June 17, 2024 • 32 mins
Can changing just a few words really alter our entire perception of gender-based violence? In this compelling conversation with social scientist Erica Olson, we uncover the profound impact of language on how we understand and address this pervasive issue. We explore the encoding and decoding process of communication, highlighting the importance of precise word choice in shaping public opinion, policy, and the identities of those affected. We analyze the implications of terms like "victim" versus "survivor" and their influence on both societal attitudes and legal frameworks. Erica brings invaluable insight into why person-first language matters and how it can transform the way we support and advocate for people facing intimate partner violence.
Our discussion takes a deep dive into the sinister world of intimate partner terrorism, where abusers manipulate language and gestures to exert control and instill fear. Erica shares poignant examples that reveal how these subtle forms of communication often fly under the radar, misunderstood by those outside the abusive relationship. We examine societal narratives that inadvertently shift focus away from perpetrators, emphasizing the urgent need to adopt active language that holds abusers accountable. By reframing our conversations around violence and sexual assault, we aim to foster better understanding and mobilize communities in the fight against gender-based violence. This episode is a must-listen for anyone committed to making a difference through the power of words.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We're recording at the 2024 Conference on Crimes
Against Women in Dallas, texas.
My guest is consultant EricaOlson, on the topic of how we
talk about gender-based violence.
I'm Maria McMullin and this isGenesis, the podcast how we talk
(00:39):
about gender-based violence iscritical to helping victims feel
believed, supported and heard,but the language of those
conversations is shifting and attimes feels confusing or
cumbersome.
Here to sort through thedialogue is social scientist
Erica Olson, the chief operatingofficer for Respond Against
Violence, a nonprofit dedicatedto reducing systemic secondary
(01:00):
trauma for victims ofgender-based violence, and
founder of Anasa Consulting,which provides subject matter
expertise and technicalassistance on violence against
women and girls andtrauma-informed leadership and
practice.
Ms Olson is the former directorof the New Jersey Domestic
Violence, fatality and NearFatality Review Board and has
(01:20):
co-authored curricula, policy,regulations andation.
She holds master's degrees insocial service and law and
social policy.
Erica Olson, welcome to thepodcast.
Thank you, I really appreciatebeing here.
Okay, so we're here today tobasically have a dialogue about
the dialogue, in particular thedialogue surrounding
(01:42):
gender-based violence and theterms or labels used within it.
You've told me previously, justoffline conversation what we
say shapes how we think.
Let's expand on that idea in ageneral way for a minute so we
can understand how our wordsmake up what become our opinions
and possibly our passions andprejudices.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
You know, communication itself is a
process that language is justone piece of.
And the way that communicationworks is you have a source and
you have a receiver, you know,and those are two people, and
when we use language, that's oneway that we're trying to convey
information, but even thesource encodes what it is.
We're trying to conveyinformation, but even the source
(02:26):
encodes what it is they'retrying to share with somebody,
and lots of things impact that.
Just in thinking about language, it's what language do you
speak?
Is it your first language?
Is it your second language?
And then it goes through thischannel.
So for language, it's eitherspeaking or it's writing, and
then it has to be received bythe other person.
(02:48):
Right now I'm using my wordscarefully, I'm very cognizant,
I'm trying to sort of encode howto answer your question.
As I understood it, you're areceiver and so on your end,
you're going to try to decodewhat it is I've just said to you
, and then, once you decode it,you're going to try to decode
what it is I've just said to youand then, once you decode it,
you're going to have a meaning.
(03:09):
Whatever I've said doesn'tnecessarily mean you're going to
have that same meaning, and sothat's how language and
communication works and I thinka really great example of that
in terms of language and how itshapes how we think and what we
do.
I think I often use the exampleof swimming.
Right, if I were to say to yousomeone was swimming, you have
(03:34):
an idea in your head of whatthat means, right?
But it's essential to that isthat they are breathing, that
they are conscious, right?
What I don't say is that shewas swimming while not breathing
.
For what word?
What word do I?
What I really use there?
Drowning, right, and so you getdifferent visions, right?
(03:55):
It really language is just sopowerful in that way in general.
You know, lira Boroditsky outof UCSD has a lot to say about
this, I think.
Another good example as labels,as identity.
You know, you and I have talkeda little bit before about how
person first language.
Is someone a psychopath or arethey diagnosed with psychopathy
(04:17):
as an illness?
Is someone disabled or do theyhave a disability?
And so I think that's kind of ageneral way that language
really shapes how we think andhow we act.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Yeah, and I'm a little bit familiar with some of
these ideas that you're kind oflaying out for us to consider
what lens we're going to usewhen we're thinking about some
of the terms that we're about todiscuss, and also just general
conversation or trying tointerpret information or form
(04:51):
opinions and so people, firstlanguage for people who don't
know what that is.
That was really.
I believe it was kind ofdevised or promoted by the ADA
right.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Yeah, I think it was part of a campaign.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
And so instead of saying blind people, we might
say people who are blind, but wemight also ask the person who
is blind how they would like tobe referred.
Do we even need to bring thatup?
So it's all about aconversation about you know how
an individual identifies withwhatever situation or
(05:31):
circumstances that they have,and then how they want to be
addressed, or not, are they onlythat thing?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Is that all?
Speaker 1 (05:43):
that they are.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
And is that who they are, or is it an experience or a
part of their life or somethingthat is attributive to them but
not the wholeness of who theyare?
And I think that's wherelanguage, particularly with
gender and with violence againstwomen there's a lot of back and
(06:05):
forth about victim and survivorand who gets to choose.
And you know, connotations arereally really important on a lot
of different aspects, and Ithink you know, beyond just
being able to decide who youidentify, as I think it's broad,
I think that the language thatwe use impacts connotations.
(06:26):
I think it impacts policy.
I think it impacts how thelegal system operates and
whether or not it takes violentcrimes between intimate or
ex-intimate partners seriously,if it's even worthy of policy or
sentencing or thought.
I think maybe a good example iswe call it domestic violence.
