Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia: A Public Problem?

Abstract

The article deals with violence against women within the family and the question to what extent it is identified as a relevant public (social and poli-tical) problem in Slovenia. The analysis touches upon changes at the policy level; however the main focus is placed on the public opinion, as it reflects the degree of recognition and acceptance of these problems in a society, as well as beliefs framing it. The empirical analysis of the public opinion survey on domestic violence in Slovenia shows that dual views on violence against women exist. On one hand, the public in Slovenia is aware of the problem of violence against women and it recognizes, discusses and defines it as a social problem and responsibility, while on the other hand it displays a relatively high level of tolerance for certain forms of violence and the belief that dome-stic violence is a private matter. The public (at least in part) thus often repro-duces stereotypical beliefs and myths about violence against women within the family and does not recognize it as a broader social problem.

Full text

25
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia:
A Public Problem?
ZORANA MEDARIĆ* Izvorni znanstveni rad
Science and research centre of Koper UDK: 364.271-055.2(497.4)
University of Primorska doi: 10.3935/rsp.v18i1.947
Koper, Slovenia Primljeno: ožujak 2010.
The article deals with violence against women within the family and the
question to what extent it is identied as a relevant public (social and poli-
tical) problem in Slovenia. The analysis touches upon changes at the policy
level; however the main focus is placed on the public opinion, as it reects
the degree of recognition and acceptance of these problems in a society, as
well as beliefs framing it. The empirical analysis of the public opinion survey
on domestic violence in Slovenia shows that dual views on violence against
women exist. On one hand, the public in Slovenia is aware of the problem of
violence against women and it recognizes, discusses and denes it as a social
problem and responsibility, while on the other hand it displays a relatively
high level of tolerance for certain forms of violence and the belief that dome-
stic violence is a private matter. The public (at least in part) thus often repro-
duces stereotypical beliefs and myths about violence against women within
the family and does not recognize it as a broader social problem.
Key words: violence against women, family, public opinion, policy.
*
Zorana Medarić, Science and research centre of Koper, Garibaldijeva 1, 6 000 Koper, Slovenia, zorana.
medaric@zrs.upr.si
INTRODUCTION
In the past domestic violence against
women was primarily perceived as a pri-
vate problem. The last few decades, how-
ever, have witnessed an attempt to take this
issue into the public sphere and recognise
it as an important social and political prob-
lem. It therefore seems that violence against
women and its associated social, health,
and nancial consequences have become
increasingly recognized phenomena (e.g.,
Heskainen and Piispa, 1998; Keeler, 2001;
Reid 2003; Robnik et al., 2003; Selič, 2004;
Hagemann – White, 2006). The presence of
the problem of violence against women has
also intensied in discourse at the level of
the European Union. Several recommenda-
tions and guidelines concerning domestic
violence against women have been issued,

26
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
and the problem is being integrated into so-
cial policies of individual states.
Increased research, media, and political
attention have led to a slightly higher level
of information about and awareness of the
problem of violence against women in the
Slovene public. Nevertheless, signicant
efforts will have to be invested by the ac-
tors involved in this eld before this form
of abuse is recognized as a relevant social
and public problem (Robnik et al., 2003:5).
Research studies examining media repre-
sentations of domestic violence (Rožman
and Kneževič – Hočevar, 2005; Luthar et
al., 2006) show that in the last decade the
number of media reports on domestic vio-
lence has increased which, however, does
not necessarily entail »a higher level of
reection in society and media concerning
violence as a social problem« (Luthar et al.,
2006:2).
With the adoption of the Domes-
tic Violence Prevention Act/ Zakon o
preprečevanju nasilja v družini (Ofcial
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia/ Urad-
ni list Republike Slovenije no. 16/2008),
Slovenia recognized the need for the regu-
lation of the eld of domestic violence,
which had been emphasized for a number
of years by non-governmental organiza-
tions in particular (e.g., Kozmik and Dob-
nikar, 1999; Robnik et al., 2003; Gotnar
and Veselič, 2004; Veselič, 2007). In addi-
tion, non-governmental organizations play
a very important role in the eld of domes-
tic violence against women, the placement
of this problem into the public sphere, and
efforts to establish a coordinated approach
in inter-institutional cooperation of all in-
stitutions involved in the eld of domestic
violence against women (social work cen-
tres, police, health institutions, courts) (Ve-
selič, 2007).
This article examines the level of place-
ment of domestic violence against women
in the Slovene public domain and its rec-
ognition as a (signicant) social and po-
litical problem. The analysis touches upon
changes in Slovenia at the policy level. The
primary focus is placed on the public opin-
ion, which reects the level of recognition
and acceptance of a problem (domestic vio-
lence against women) and the beliefs that
provide a framework for these issues. Fi-
nally, the results of the only Slovene public
opinion survey on domestic violence will
be presented.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN – BETWEEN PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE
In order to understand both the response
of the public and policies regarding domes-
tic violence against women, its position
within the relation between public and pri-
vate has to be considered rst. More often
than men, women experience abusive be-
haviour perpetrated by a person they know,
a family member or their intimate part-
ner. Hence, most acts of violence against
women occur in the private sphere. Data
show that there is a higher probability that
a woman will experience violence inicted
by a present or former intimate partner than
by any other person (Reid, 2003:15), a fact
conrmed by ndings of various research
studies on violence against women (e.g.,
Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000; Hagemann-
White, 2006). Violence against women
most frequently occurs within the family,
in the private domain, which is the primary
reason for the difculty in exposing this as
a public problem. The relegation of a prob-
lem primarily into the private sphere most
frequently means that it will not be given
appropriate attention. The relation between
the family as a private experience and the
institution of family as a subject of public
discussion and policies is the core element
of discussion about families in social poli-
cies (Pascall, 1997) given that the family is

