strategies of continued control by male perpetrators are often based on the principles of entitlement and intimidation (Bancroft, 2022). Such strategies are consistent with the Duluth Power and Control Wheel, which is based on the experiences of women about the systematic pressure exerted by male partners (Domestic ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS, 2017). This trend is supported by the accounts provided by AIHW (2019): women are more likely to be targeted with fear, persistent intimidation, injury, and sexual violence in intimate relationships (pp. 817). In comparison, male victims are more subject to situational conflict- episodic conflicts that are not usually stable or controlled throughout time, as often seen in male-to-female abuse. This difference is fundamental to the way coercive control heavily impacts women and orients the relations of danger and damage (Bancroft, 2022).

B. Difference between lethality and fatalities

Data on lethality in the Domestic Violence Death Review Board report also points out the gendered nature of DFV. Violence against women by men justifies the immeasurable proportion of intimate partner homicides, such as those that result in the use of weaponry and an increasing trend of behaviour. Females are at a much greater risk of being murdered by a current or former partner, and the situation is very rare with males, who usually do not experience lethal coercive control. Bancroft identifies the systems of male abuse, especially entitlement, justification, and manipulation, to further complicate and prolong the effects on the victims.

C. Effects on Children and Family Systems

The Son and Daughter differences can also be manifested in their children's effects. The chapter on abusive fathers, authored by Bancroft, provides the concept of how men who engage DFV tend to belittle their mothers, have authoritarian influence on children, and carry on with their influence even after the separation (Bancroft, 2022). Katz (2016) holds the opinion that children are not only hurt by physical violence but also experience the effects of coercive control as a continued family atmosphere (pp.46-59). Women, being the main caregivers, have higher chances of escaping violence along with their children, whereas male child abusers often use the post-separation control, which is represented in the post-separation Power Control Wheel (Domestic ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS, 2017).

Transition: These sex-based disparities do not exist equally across the board; bodily sexuality and Indigeneity precondition the forms of violence experienced and response.

The Relationship between Sex Differences, Sexuality, and Indigenous Status.

A. Sexuality: LGBTIQ+ Differences

The results of Private Lives 3 (Hill et al., 2021) and Whiting (2007) suggest that coercive control is also used in same-sex and gender-different relationships, but not in heterosexual patterns. Abuse can occur using identity-focused strategies like threats of outing, using social isolation of small populations, or using internalised stigma. Such identity-directed forms of abuse include threats of identity-exposure, taking advantage of social isolation in small groups,

or exploitation of internalised stigma (Hill et al., 2020, pp. 7077). Whiting (2007), emphasizes that hegemonic beliefs, especially the idea that DFV is mostly perpetrated by men and experienced by women, contribute to the services ignoring the problem of abuse in LGBTIQ+ relationships. These strategies produce distinct gaps that cannot be reflected in standard gendered accounts. Both coercive control and sexual violence may be perpetrated upon LGBTIQ+ men, and they lack the means to disclose because of societal masculinity expectations and stigma.

Hill et al. (2020) also describe that minority stress, which entails discrimination and exclusion, has a crossover with intimate partner abuse. Homophobia and transphobia can also be used as a form of coercion by the perpetrators, which can further intensify the psychological effects and make it harder to seek help.

B. Indigenous Status: Colonization, Racism, and Overrepresentation

The chapters of the Commission of Inquiry (2022) and Healing Foundation (2018), the video of the Healing Foundation demonstrate that the structural and historical factors are reflected in the experiences of Indigenous peoples. History and present-day dispossession, colonisation, and generational trauma establish a condition of increased vulnerability to DFV as well as difficulties in responding to it (Healing Foundation, 2018). Indeed, persistent under-protection of Indigenous women and over-police on Indigenous males are misleading the acknowledgment of gendered formations of violence (Commission of Inquiry, 2022, pp. 210236). Systemic racism in policing was identified by the Commission of Inquiry: Indigenous women are often doubted, mistakenly depicted as offenders, or criminalized when they need help (pp. 210236). Such failures hide the conflict of coercive control that is gender based in the course readings.

The video by the Healing Foundation (2018) shows how intergenerational trauma impacts family relations and community welfare. Even though there are sex differences, and indigenous women are over-represented in terms of victimisation, their experiences are all entrenched within mainstream mechanisms of structural oppression that define risk, safety, and access to support.