(06:46):
Right, but domestic, you know,particularly in the United
States I think elsewhere as well, but I don't want to swim too
far out of my lane but domesticimplies private, and for a long
time, domestic violence orintimate partner violence was
not a crime in the United States, and so in order for it to be
(07:06):
even considered criminal, ittook such a long time, and I
think a part of that is becausethe domestic sphere is seen as
private, it's seen as sacred.
It's also gendered.
Who stays in the home andhistorically in the United
States that's been women.
And that work that caretakingwork, that cooking, the cleaning
(07:30):
, the child rearing is unpaid,it's undervalued and it's really
seen as lesser than.
And I think all of those thingsmatter Because now, as the
movement has evolved and hasthis issue has evolved.
Newer terms are coming up right, newer language.
So we're using language likeviolence against women, violence
(07:51):
against women and girls.
We might use intimate partnerviolence, intimate partner abuse
, and so the language isevolving as we understand not
only the reality of domestic andsexual violence and its
different components, but as weunderstand that our language
really impacts how we treat itas a society and within our
(08:15):
multiple systems.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
So, going back to the beginning, what we say shapes
how we think, right?
So that is part of the reasonwhy language, specifically on
these topics not looking at alllanguage, but specifically here
is shifting because many womenwho find themselves in abusive
(08:37):
relationships maybe don't seethemselves as a battered woman,
which is a term, a very old term, that really only went out of
use maybe a few decades ago.
But the battered women'smovement from the, I guess, the
70s here in the United States.
Lenore Walker.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Battered women's syndrome was a syndrome.
Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Yes, but so we've, we've evolved beyond that, and
so women who have theseexperiences and you and I have
even talked about the wordexperiences like is that really?
What is she experienced?
It Like the weather?
Women who are in this situationmay not want to be called
(09:24):
battered or may not even see itthat way.
So let's talk about those termsa little bit the term battered
woman, victim, survivor, and soon.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Well, I think number one language is shaped by a lot
of things, including whatevertime period you're in, and it's
shaped by norms, but it's alsocircular, right, this isn't
linear or a one-way street.
Language shapes andnon-language are external
environments in turn also shapedlanguage.
But I think you know, whenyou're trying to define
(09:59):
something, I think what's reallyimportant is who gets to define
it, who gets to make up thatdefinition?
And then I also think what'sreally important is what's the
purpose, what is it you'retrying to capture and what are
you trying to convey?
So, in the 1970s, when thewomen's movement, and in
(10:19):
particular the battered women'smovement, was really trying to
raise the importance and theseriousness and to really raise
awareness of the real impact offill in the blank, intimate
partner abuse, domestic violenceor battering, I think that they
chose language that at the time, was both reflective of their
(10:39):
time, but that was alsostrategic, because one of their
aims was to get this type ofabuse, this type of violence, to
be taken seriously, right?
So how does one talk aboutinterpersonal violence?
That's different than violencebetween strangers, because
(11:00):
violence between strangers wasillegal, right, and I shouldn't
say between I'm even going tocatch myself there Violence by
one person against anotherperson if they were strangers
was illegal.
Violence by one intimatepartner against another was not
illegal pledged or promised tocare for you or love you and has
(11:31):
no control over things likeyour finances and things like
that, whereas someone who ispledged to do all those things
has really broken a contract.
But because it was in thedomestic sphere, because it was
interrelational, it wasn'tconsidered a crime.
So at that time, advocates andallies were really trying to
pick language that woulddescribe something that they
(11:52):
felt really had the best chanceof getting it taken seriously,
of getting it covered as a crimewith remedies within the
judicial, both civil andcriminal systems, and so they
came up with, you know, batteredor abused.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
I have to admit it does get your attention, and if
that was part of the reason thatit was chosen, then it
certainly makes sense to me.
It just to your point, though,it's from a time period that
doesn't exactly align any longerwith how we view gender-based
violence and all the otherthings that are happening,
(12:28):
Because now it's not just quoteunquote wife beating, it is many
, many, many other things.
It perhaps always was.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
No, that's absolutely true and, again, that's why I
think what's the purpose of thelanguage?
Who is it serving?
So when we're talking about thecriminalization of intimate
partner violence against women,domestic violence, sexual
assault, then we're going to useterminology that fits within
(12:58):
that schema, fits within theactual legislation, because
that's what prosecutors arebound by, that's what law
enforcement is bound by.
It's a specific code withspecific terms and an act of
behavior has to meet those termsor not meet those terms in
order for a criminal or civillegal remedy to follow.
(13:23):
Stick to a legal definition.
If we only legalize ourlanguage and the broader
conversations and understanding,we have reduced abuse to a very
narrow thing that we arewilling to address or not
address.
There's financial abuse,there's emotional, there's
(13:45):
psychological, there's mentalabuse.
There's financial abuse,there's coercive control,
there's reproductive coerc.
There's psychological, there'smental abuse, there's financial
abuse.
There's coercive control,there's reproductive coercion.
There are a lot of behaviorsthat are on the continuum of
abusive and traumatic andharmful, that have both
incredible short-term andlong-term effects, that never
(14:06):
result in somebody laying a handon anybody else, right?
So I know Kit Gruelle oftenuses the term intimate partner
terrorism or intimate terrorismfor situations where the threat
of harm or murder is there, butthe abuser or the batterer or
the perpetrator never has tofollow through, or maybe does
(14:30):
something only once, whichreally signals then to his
partner I can go this far, don'tmake me go farther.
And they don't have to do that.
So one example that I think ishow abusers communicate with
their partners, their victims,and it's often not what most of
(14:50):
us would think of as a threat.
When we hear, oh, he threatenedme.
Or even if we're asking asurvivor, did he threaten you?
The language she uses, languagethat we use, may not invite
real understanding.
She might say no in aninterview.
So let's say that she's in apolice interview, or let's say
that she's working with acounselor and somebody is trying
(15:12):
to understand her level oflethality or her level of risk,
or what's even happening here,and somebody says did he
threaten me?
What does that mean to her?
On its face, it might seemsimple.
But what do you mean by threat?
And it's not just semantics.
And here's an example there wasa survivor and she was very
athletic.
And it's not just semantics.
And here's an example there was,there's a survivor, and she was
very athletic, and so she wason a sports league and she had
(15:35):
teammates and she was sleeveless.