27
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
a space beyond simple intervention or, in
other words, intervention into the domestic
eld depends on the level of state regula-
tion of privacy.
The difculty of research on domestic
violence as a public problem is further hin-
dered by numerous stereotypes held in rela-
tion to the family and family relations and
roles. Traditionally, the family has been a
space of shelter and safety, and the exist-
ence of domestic violence represents an
objection to these perceptions. As Pascall
says (1997:45):
»But violence at home contradicts
both sociological and commonplace
stereotypes of family life: home is a
place of safety and trust, the family is
the focus of love and affection; the fa-
mily is a unit with common interests
even when members have different ro-
les. But violence in families indicates
that for many women the home is not
a place of safety, that it is the centre
of intense human emotions of all kin-
ds – including anger and hatred as well
as love, that the interests of different
family members do not inevitably co-
incide and that men in families assert
power over women.«
In modern society there is still a deeply
rooted myth of traditionally harmonious
family life (Švab, 2001) and, as a result, to
a certain degree domestic violence is so-
cially accepted and not viewed as a social
problem. Societal tolerance of domestic vi-
olence stems from its traditional1 presence
in our societies. Consequently, together
with the social acceptability of domestic
violence tolerance plays a signicant role
in the preservation of domestic violence
within the private sphere.
Despite all these factors, signicant
changes have occurred in society concern-
1
Key determinants of tradition include religion,
science, men dominated ideologies supported by social
institutions.
ing the recognition of the problem of do-
mestic violence. Only four decades ago no
terminology existed to describe violence
against women (Bergen, 1998:x), while to-
day it is used with relative frequency and is
given more research attention. Due to the
inuence of feminist movements, domestic
violence has made the successful transition
from a problem of the private sphere into a
public problem ranked high among the pri-
orities of local, national, and international
agendas (Harne and Redford, 2008:1).
A question that this articles addresses is
whether it is recognized as such among
the Slovene public and in policies. A sig-
nicant role in the recognition of the prob-
lem of domestic violence against women
and the introduction of political changes
in Slovenia has been played, as elsewhere,
by non-governmental organizations and
feminist movements (Gotnar and Veselič,
2004:3–4). An important result of their ef-
forts is change at the level of legislation –
the adoption of the Domestic Violence Pre-
vention Act that came into force in 2008.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN –
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The research on domestic violence
against women is characterized by a va-
riety of theoretical frameworks concern-
ing the causes and placement of violence
in society. Primarily but not exclusively,
traditional research on violence against
women looked for causes of violence in the
physiological and psychological properties
of individuals and in family dynamics or
pathology. Feminist stances prevail in con-
temporary theoretical research on violence
against women. It is perceived primarily as
a part of the problem of gender inequality
in society (e.g., Yllö, 1993; Dobash and
1
Key determinants of tradition include religion, science, men dominated ideologies supported by social
institutions.

