Femicide in press

A Matter of Linguistic Sensitivity

Language — and the way we talk about violence against women and femicide — matters. Behind language stand concrete images that help the listener or reader make sense of the world: assign roles, connect causes and effects, apply rules, and interpret events.
The language of law, and the way we speak about criminal phenomena such as femicide, requires an additional degree of sensitivity.

As Judith Butler wrote, language has a performative function. It shapes reality, scripts social roles and responses, but it also mercilessly categorizes people.
One of the missions of this project is to raise awareness of how deeply the language used to describe femicide in the public sphere influences our understanding of it — both through naming gender-based killings of women for what they are, femicides, and by being mindful of the words used to refer to perpetrators, victims, and their loved ones.

I deliberately avoid terms such as “beast” or “victim”, as neither truly captures the complexity of femicide. Calling perpetrators beasts reinforces the belief that only a monstrous, emotionless stranger could commit such a crime.
Yet, as data from the Polish Femicide Map shows, most femicides are committed by men well known to the victim — partners, ex-partners, or relatives — driven by strong stimulus (“triggers”) and acting intentionally.

Similarly, I refrain from using the term victim. The word evokes an image from a nature documentary — a predator chasing down an antelope. None of the women killed deserve to be placed in such a category.

Having worked for years in the field of gender-based violence prevention, I have seen that those affected by violence often strive to move beyond the “victim role” to regain agency and control over their lives. We should not take that away from them — even posthumously, when they have lost their lives to violence. Respect for their memory requires a different kind of language.

Polish lawmakers have already taken a step forward by introducing the terms “person using violence” and “person experiencing violence” in legal definitions of domestic abuse. Why not go further and move beyond the beast–victim paradigm altogether?

To reach the law, however, we must start with everyday language — the words ordinary people use when they talk about femicide, and the way the media describe it.

How is femicide currently portrayed in Polish journalism? And is the language truly factual, neutral, and free of stereotypes and judgment?

Language — and the way we talk about violence against women and femicide — matters. Behind language stand concrete images that help the listener or reader make sense of the world: assign roles, connect causes and effects, apply rules, and interpret events.
The language of law, and the way we speak about criminal phenomena such as femicide, requires an additional degree of sensitivity.

As Judith Butler wrote, language has a performative function. It shapes reality, scripts social roles and responses, but it also mercilessly categorizes people.

One of the missions of this project is to raise awareness of how deeply the language used to describe femicide in the public sphere influences our understanding of it — both through naming gender-based killings of women for what they are, femicides, and by being mindful of the words used to refer to perpetrators, victims, and their loved ones.

I deliberately avoid terms such as “beast” or “victim”, as neither truly captures the complexity of femicide. Calling perpetrators beasts reinforces the belief that only a monstrous, emotionless stranger could commit such a crime.

Yet, as data from the Polish Femicide Map shows, most femicides are committed by men well known to the victim — partners, ex-partners, or relatives — driven by strong stimulus (“triggers”) and acting intentionally.

Similarly, I refrain from using the term victim. The word evokes an image from a nature documentary — a predator chasing down an antelope. None of the women killed deserve to be placed in such a category.

Having worked for years in the field of gender-based violence prevention, I have seen that those affected by violence often strive to move beyond the “victim role” to regain agency and control over their lives. We should not take that away from them — even posthumously, when they have lost their lives to violence. Respect for their memory requires a different kind of language.

Polish lawmakers have already taken a step forward by introducing the terms “person using violence” and “person experiencing violence” in legal definitions of domestic abuse. Why not go further and move beyond the beast–victim paradigm altogether?

To reach the law, however, we must start with everyday language — the words ordinary people use when they talk about femicide, and the way the media describe it.

How is femicide currently portrayed in Polish journalism? And is the language truly factual, neutral, and free of stereotypes and judgment?

The forthcoming report “Femicide in the Polish Press (2017–2023)” offers an in-depth examination of journalistic discourse, highlighting best practices and recurring shortcomings in the coverage of femicide and violence against women in Poland.

Below are selected examples from press coverage of femicide in Poland.

Ten strach. Mężczyźni boją się, że kobiety będą się z nich śmiać. Kobiety boją się, że mężczyźni je zabiją

Margaret Atwood