You know she frequently wasdoing her sports sleeveless and
her husband would frequentlycome by or call her and check on
her and to everyone else itseemed romantic.
And as the weather got chillierhe would say don't forget your
sweater.
Or he'd look at her and he'dsay I'll be back to pick you up.
(15:57):
Do you want me to bring yoursweater?
Do you need me to bring yoursweater?
So language, just take thatlanguage.
Her teammates were like that'sso sweet.
They saw that as romantic.
They thought, oh, that's sosweet.
He wants you know, he's lookingout for her.
He wants to do some sweet thing.
Maybe she's going to get chillyafter a game.
She's all sweaty Eventually.
What she shared is that it was asignal because he surveyed
(16:21):
everything that she did,everything that she said, and he
was sort of getting thisfeeling like that she might
leave him or she might disclosethe abuse and he would always
grab her or shove her or throwher on her arms because she
could cover them up.
And so it became code, whichwas are you going to behave, are
you going to not say anythingor do I need to bring your
(16:46):
sweater?
Quote unquote.
That meant something incrediblydifferent to her.
That was a threat to her, andthat's how language can.
It's about connotation and it'sabout nuance, and it's about
who gets to define it, who getsto say what that meaning is.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Yeah, In that particular example it is so
subtle and it can only beunderstood by the two people who
are in that relationship.
Subtle and it can only beunderstood by the two people who
are in that relationship and itwould not be immediately clear
to anyone observing that thiscould be an abusive relationship
.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
No, there's an African proverb that I love and
it says I think it's the truetale of the lion hunt can never
be told as long as only thehunter tells the story.
Right Again, when we talk aboutlanguage, let's also talk about
, you know, narrative.
Again.
Who gets to define?
Who gets to name?
(17:38):
Who does that serve?
I think about this when we talkabout the agent in it.
So, for example, when we talkabout violence against women and
girls, we often focus on it tothem as if it's happened.
Right, like it's the way yousaid, like it's the weather.
Right, she doesn't go home andbump into his fist.
Right, she doesn't go home andbe told that she is a worthless,
(18:06):
disgusting, stupid, uselesspiece of garbage that will never
be anything.
It doesn't just happen to her.
But it's fascinating to me that,across systems, whether that's
the legal system, the medicalsystem, the public health system
, even in advocacy, incommunity-based nonprofits and
(18:29):
shelters, in funding agencies,across government, what do we
count?
We don't count the men whoabuse, the men who are violent.
We count abused women.
We might count the number oftimes an individual was abused.
We might count the number oftimes an individual was abused.
(18:51):
We might count the number ofwomen abused.
We might break it up into howmany women of color, how many
LGBTQ, but we're always countingthe recipient, we're not
counting the actors, and thatinfluences everything that
influences.
It's just insidious.
It's insidious in our fundinglanguage.
It's insidious in how we countthings.
(19:12):
The abuser has just becomeabsent.
And so I call that.
We normalize violence.
We naturalize it as if that'sjust the cost of being a woman.
It's just the thing.
A woman, it's just the thing.
But it's not inevitable, right?
But we have oh my gosh, there'sdecades of social science
(19:37):
research that shows thatdomestic violence, in particular
domestic violence, homicides,are predictable, they are
preventable, they are notinevitable.
And language impacts that,because we don't say husband
shoots wife, we say woman shot,and I know some people are a
little bit tired of it, and sosometimes I feel like analogies
(19:58):
can really help peopleunderstand.
And so we have to move frompassive to active, or we need to
move from what's calledagentive to non-agentive or no
causation.
And you and I joked about thereporting around Dick Cheney.
So the situation where therewas a lot of coverage about Dick
Cheney shooting a good friendon a hunting expedition and what
(20:22):
disappeared in a lot of thelanguage was both the actor and
the cause.
Those things are two, they'rereally related.
And so if we went down stairsteps, you could say Cheney shot
Whittington.
That's the most basic thing.
You could give descriptivelanguage how Dick Cheney
accidentally shot his bestfriend and hunting partner.
(20:45):
You could say Whittington gotshot by Cheney.
Other taglines say Whittingtongot shot by Chaney.
Other taglines were Whittingtongot shot while out hunting.
There's no actor.
You still have a little bit ofcausality, but you don't how.
Who's doing the shooting?
Another one I always likedWhittington was injured.
(21:06):
Okay, it's not that, it's nottrue.
Right, this is not about truth,but this is about conveying
someone's reality, the gravity,the impact, and I think my
favorite favorite one wassomething like Cheney flushed
out a mallard, fired a round andthen saw Whittington fall down.
(21:30):
You don't even have you don'treally have an actor or
causation.
There's no tie there.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
And so sometimes, well, it doesn't even say that
Whittington was shot, it justsays that.
I mean, you could infer thatperhaps, but it doesn't say it.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
That's exactly right, and so it doesn't connote the
impact of the action and itdoesn't connote who is doing it.
And the reason that that'simportant is because policy is
shaped by language, and themajority of the policies on
gender-based violence in theUnited States today are based on
(22:09):
fixing women.
Everything is based on the onusis on the victim, so services,
but she needs to move to ashelter, she needs to figure out
how to get daycare, she needsto figure out how she's going to
get a job.
Everything is about what she'sdoing.
That's not appropriate, norwill it actually solve the
(22:33):
problem.
You don't put the onus ofsolving the problem on the
people who are suffering andthey are the subjective receiver
of the problem.
You have to focus on the onesdoing the harm, definitely, and
you can't focus on them untilyou name who they are, who you
identify.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Let me ask you a couple of questions along those
lines.
So what would be the idealheadline for a woman who was
shot by her abusive husband?
Speaker 2 (22:57):
abusive husband shoots wife.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
Okay, so that's how we would say that.
And then let's go back to theexample of drowning, because you
said something interestingthere and I just want to kind of
like expand on it just a littlebit.
So drowning and strangulationare two ways that abusive
partners would murder their wifeor their victim, and they're
(23:24):
very often thought to be easy tocover up.