28
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
Dobash, 1998; Walby, 2005). The degree
of violence against women is thus sup-
posed to be mostly a reection of gender
relations or inequalities that are structurally
grounded in western societies. These theo-
ries have replaced traditional theories that
view domestic violence against women
mostly as a »pathology« or individual de-
viation from social norms (Jasinski, 2001).
Thus, violence against women is placed
within the framework of often previously
overlooked or marginalized gender issues.
Feminist theoreticians were among the rst
to have identied and emphasized these
problems and attempted their placement
into the welfare state concept (Williams,
1989; Sainsbury, 1994). As a result, the
gender relation or gender as an analytical
concept has been included into the research
on violence against women. Gender based
violence has become a public topic that is
discussed within political agendas only in
the last decades (Ronkainen, 2001). Within
this framework, the principle of »gender
mainstreaming« was introduced into Eu-
ropean policies. Gender mainstreaming or
integration of gender equality is a strategy
for the achievement of gender equality at
all levels of social life, aiming at effec-
tive improvement of mainline policies by
»making visible the gendered nature of
assumptions, processes, and outcomes«
(Walby, 2005:321). Social policies reect
assumptions regarding gender relations in
society, while also affecting them (Pascall
in Manning, 2000:10).
The research interest for domestic
violence against women and its recogni-
tion as a (socially) relevant problem can
be related to the women’s movement and
feminist ideas from the 1970s, to the sec-
ond wave feminism, which by far most ex-
plicitly exposed the status of women as a
problem by introducing gender as a signi-
cant social and analytical category (Švab,
1997:60). With the recognition of feminist
movements, their demands, and social ac-
tivism, social care for women, victims of
violence, in particular within the private
sphere, increased. Under these inuences
the research on family violence, rst pri-
marily violence against children and then
also violence against women, signicantly
expanded.
The rst studies on domestic violence
were done in the late 1960s and since then
research interest into this topic has been on
the increase. The rst wave of studies fo-
cused on physical aggression against chil-
dren2, while violence against women had
not yet been examined or was considered
a rare form of abuse that could be primar-
ily attributed to the pathological nature of
the violent partner (Gelles, 1993:8) or of
the women themselves (Muehlenhard and
Kimes, 1999:236). In the early 1970s the
rst different conceptualizations of vio-
lence against women emerged in Western
Europe (in particular Great Britain) and the
USA, and violence started to be viewed as
an expression of male dominance in soci-
ety (Bergen, 1998:x). The development of
the research eld led to the examination of
a wide variety of aspects of domestic vio-
lence against women. In addition to the re-
search of the causes and consequences of
violence (e.g., Finkelhor, 1983; Yllö, 1993;
Gelles, 1993; Straus, 1993; Dutton, 1998;
Dobash and Dobash, 1998), several com-
2
Violence against children was the rst form of
domestic violence that was considered and treated as a
serious social problem. The rst article examining this
issue, »The battered-child syndrome«, was published
by Kempe, Silverman, Steele, Droegemueller, and
Silver in 1962 in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (Bergen, 1998:x).
2
Violence against children was the rst form of domestic violence that was considered and treated as a serious
social problem. The rst article examining this issue, »The battered-child syndrome«, was published by Kempe,
Silverman, Steele, Droegemueller, and Silver in 1962 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Bergen,
1998:x).