Transition: It is imperative to learn about these stratified differences to develop culturally safe, sexual, and gender responsive prevention strategies.

Why these differences are important to prevention

An explanation of gender disparities in domestic and family violence is vital in coming up with prevention measures that curb the real causes of the injury. According to the course readings, the issue of prevention should first challenge the gendered belief systems that reinforce coercive control (Bancroft, 2022). Bancroft points out that entitlement, justification, and denial of abusive men must be confronted directly; gender-neutral strategies cannot work because they are based on ignoring the patterned control that women are more likely to be victims of and adopt DFV as a conflict that is mutual.

Prevention strategies should also acknowledge the unique dynamics in LGBTIQ+ relations. Services must recognize coercion in the forms of identification, like outing threats, playing the stigma card, or the heteronormative effects of policing and the reaction of support. Their lack of attention to these dynamics puts LGBTIQ+ victims out of sight and service s(Hill et al., 2020, pp. 7077; Whiting, 2007). Prevention messages must be sensitive to the different relationships to be able to address all the victims so that they, too, can recognize abuse and seek help.

For Indigenous communities, prevention should be culturally based and indigenous controlled. The Commission of Inquiry (2022) points out that racism in policing, insufficient cultural awareness, and a weak level of safeguarding Indigenous women erode the security and confidence in the systems (pp. 210236). Social-level, trauma-related preventative measures should then be discussed as the key to tackling the painful history of colonisation and intergenerational trauma (Healing Foundation, 2018).

Lastly, the correct identification of the perpetrator pattern is important. The Power and Control Wheel, the post-separation wheel, and the Danger Assessment are tools that can help a practitioner to differentiate between coercive control and situational conflict (Campbell, 2019). Prevention can best be done by reflecting lived realities and answering the risks that different groups run.

Conclusion

There are three major patterns in which domestic and family violence is sex differentiated: the prevalence of coercive forms of control, the increased severity and lethality that women are exposed to, and the specific effects of child victims in abusive family contexts. Sexuality and Indigenous status further interact to form these differences, in which identity-based coercion, discrimination, and systemic racism compound vulnerabilities and restrict access to safety. The best forms of prevention should thus be gender-sensitive, culturally sensitive, and incorporate different sexualities. It is crucial to identify actual violence trends, instead of gender-neutral supposition, to develop prevention models that will decrease violence and support long-term safety.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2025). Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/

Bancroft. (2022). Understanding Domestic and Family Violence - 3034CCJ.

Campbell, J. (2019). DANGER ASSESSMENT. https://www.niwrc.org/sites/default/files/DV and LE Collection/DA_NewScoring_2019.pdf

Commission of Inquiry. (2022). A CALL FOR CHANGE Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence REPORT. https://www.qpsdfvinquiry.qld.gov.au/about/assets/commission-of-inquiry-dpsdfv-report.pdf

Domestic ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS. (2017). Post Separation Power and Control Wheel. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2017/03/Using-Children-Wheel.pdf

Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. (2015). Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/

Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board. (2021). Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board. (2021). Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board 2020-2021 Annual Report (pp. 13, 2232).

Healing Foundation. (2018). Intergenerational trauma (video). In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/

Helen.morgan. (2023, April 25). Writing themselves in 4: The health and wellbeing of LGBTQA+ young people in Australia. Transforming Families. https://transformingfamilies.org.au/research/youth-mental-health-wellbeing-research/writing-themselves-in-4-the-health-and-wellbeing-of-lgbtqa-young-people-in-australia/

Hill, A., Lyons, A., Jones, J., Mcgowan, I., Carman, M., Parsons, M., Power, J., & Bourne, A. (2021). Writing themselves in 4: THE HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF LGBTQA+ YOUNG PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA. Writing Themselves in 4, 4. https://doi.org/10.26181/6010fad9b244b

Katz, E. (2016). Beyond the Physical Incident Model: How Children Living with Domestic Violence are Harmed by and Resist Regimes of Coercive Control. Child Abuse Review, 25(1), 4659. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2422

Whiting, N. (2007). A contradiction in terms? A gendered analysis & same sex domestic abuse.