So let's talk about thelanguage around strangulation
and around drownings one moretime, so we can kind of really
understand the example that yougave about swimming while not
breathing.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Sure, I think that really comes into play not only
with asphyxiation, but I oftenuse it more in terms of sexual
assault.
So, for example, you don't sayconsensual sex versus
non-consensual sex.
I would never use that termnon-consensual sex because sex
(24:01):
is always consensual.
We can agree about whetherthere are gray areas or not gray
areas, but sex is alwaysconsensual.
Just like swimming, you arealways breathing.
There's never a time whenyou're swimming that you're not,
you are incapacitated and thatyou cannot breathe.
We call that drowning.
(24:21):
So I would say, for example, itgets reported as non-consensual
sex frequently, particularlywith date rape or marital rape.
It's not non-consensual sex,it's rape or it is sexual
assault, because sex is specific, just like swimming is specific
(24:41):
, and swimming always happenswhile you're breathing.
It doesn't happen when youdon't.
We have a word for that, and sothat's when I typically try to
use that example of swimming anddrowning versus consensual and
non-consensual sex.
It's really being able tounderstand sexual violence and
how we talk about it and howthat matters.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
And I think that those terms are.
You know they're some of theharder ones to hear and the
harder ones to say.
You and I have had severalconversations about the word
rape in particular, which issome people call it sexual
assault, sexual violence.
In some states rape means veryspecific things that may be
(25:21):
different in others, but thereality is that rape is a tough
word to say, it's a tough wordto hear and it's awful for the
victim.
But to your point, calling itnon-consensual sex really does
make it a lot easier for someoneto hear.
The term does not convey thesame level of horror or disgust
(25:43):
that the word rape does andshould when it is a terrible act
of sexual violence and thatgoes right back to the point of
the words battered woman areally hard term to hear and you
know exactly what it means whenyou hear it.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
And it's meant to right, because we feel that it's
important to convey howhorrible it is.
I think back to I think it wasBobby Knight, who was the
basketball coach, who saidsomething is like rape If it's
inevitable, just lay back andenjoy it.
(26:20):
But what he's mixing up is sexversus rape and it's chicken and
the egg Like.
We have a nasty reaction rightwhen we hear that.
A lot of people.
That's an awful thing to say,but it's awful because you have
an understanding and acomprehension of how awful rape
is.
If we use whitewashed language,if we use soft language because
(26:45):
we don't want to traumatize ouraudience or we think they can't
handle that language, then arewe doing a disservice.
Because now we're not educatingpeople in our churches and our
schools and our neighborhoodsand our society.
How bad rate it.
(27:05):
We don't convey the sheer terror, the horror and even like when
I apply for funding or I'm doingan educational training, I can
tick off the short and long-termeffects of sexual assault or
domestic violence.
I can talk about depression,anxiety, post-traumatic stress
(27:27):
disorder.
I can talk about GI and somaticissues, headaches, inflammation
, pain.
I can talk about the long-termeffects where survivors often
turn to substance abuse or theyhave an increased risk of
diabetes, heart conditions.
They end up having financialrepercussions.
(27:47):
They may not be able to hold ajob.
Even when I tick those off,it's 2024.
And even when I say them likethat, they become a checklist
Again.
They become what I callnaturalized, normalized.
Yeah, we know, we know.
Yeah, they have to go see atherapist.
Yeah, it's kind of depressing.
Yeah, they have a hard timeafter it is someone taking over
(28:10):
your body.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
So then, thinking back on just the past 30 minutes
of this conversation and all ofthe terms that we've tossed
around, how do people decidewhat words to use when talking
about these things?
Speaker 2 (28:24):
I think there are some words that have been hotly
debated, but what I would say isthat I think the right approach
to take is to figure out whatpeople want to be called.
Literally, it's giving themagency, and that's actually a
trauma-informed principle, sokind of like the Bechdel test
that we use for femalerepresentation in the film, I
(28:46):
think.
I think there's a framework,and so some survivors will want
to be called survivors, somevictims will want to be called
victims.
They'll want that because it'sfresh and it connotes what's
happening to them.
So I think the way to thinkabout language is unlike having
a dictionary with very specificterms.
What I would suggest is that Iwould sort of apply a sort of a
(29:10):
principled test based ontrauma-informed principles, and
that is, allow people to namethemselves whatever they want to
be when that's possible.
Ask them Just straight up.
Ask them what are you morecomfortable with?
Victim, survivor, somethingelse For those that are causing
harm again, that's really tricky.
(29:33):
And in the absence of, if you'rein a particular field where you
are constrained again, if we'retalking about, if you are
talking in a legal setting oryou need to be speaking to a
legal audience, then yes, youwould use perpetrator.
If you're working in acommunity setting, you might use
abuser, because it's not alwaysphysical, or you might use the
term person using harm.
(29:53):
That's more in the restorativejustice circles.
I think it was just alwaysimportant to talk about it again
, making sure that there is anagent and a cause.
Don't leave out who is doingthe harm and how they're doing
it, and I think, talking aboutit in ways that really reveals
the actual experience of avictim or survivor, that really
(30:15):
does connote the real harm anddamage and terror that these
people go through every day.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
Very smart ideas.
So, erica, thank you so muchfor being on the show and
talking with me today.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Thank you so much for having me.
I really appreciate it, Maria.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
Attention Spanish-speaking listeners.
Listen to the end of thispodcast for information on how
to reach a Spanish-speakingrepresentative of Genesis.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
Atención hispanohablantes escucha este
podcast hasta el final pararecibir información de cómo
comunicarse con el personal deGenesis en español.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
If you or someone you know is in an abusive
relationship, you can get helpor give help at
genesisshelterorg or by callingor texting our 24-7 crisis
hotline team at 214-946-HELP214-946-4357.
Bilingual services at Genesisinclude text, phone call,
(31:10):
clinical counseling, legalservices, advocacy and more.
Call or text us for moreinformation.
Donations to support women andchildren escaping domestic
violence are always needed.
Learn more at genesisshelterorgslash donate.
Thanks for joining us.
I'm reminding you always thatending domestic violence begins
(31:31):
when we believe her, génesis.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
El podcast anuncia servicios bilingües disponibles
en Génesis.