29
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
prehensive research studies (based on large
samples) on the prevalence of violence
against women were made (e.g., Walker,
1983; Heskainen and Piispa, 1998; Tjaden
and Thoennes, 2000; Lundgren et al., 2002;
Walby and Allen, 2004).
Under the inuence of women’s move-
ments, a more intense research into the
problem of violence against women in
Slovenia began only in the 1990s. Never-
theless, today only a few male and female
Slovene researchers are involved in the
eld of domestic violence or domestic vio-
lence against women. As has been found
by Sedmak and Kralj (2006), the preva-
lent aspects under research are inherent to
criminal law and social work, while there
is less sociological research and theorizing,
which, for instance, are prevalent in the
English and American research spaces. The
data concerning the prevalence of domestic
violence is also scarce. This is a result of
the lack of empirical research, as well as
the nature of the problem and its placement
into the private sphere, which hinders the
recognition and recording of its frequency.
The lack of empirical research certainly
affects the levels of legislation and state
intervention. In addition, it seems that the
media most frequently reproduce and adopt
the generally accepted attitudes concerning
gender relations. The prevalent patriarchal
discourse does not consider the problem of
violence against women as a part of the ex-
isting gender inequality or a problem call-
ing for systemic solutions (Luthar et al.,
2006:7–11). This article will discuss a topic
that had not previously been subject to re-
search in Slovenia, the degree of recogni-
tion of violence against women as a public
problem.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN
SLOVENIA
The degree of recognition of a problem
as socially relevant is reected by adopted
legal regulations and systemic actions.
Therefore, this section focuses on domestic
violence against women within the frame-
work of policies.
In Slovenia, non-governmental organi-
zations played a signicant role in putting
domestic violence against women into the
public sphere and in attempting to include
it in the eld of gender inequality. The le-
gislative regulation adopted as a result of
years-long efforts of non-governmental
organizations is directed toward the reco-
gnition of domestic violence as a specic
problem and not simply as a problem of
violence in society in general. The 2008
Domestic Violence Prevention Act/Zakon
o preprečevanju nasilja v družini (Ofcial
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia/Uradni
list Republike Slovenije, no. 16/2008) has a
high symbolic value, as it merges previo-
usly dispersed regulations, and provides a
more systemic and integrated regulation of
family violence. With the aim of enhancing
the effectiveness of inter-institutional ope-
ration, in 2009 the Rules on the Organiza-
tion and Work of Multidisciplinary Teams
and Regional Services and on Actions of
the Social Work Centres in Dealing with
Domestic Violence/Pravilnik o sodelo-
vanju organov ter o delovanju centrov za
socialno delo, multidisciplinarnih timov in
regijskih služb pri obravnavi nasilja v dru-
žini in (Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of
Slovenia/ Uradni list Republike Slovenije,
no. 31/2009) came into force. The Rules
dene the procedures of reciprocal provi-
sion of information and assistance among
the different actors involved in the eld of
domestic violence.

30
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
The Slovene women’s movement that
emerged in the 1980s had a signicant im-
pact on the beginning of public debates on
domestic violence against women3. The
rst non-governmental organizations deal-
ing with violence against women were
established in the late 1980s: in 1989 the
SOS-phone for children and women, vic-
tims of violence/ SOS telefon za ženske in
otroke - žrtve nasilja, was founded as the
rst form of assistance to victims of domes-
tic violence. In the 1990s, in particular after
Slovene independence and the transforma-
tion of the political system, several non-
governmental organizations were founded,
for instance the Women’s Counselling Ser-
vice/Ženska svetovalnica (1993) and the
Association Against Violent Communica-
tion/Društvo za nenasilno komunikacijo
(1996), currently the only organization in
Slovenia with programs for perpetrators of
violence. The rst safe house was estab-
lished in 1997 in Ljubljana. As mentioned
earlier, non-governmental organizations
had a signicant inuence on changes in
the eld of violence. In addition to raising
the level of information among the public
and professionals, they also made a sig-
nicant contribution to policy formation.
Non-governmental organizations were the
rst to make a transition from curative to
preventive actions, exposing the gendered
nature of domestic violence against women
(Robnik et al., 2003).
3
It is important to stress, however, that
the issue of violence against women was
not completely unheard of prior to 1980s
in Slovenia. Domestic violence has been
thematised as early as 1920s and 1930s by
slovene women`s movement (see for example
Angela Vode, 1998). Also, The 1977 SRS Penal
Code, Ofcial gazette SRS/Kazenski zakon
SRS, Ur.l. SRS, nr. 12/77 was one of the rst
to criminalize marital rape (see Maca Jogan,
1986.: 43 and Domestic Violence Prevention
Act proposal, 2007/ Predlog Zakona o
preprečevanju nasilja v družini, 2007).
In the political arena the problem of
domestic violence rst appeared in 1997
during the discussion of amendments to
the Penal Code/Kazenski zakonik and the
Criminal Procedure Act/Zakon o kazen-
skem postopku, when the question of do-
mestic violence as a major offence was put
forward, and in 1998 the restraining order
that prohibits approaching a location or
person was introduced as an alternative to
detention. As late as March, 1999, domes-
tic violence was dened as a criminal act
within Article 299 of the Penal Code/Ka-
zenski zakonik.
A signicant improvement in the regu-
lation of the eld of domestic violence
against women was the adoption of an ar-
ticle into the Penal Code/Kazenski zakonik
in 1999, which gave the courts the power
to remove the perpetrator of violence from
the common residence if deemed necessary
for the prevention of family violence. For
instance, this allows women, victims of
violence, to stay in their residence during
the process of obtaining divorce (Gotnar
and Veselič, 2004:3–4).
Gotnar and Veselič (2004:4) also
emphasize the year 2002 as a signicant
turning point in the public debate on vio-
lence against women or the transition of
attention from the victim to the perpetrator
of violence, the possibility of removal of
the violent person from the common resi-
dence, and the validity of a restraining or-
der as long as the possibility of repetition of
acts of violence exists.
3
It is important to stress, however, that the issue of violence against women was not completely unheard of
prior to 1980s in Slovenia. Domestic violence has been thematised as early as 1920s and 1930s by slovene women`s
movement (see for example Angela Vode, 1998). Also, The 1977 SRS Penal Code, Ofcial gazette SRS/Kazenski
zakon SRS, Ur.l. SRS, nr. 12/77 was one of the rst to criminalize marital rape (see Maca Jogan, 1986.: 43 and
Domestic Violence Prevention Act proposal, 2007/ Predlog Zakona o preprečevanju nasilja v družini, 2007).

