No abstract

This article describes domestic violence as a key context of online misogyny, foregrounding the role of digital media in mediating, coordinating, and regulating it; and proposing an agenda for future research. Scholars and anti-violence advocates have documented the ways digital media exacerbate existing patterns of gendered violence and introduce new modes of abuse, a trend highlighted by this special issue. We propose the term "technology facilitated coercive control" (TFCC) to encompass the technological and relational aspects of patterns of abuse against intimate partners. Our definition of TFCC is grounded in the understanding of domestic violence (DV) as coercive, controlling, and profoundly contextualised in relationship dynamics, cultural norms, and structural inequality. We situate TFCC within the multiple affordances and modes of governance of digital media platforms for amplifying and ameliorating abuse. In addition to investigating TFCC, scholars are beginning to document the ways platforms can engender countermisogynistic discourse, and are powerful actors for positive change via the regulation and governance of online abuse. Accordingly, we propose four key directions for a TFCC research agenda that recognises and asks new questions about the role of digital media platforms as both facilitators of abuse and potential partners in TFCC prevention and intervention.

Resistance to efforts to advance gender equality is a common feature of social life, whether in workplaces and other organisations or elsewhere. In this article, we review the typical character, dynamics of and contexts for resistance to gender equality measures. Resistance is an inevitable, although undesirable, response to efforts at progressive social change. Backlash and resistance to gender equality take common forms including: denial of the problem, disavowal of responsibility, inaction, appeasement, co-option and repression. Resistance may be individual or collective, formal or informal. Pushback against gender equality measures comes more often from members of the privileged group (men) than the disadvantaged group (women). Resistance is a predictable expression of the defence of institutionalised privilege, but it is also shaped by widespread discourses on "sex roles" and "post-feminism," the methods adopted to advance gender equality and the contexts in which they take place. Understanding the character and dynamics of resistance and backlash is vital for preventing and reducing them.backlash, feminism, gender, masculinity, privilege | INTRODUCTIONEfforts to make progress toward gender inequality and end men's violence against women typically meet resistance, both individual and collective, formal and informal. Backlashresistance against progressive social changeis a common feature of the social world. When patterns of inequality and injustice shift, individuals and groups, particularly those advantaged by the status quo, resist. In this article, we explore the character and origins of resistance and backlash to

Domestic violence is a pervasive social problem in Australia. Digital media are increasingly integral to its dynamics. Technology-facilitated coercive control (TFCC) is a form of gender-based violence. This article examines domestic violence survivors’ experiences with TFCC, drawing on interviews with 20 Australian women. Study results enhance understanding of how abusers use digital media. We highlight four key contexts for understanding the role of technology in domestic violence: the coercive and controlling relationship, separation abuse, co-parenting and survivors’ safety work. These contexts provide insight into the dynamics of TFCC and illuminate key differences between this and other forms of online abuse.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Technology is integral to coercive control.</li><br /><li>Separation and co-parenting are key sites of technology-facilitated coercive control.</li><br /><li>Survivors manage technology-facilitated abuse in the absence of adequate responses and support.</li></ul>

This chapter challenges the “common sense” notion that it is essential for a couple to be living apart to be considered separated or divorced. In making this challenge, the authors make the case for a broad, gender-specific definition of separation/divorce violence, one that includes acts of physical violence and psychological means of victimization.