Women's Shelter y Support.
Shelter and support.
If you or a known person is inan abusive relationship, you can
receive help or give help atgenesisshelterorg or by calling
or sending a text message to our24-hour crisis line at
214-946-4357.
(31:58):
Genesis bilingual servicesinclude text messages, calls,
advice, legal services adviceand more.
Call us or send us a text formore information.
Donations are always needed tosupport women or children
escaping domestic violence.
Learn more at our website atgenesisshelterorg.
(32:23):
Thank you for joining us.
Remember that ending domesticviolence begins when we believe
in the victim.
Thank you.
We're recording at the 2024 Conference on Crimes
Against Women in Dallas, texas.
My guest is consultant EricaOlson, on the topic of how we
talk about gender-based violence.
I'm Maria McMullin and this isGenesis, the podcast how we talk
(00:39):
about gender-based violence iscritical to helping victims feel
believed, supported and heard,but the language of those
conversations is shifting and attimes feels confusing or
cumbersome.
Here to sort through thedialogue is social scientist
Erica Olson, the chief operatingofficer for Respond Against
Violence, a nonprofit dedicatedto reducing systemic secondary
(01:00):
trauma for victims ofgender-based violence, and
founder of Anasa Consulting,which provides subject matter
expertise and technicalassistance on violence against
women and girls andtrauma-informed leadership and
practice.
Ms Olson is the former directorof the New Jersey Domestic
Violence, fatality and NearFatality Review Board and has
(01:20):
co-authored curricula, policy,regulations andation.
She holds master's degrees insocial service and law and
social policy.
Erica Olson, welcome to thepodcast.
Thank you, I really appreciatebeing here.
Okay, so we're here today tobasically have a dialogue about
the dialogue, in particular thedialogue surrounding
(01:42):
gender-based violence and theterms or labels used within it.
You've told me previously, justoffline conversation what we
say shapes how we think.
Let's expand on that idea in ageneral way for a minute so we
can understand how our wordsmake up what become our opinions
and possibly our passions andprejudices.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
You know, communication itself is a
process that language is justone piece of.
And the way that communicationworks is you have a source and
you have a receiver, you know,and those are two people, and
when we use language, that's oneway that we're trying to convey
information, but even thesource encodes what it is.
We're trying to conveyinformation, but even the source
(02:26):
encodes what it is they'retrying to share with somebody,
and lots of things impact that.
Just in thinking about language, it's what language do you
speak?
Is it your first language?
Is it your second language?
And then it goes through thischannel.
So for language, it's eitherspeaking or it's writing, and
then it has to be received bythe other person.
(02:48):
Right now I'm using my wordscarefully, I'm very cognizant,
I'm trying to sort of encode howto answer your question.
As I understood it, you're areceiver and so on your end,
you're going to try to decodewhat it is I've just said to you
, and then, once you decode it,you're going to try to decode
what it is I've just said to youand then, once you decode it,
you're going to have a meaning.
(03:09):
Whatever I've said doesn'tnecessarily mean you're going to
have that same meaning, and sothat's how language and
communication works and I thinka really great example of that
in terms of language and how itshapes how we think and what we
do.
I think I often use the exampleof swimming.
Right, if I were to say to yousomeone was swimming, you have
(03:34):
an idea in your head of whatthat means, right?
But it's essential to that isthat they are breathing, that
they are conscious, right?
What I don't say is that shewas swimming while not breathing
.
For what word?
What word do I?
What I really use there?
Drowning, right, and so you getdifferent visions, right?
(03:55):
It really language is just sopowerful in that way in general.
You know, lira Boroditsky outof UCSD has a lot to say about
this, I think.
Another good example as labels,as identity.
You know, you and I have talkeda little bit before about how
person first language.
Is someone a psychopath or arethey diagnosed with psychopathy
(04:17):
as an illness?
Is someone disabled or do theyhave a disability?
And so I think that's kind of ageneral way that language
really shapes how we think andhow we act.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Yeah, and I'm a little bit familiar with some of
these ideas that you're kind oflaying out for us to consider
what lens we're going to usewhen we're thinking about some
of the terms that we're about todiscuss, and also just general
conversation or trying tointerpret information or form
(04:51):
opinions and so people, firstlanguage for people who don't
know what that is.
That was really.
I believe it was kind ofdevised or promoted by the ADA
right.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Yeah, I think it was part of a campaign.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
And so instead of saying blind people, we might
say people who are blind, but wemight also ask the person who
is blind how they would like tobe referred.
Do we even need to bring thatup?
So it's all about aconversation about you know how
an individual identifies withwhatever situation or
(05:31):
circumstances that they have,and then how they want to be
addressed, or not, are they onlythat thing?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Is that all?
Speaker 1 (05:43):
that they are.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
And is that who they are, or is it an experience or a
part of their life or somethingthat is attributive to them but
not the wholeness of who theyare?
And I think that's wherelanguage, particularly with
gender and with violence againstwomen there's a lot of back and
(06:05):
forth about victim and survivorand who gets to choose.
And you know, connotations arereally really important on a lot
of different aspects, and Ithink you know, beyond just
being able to decide who youidentify, as I think it's broad,
I think that the language thatwe use impacts connotations.
(06:26):
I think it impacts policy.
I think it impacts how thelegal system operates and
whether or not it takes violentcrimes between intimate or
ex-intimate partners seriously,if it's even worthy of policy or
sentencing or thought.
I think maybe a good example iswe call it domestic violence.
(06:46):
Right, but domestic, you know,particularly in the United
States I think elsewhere as well, but I don't want to swim too
far out of my lane but domesticimplies private, and for a long
time, domestic violence orintimate partner violence was
not a crime in the United States, and so in order for it to be
(07:06):
even considered criminal, ittook such a long time, and I
think a part of that is becausethe domestic sphere is seen as
private, it's seen as sacred.
It's also gendered.
Who stays in the home andhistorically in the United
States that's been women.
And that work that caretakingwork, that cooking, the cleaning
(07:30):
, the child rearing is unpaid,it's undervalued and it's really
seen as lesser than.
And I think all of those thingsmatter Because now, as the
movement has evolved and hasthis issue has evolved.