31
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
The Rules on Restraining Order Prohi-
biting Approach to a Certain Location or
Person/Pravilnik o prepovedi približevanja
določenemu kraju ali osebi (Ofcial Ga-
zette of the Republic of Slovenia/ Uradni
list Republike Slovenije, no. 95/2004) came
into force in 2004 and include the prohibi-
tion against approaching the location of a
victim’s residence, work, school, location
where he or she is taken care of, and places
he or she might visit during everyday acti-
vities. The prohibition against approaching
a certain location or person includes the
prohibition against harassment through
media of communication (Rules on Re-
straining Order Prohibiting Approach to
a Certain Location or Person/ Pravilnik o
prepovedi približevanja določenemu kraju
ali osebi, Article 2).
Moreover, Gotnar and Veselič (2004)
point out that signicant political atten-
tion was given to domestic violence in
2003 while later, at the time of the 2004
parliamentary election campaign, dome-
stic violence was mentioned only rarely.
Supported by governmental and non-go-
vernmental organizations, the Association
Against Violent Communication/Društvo
za nenasilno komunikacijo started the pre-
paration of the State Action Plan on Violen-
ce Against Women/Državni akcijski načrt o
nasilju nad ženskami in 2003.
Non-governmental organizations also
played a key role in the preparation of the
2008 Domestic Violence Prevention Act/
Zakon o preprečevanju nasilja v družini
(Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of Slo-
venia/ Uradni list Republike Slovenije, no.
16/2008) with the provision of professi-
onal premises (e.g., Filipčič et al., 2004)
and participation in discussion during the
preparation process of the act. The poli-
tical debate on domestic violence which
accompanied the preparation process of the
act was characterized by erce reciprocal
accusations among political parties, which
hindered and slowed down the adoption of
the act (Sedmak and Kralj, 2006). The dis-
course was frequently permeated with bias,
stereotypical attitudes, the conceptions of
conventional wisdom, and sexist attitudes
towards domestic violence (Sedmak and
Kralj, 2006:99).
In 2009 the motion of the Resolution of
National Programme of Domestic Violence
Prevention 2009-2014/Resolucija o nacio-
nalnem programu preprečevanja nasilja v
družini med letoma 2009- 2014 was adop-
ted. Being a strategic document, it denes
the objectives, actions, and bodies respon-
sible for policies aiming at the prevention
and reduction of domestic violence.
PUBLIC OPINION: BELIEFS
As has been shown, signicant changes
have been made to Slovene legislation in the
eld of domestic violence against women.
The question we will explore in the follow-
ing sections is the reection of these chang-
es in Slovene public opinion.
Public opinion researchers agree on the
inuence of public opinion on policies (for
an overview see, e.g., Burstein, 2003). At-
titudes and beliefs of people concerning
the prevalence of domestic violence, the
conceptualization of its causes and other
characteristics reect the general societal
attitude toward the problem and its accept-
ance as a public problem. In addition, they
are also important from the perspective of
the implementation of policies given that
the effectiveness of policy also depends on
the consideration of the attitudes of people
or the extent to which the majority opinion
perceives them as »theirs« or acceptable
(Pollitz Worden and Carlson, 2005:1220).
The following sections provide an in-
sight into domestic violence through the lens
of public opinion, more specically through
the results of a public opinion survey on do-
mestic vi
olence conducted in Slovenia.