Newer terms are coming up right, newer language.
So we're using language likeviolence against women, violence
(07:51):
against women and girls.
We might use intimate partnerviolence, intimate partner abuse
, and so the language isevolving as we understand not
only the reality of domestic andsexual violence and its
different components, but as weunderstand that our language
really impacts how we treat itas a society and within our
(08:15):
multiple systems.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
So, going back to the beginning, what we say shapes
how we think, right?
So that is part of the reasonwhy language, specifically on
these topics not looking at alllanguage, but specifically here
is shifting because many womenwho find themselves in abusive
(08:37):
relationships maybe don't seethemselves as a battered woman,
which is a term, a very old term, that really only went out of
use maybe a few decades ago.
But the battered women'smovement from the, I guess, the
70s here in the United States.
Lenore Walker.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Battered women's syndrome was a syndrome.
Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Yes, but so we've, we've evolved beyond that, and
so women who have theseexperiences and you and I have
even talked about the wordexperiences like is that really?
What is she experienced?
It Like the weather?
Women who are in this situationmay not want to be called
(09:24):
battered or may not even see itthat way.
So let's talk about those termsa little bit the term battered
woman, victim, survivor, and soon.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Well, I think number one language is shaped by a lot
of things, including whatevertime period you're in, and it's
shaped by norms, but it's alsocircular, right, this isn't
linear or a one-way street.
Language shapes andnon-language are external
environments in turn also shapedlanguage.
But I think you know, whenyou're trying to define
(09:59):
something, I think what's reallyimportant is who gets to define
it, who gets to make up thatdefinition?
And then I also think what'sreally important is what's the
purpose, what is it you'retrying to capture and what are
you trying to convey?
So, in the 1970s, when thewomen's movement, and in
(10:19):
particular the battered women'smovement, was really trying to
raise the importance and theseriousness and to really raise
awareness of the real impact offill in the blank, intimate
partner abuse, domestic violenceor battering, I think that they
chose language that at the time, was both reflective of their
(10:39):
time, but that was alsostrategic, because one of their
aims was to get this type ofabuse, this type of violence, to
be taken seriously, right?
So how does one talk aboutinterpersonal violence?
That's different than violencebetween strangers, because
(11:00):
violence between strangers wasillegal, right, and I shouldn't
say between I'm even going tocatch myself there Violence by
one person against anotherperson if they were strangers
was illegal.
Violence by one intimatepartner against another was not
illegal pledged or promised tocare for you or love you and has
(11:31):
no control over things likeyour finances and things like
that, whereas someone who ispledged to do all those things
has really broken a contract.
But because it was in thedomestic sphere, because it was
interrelational, it wasn'tconsidered a crime.
So at that time, advocates andallies were really trying to
pick language that woulddescribe something that they
(11:52):
felt really had the best chanceof getting it taken seriously,
of getting it covered as a crimewith remedies within the
judicial, both civil andcriminal systems, and so they
came up with, you know, batteredor abused.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
I have to admit it does get your attention, and if
that was part of the reason thatit was chosen, then it
certainly makes sense to me.
It just to your point, though,it's from a time period that
doesn't exactly align any longerwith how we view gender-based
violence and all the otherthings that are happening,
(12:28):
Because now it's not just quoteunquote wife beating, it is many
, many, many other things.
It perhaps always was.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
No, that's absolutely true and, again, that's why I
think what's the purpose of thelanguage?
Who is it serving?
So when we're talking about thecriminalization of intimate
partner violence against women,domestic violence, sexual
assault, then we're going to useterminology that fits within
(12:58):
that schema, fits within theactual legislation, because
that's what prosecutors arebound by, that's what law
enforcement is bound by.
It's a specific code withspecific terms and an act of
behavior has to meet those termsor not meet those terms in
order for a criminal or civillegal remedy to follow.
(13:23):
Stick to a legal definition.
If we only legalize ourlanguage and the broader
conversations and understanding,we have reduced abuse to a very
narrow thing that we arewilling to address or not
address.
There's financial abuse,there's emotional, there's
(13:45):
psychological, there's mentalabuse.
There's financial abuse,there's coercive control,
there's reproductive coerc.
There's psychological, there'smental abuse, there's financial
abuse.
There's coercive control,there's reproductive coercion.
There are a lot of behaviorsthat are on the continuum of
abusive and traumatic andharmful, that have both
incredible short-term andlong-term effects, that never
(14:06):
result in somebody laying a handon anybody else, right?
So I know Kit Gruelle oftenuses the term intimate partner
terrorism or intimate terrorismfor situations where the threat
of harm or murder is there, butthe abuser or the batterer or
the perpetrator never has tofollow through, or maybe does
(14:30):
something only once, whichreally signals then to his
partner I can go this far, don'tmake me go farther.
And they don't have to do that.
So one example that I think ishow abusers communicate with
their partners, their victims,and it's often not what most of
(14:50):
us would think of as a threat.
When we hear, oh, he threatenedme.
Or even if we're asking asurvivor, did he threaten you?
The language she uses, languagethat we use, may not invite
real understanding.
She might say no in aninterview.
So let's say that she's in apolice interview, or let's say
that she's working with acounselor and somebody is trying
(15:12):
to understand her level oflethality or her level of risk,
or what's even happening here,and somebody says did he
threaten me?
What does that mean to her?
On its face, it might seemsimple.
But what do you mean by threat?
And it's not just semantics.
And here's an example there wasa survivor and she was very
athletic.
And it's not just semantics.
And here's an example there was,there's a survivor, and she was
very athletic, and so she wason a sports league and she had
(15:35):
teammates and she was sleeveless.
You know she frequently wasdoing her sports sleeveless and
her husband would frequentlycome by or call her and check on
her and to everyone else itseemed romantic.
And as the weather got chillierhe would say don't forget your
sweater.
Or he'd look at her and he'dsay I'll be back to pick you up.
(15:57):
Do you want me to bring yoursweater?
Do you need me to bring yoursweater?
So language, just take thatlanguage.
Her teammates were like that'sso sweet.
They saw that as romantic.
They thought, oh, that's sosweet.
He wants you know, he's lookingout for her.
He wants to do some sweet thing.
Maybe she's going to get chillyafter a game.
She's all sweaty Eventually.
What she shared is that it was asignal because he surveyed
(16:21):
everything that she did,everything that she said, and he
was sort of getting thisfeeling like that she might
leave him or she might disclosethe abuse and he would always
grab her or shove her or throwher on her arms because she
could cover them up.
And so it became code, whichwas are you going to behave, are
you going to not say anythingor do I need to bring your
(16:46):
sweater?
Quote unquote.
That meant something incrediblydifferent to her.
That was a threat to her, andthat's how language can.
It's about connotation and it'sabout nuance, and it's about
who gets to define it, who getsto say what that meaning is.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Yeah, In that particular example it is so
subtle and it can only beunderstood by the two people who
are in that relationship.
Subtle and it can only beunderstood by the two people who
are in that relationship and itwould not be immediately clear
to anyone observing that thiscould be an abusive relationship
.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
No, there's an African proverb that I love and
it says I think it's the truetale of the lion hunt can never
be told as long as only thehunter tells the story.
Right Again, when we talk aboutlanguage, let's also talk about
, you know, narrative.
Again.
Who gets to define?
Who gets to name?
(17:38):
Who does that serve?
I think about this when we talkabout the agent in it.
So, for example, when we talkabout violence against women and
girls, we often focus on it tothem as if it's happened.
Right, like it's the way yousaid, like it's the weather.
Right, she doesn't go home andbump into his fist.
Right, she doesn't go home andbe told that she is a worthless,
(18:06):
disgusting, stupid, uselesspiece of garbage that will never
be anything.
It doesn't just happen to her.
But it's fascinating to me that,across systems, whether that's
the legal system, the medicalsystem, the public health system
, even in advocacy, incommunity-based nonprofits and
(18:29):
shelters, in funding agencies,across government, what do we
count?
We don't count the men whoabuse, the men who are violent.
We count abused women.
We might count the number oftimes an individual was abused.
We might count the number oftimes an individual was abused.
(18:51):
We might count the number ofwomen abused.
We might break it up into howmany women of color, how many
LGBTQ, but we're always countingthe recipient, we're not
counting the actors, and thatinfluences everything that
influences.
It's just insidious.
It's insidious in our fundinglanguage.
It's insidious in how we countthings.
(19:12):
The abuser has just becomeabsent.
And so I call that.
We normalize violence.
We naturalize it as if that'sjust the cost of being a woman.
It's just the thing.
A woman, it's just the thing.
But it's not inevitable, right?
But we have oh my gosh, there'sdecades of social science
(19:37):
research that shows thatdomestic violence, in particular
domestic violence, homicides,are predictable, they are
preventable, they are notinevitable.
And language impacts that,because we don't say husband
shoots wife, we say woman shot,and I know some people are a
little bit tired of it, and sosometimes I feel like analogies
(19:58):
can really help peopleunderstand.
And so we have to move frompassive to active, or we need to
move from what's calledagentive to non-agentive or no
causation.
And you and I joked about thereporting around Dick Cheney.
So the situation where therewas a lot of coverage about Dick
Cheney shooting a good friendon a hunting expedition and what
(20:22):
disappeared in a lot of thelanguage was both the actor and
the cause.
Those things are two, they'rereally related.
And so if we went down stairsteps, you could say Cheney shot
Whittington.
That's the most basic thing.
You could give descriptivelanguage how Dick Cheney
accidentally shot his bestfriend and hunting partner.
(20:45):
You could say Whittington gotshot by Cheney.
Other taglines say Whittingtongot shot by Chaney.
Other taglines were Whittingtongot shot while out hunting.
There's no actor.
You still have a little bit ofcausality, but you don't how.
Who's doing the shooting?
Another one I always likedWhittington was injured.
(21:06):
Okay, it's not that, it's nottrue.
Right, this is not about truth,but this is about conveying
someone's reality, the gravity,the impact, and I think my
favorite favorite one wassomething like Cheney flushed
out a mallard, fired a round andthen saw Whittington fall down.
(21:30):
You don't even have you don'treally have an actor or
causation.
There's no tie there.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
And so sometimes, well, it doesn't even say that
Whittington was shot, it justsays that.
I mean, you could infer thatperhaps, but it doesn't say it.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
That's exactly right, and so it doesn't connote the
impact of the action and itdoesn't connote who is doing it.
And the reason that that'simportant is because policy is
shaped by language, and themajority of the policies on
gender-based violence in theUnited States today are based on
(22:09):
fixing women.
Everything is based on the onusis on the victim, so services,
but she needs to move to ashelter, she needs to figure out
how to get daycare, she needsto figure out how she's going to
get a job.
Everything is about what she'sdoing.
That's not appropriate, norwill it actually solve the
(22:33):
problem.
You don't put the onus ofsolving the problem on the
people who are suffering andthey are the subjective receiver
of the problem.
You have to focus on the onesdoing the harm, definitely, and
you can't focus on them untilyou name who they are, who you
identify.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Let me ask you a couple of questions along those
lines.
So what would be the idealheadline for a woman who was
shot by her abusive husband?
Speaker 2 (22:57):
abusive husband shoots wife.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
Okay, so that's how we would say that.
And then let's go back to theexample of drowning, because you
said something interestingthere and I just want to kind of
like expand on it just a littlebit.
So drowning and strangulationare two ways that abusive
partners would murder their wifeor their victim, and they're
(23:24):
very often thought to be easy tocover up.
So let's talk about thelanguage around strangulation
and around drownings one moretime, so we can kind of really
understand the example that yougave about swimming while not
breathing.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Sure, I think that really comes into play not only
with asphyxiation, but I oftenuse it more in terms of sexual
assault.
So, for example, you don't sayconsensual sex versus
non-consensual sex.
I would never use that termnon-consensual sex because sex
(24:01):
is always consensual.
We can agree about whetherthere are gray areas or not gray
areas, but sex is alwaysconsensual.
Just like swimming, you arealways breathing.
There's never a time whenyou're swimming that you're not,
you are incapacitated and thatyou cannot breathe.
We call that drowning.
(24:21):
So I would say, for example, itgets reported as non-consensual
sex frequently, particularlywith date rape or marital rape.
It's not non-consensual sex,it's rape or it is sexual
assault, because sex is specific, just like swimming is specific
(24:41):
, and swimming always happenswhile you're breathing.
It doesn't happen when youdon't.
We have a word for that, and sothat's when I typically try to
use that example of swimming anddrowning versus consensual and
non-consensual sex.
It's really being able tounderstand sexual violence and
how we talk about it and howthat matters.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
And I think that those terms are.
You know they're some of theharder ones to hear and the
harder ones to say.
You and I have had severalconversations about the word
rape in particular, which issome people call it sexual
assault, sexual violence.
In some states rape means veryspecific things that may be
(25:21):
different in others, but thereality is that rape is a tough
word to say, it's a tough wordto hear and it's awful for the
victim.
But to your point, calling itnon-consensual sex really does
make it a lot easier for someoneto hear.
The term does not convey thesame level of horror or disgust
(25:43):
that the word rape does andshould when it is a terrible act
of sexual violence and thatgoes right back to the point of
the words battered woman areally hard term to hear and you
know exactly what it means whenyou hear it.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
And it's meant to right, because we feel that it's
important to convey howhorrible it is.
I think back to I think it wasBobby Knight, who was the
basketball coach, who saidsomething is like rape If it's
inevitable, just lay back andenjoy it.
(26:20):
But what he's mixing up is sexversus rape and it's chicken and
the egg Like.
We have a nasty reaction rightwhen we hear that.
A lot of people.
That's an awful thing to say,but it's awful because you have
an understanding and acomprehension of how awful rape
is.
If we use whitewashed language,if we use soft language because
(26:45):
we don't want to traumatize ouraudience or we think they can't
handle that language, then arewe doing a disservice.
Because now we're not educatingpeople in our churches and our
schools and our neighborhoodsand our society.
How bad rate it.
(27:05):
We don't convey the sheer terror, the horror and even like when
I apply for funding or I'm doingan educational training, I can
tick off the short and long-termeffects of sexual assault or
domestic violence.
I can talk about depression,anxiety, post-traumatic stress
(27:27):
disorder.
I can talk about GI and somaticissues, headaches, inflammation
, pain.
I can talk about the long-termeffects where survivors often
turn to substance abuse or theyhave an increased risk of
diabetes, heart conditions.
They end up having financialrepercussions.
(27:47):
They may not be able to hold ajob.
Even when I tick those off,it's 2024.
And even when I say them likethat, they become a checklist
Again.
They become what I callnaturalized, normalized.
Yeah, we know, we know.
Yeah, they have to go see atherapist.
Yeah, it's kind of depressing.
Yeah, they have a hard timeafter it is someone taking over
(28:10):
your body.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
So then, thinking back on just the past 30 minutes
of this conversation and all ofthe terms that we've tossed
around, how do people decidewhat words to use when talking
about these things?
Speaker 2 (28:24):
I think there are some words that have been hotly
debated, but what I would say isthat I think the right approach
to take is to figure out whatpeople want to be called.
Literally, it's giving themagency, and that's actually a
trauma-informed principle, sokind of like the Bechdel test
that we use for femalerepresentation in the film, I
(28:46):
think.
I think there's a framework,and so some survivors will want
to be called survivors, somevictims will want to be called
victims.
They'll want that because it'sfresh and it connotes what's
happening to them.
So I think the way to thinkabout language is unlike having
a dictionary with very specificterms.
What I would suggest is that Iwould sort of apply a sort of a
(29:10):
principled test based ontrauma-informed principles, and
that is, allow people to namethemselves whatever they want to
be when that's possible.
Ask them Just straight up.
Ask them what are you morecomfortable with?
Victim, survivor, somethingelse For those that are causing
harm again, that's really tricky.
(29:33):
And in the absence of, if you'rein a particular field where you
are constrained again, if we'retalking about, if you are
talking in a legal setting oryou need to be speaking to a
legal audience, then yes, youwould use perpetrator.
If you're working in acommunity setting, you might use
abuser, because it's not alwaysphysical, or you might use the
term person using harm.
(29:53):
That's more in the restorativejustice circles.
I think it was just alwaysimportant to talk about it again
, making sure that there is anagent and a cause.
Don't leave out who is doingthe harm and how they're doing
it, and I think, talking aboutit in ways that really reveals
the actual experience of avictim or survivor, that really
(30:15):
does connote the real harm anddamage and terror that these
people go through every day.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
Very smart ideas.
So, erica, thank you so muchfor being on the show and
talking with me today.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Thank you so much for having me.
I really appreciate it, Maria.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
Attention Spanish-speaking listeners.
Listen to the end of thispodcast for information on how
to reach a Spanish-speakingrepresentative of Genesis.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
Atención hispanohablantes escucha este
podcast hasta el final pararecibir información de cómo
comunicarse con el personal deGenesis en español.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
If you or someone you know is in an abusive
relationship, you can get helpor give help at
genesisshelterorg or by callingor texting our 24-7 crisis
hotline team at 214-946-HELP214-946-4357.
Bilingual services at Genesisinclude text, phone call,
(31:10):
clinical counseling, legalservices, advocacy and more.
Call or text us for moreinformation.
Donations to support women andchildren escaping domestic
violence are always needed.
Learn more at genesisshelterorgslash donate.
Thanks for joining us.
I'm reminding you always thatending domestic violence begins
(31:31):
when we believe her, génesis.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
El podcast anuncia servicios bilingües disponibles
en Génesis.
Women's Shelter y Support.
Shelter and support.
If you or a known person is inan abusive relationship, you can
receive help or give help atgenesisshelterorg or by calling
or sending a text message to our24-hour crisis line at
214-946-4357.
(31:58):
Genesis bilingual servicesinclude text messages, calls,
advice, legal services adviceand more.
Call us or send us a text formore information.
Donations are always needed tosupport women or children
escaping domestic violence.
Learn more at our website atgenesisshelterorg.
(32:23):
Thank you for joining us.
Remember that ending domesticviolence begins when we believe
in the victim.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.