32
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
Research description and methodo-
logy
The study was conducted in June 2005
at the Science and Research Centre of the
University of Primorska as a part of the
research project Analysis of Domestic Vio-
lence in Slovenia – Suggestions for Pre-
vention and Action, conducted from 2004
through 2006 under the leadership of M.
Sedmak. The research was funded by the
Slovene Ministry of Labour, Family, and
Social Affairs and the Slovene Research
Agency.
The target population was adult inhabit-
ants of Slovenia (18 years of age and over).
The data was collected using Computer
Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)
through the Public Opinion Centre of the
Science and Research Centre of the Univer-
sity of Primorska. The research was con-
ducted on a representative sample of 10064
adult individuals selected using telephone
directory sampling and the last-birthday
selection method. 12 regular interviewers
were trained for the survey by Public Opin-
ion Centre staff in survey content, concepts
and procedures.
The statistical package SPSS was used
to run basic statistical analyses (frequency
distributions of variables) and some additi-
onal comparative analyses between varia-
bles, usually by gender. For the analysis of
data correlation coefcients, the chi-square
test was used. The level of signicance set
for this study was at p=0.05.
Table 1 presents the characteristics of
the sample in terms of different demograph-
ic parameters (gender, age, highest level of
education, employment status, marital sta-
tus, children, religion, place of residence).
4
The answers presented in the tables only include
the number of respondents that answered each particular
question (the answers »I do not know« or »No answer«
have been excluded from the tables), which is why the
total number of answers often is lower than 1006.
Table 1.
Sample characteristics
N= 1006 Sample
(%)
Gender 5
Male 50.0
Female 50.0
Age
18 to 28 years 22.2
29 to 39 years 18.1
40 to 50 years 21.7
51 to 61 years 18.0
62 to 72 years 13.3
73 and older 6.8
Highest level of education
Finished or unnished elementary
school 13.2
Finished secondary or vocational
school 62.7
Finished university college or more 24.1
Employment status
Employed 49.0
Unemployed 5.8
Retired 28.3
Student 13.4
Housewife 1.1
Farmer 1.0
Other 1.4
Marital status
Single 27.6
Married or living in a consensual
union 58.8
Divorced 3.9
Widow/-er 9.8
Has children
Yes 68.6
No 31.4
Religion
Catholic 67.5
Orthodox 1.9
Muslim 1.3
Evangelist 0.3
I am not religious 26.9
Other 2.1
Place of residence
Urban 43.7
Suburban 37.9
Rural 18.4
4
The answers presented in the tables only include the number of respondents that answered each particular
question (the answers »I do not know« or »No answer« have been excluded from the tables), which is why the total
number of answers often is lower than 1006.
5
Given that the share of men and women in the sample does not correspond to their share in the population (the
sample included 30.5% or 307 men and 69.5% or 699 women), the variable »gender« was loaded (female gender with
0.72 and male gender with 1.64).

33
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
Methodological limitations 5
This survey represents the rst and
to date the only public opinion survey in
Slovenia on domestic violence, and in-
cludes different forms of abuse. The nd-
ings should, however, be interpreted in the
light of methodological constraints. The
data was collected through telephone in-
terviews, which means the study has some
limitations. First, by their nature telephone
surveys exclude people living in house-
holds without telephones (thus they might
under represent particular groups, for ex-
ample young people who, due to a growing
number of personal cell phones, might not
have home phones). Other types of survey
methodologies were not used to reach resi-
dents who may not have a working telepho-
ne in the home. Secondly, the response rate
in telephone surveys is usually relatively
low (18.3% in our case). Thirdly, given the
sensitive nature of the topic responses may
be biased and subsequently the extent of
violence might be underestimated. (On the
other hand, however, telephone interviews
guarantee a level of anonymity, which is
particularly important when examining is-
sues that touch upon personal experiences
of violence or other questions that are per-
ceived as personal). Finally, another limi-
tation in relation to the topic examined by
the present article is that the research not
only focused on violence against women,
but on different forms of domestic vio-
lence, which means that the questions of-
ten refer to domestic violence in general.
Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the
study is also relevant for research regarding
violence against women as that it provides
an insight into the general attitude of the
people toward domestic violence and thus
reveals the level of tolerance of domestic
violence. In addition, some questions ex-
clusively refer to violence against women.
5
Perceptions of Family Violence
Through the results of the survey, the
attitudes and beliefs of the Slovene public
concerning the questions about whether
domestic violence is a recognized problem
and whether it is considered as a primar-
ily private or public problem will be pre-
sented. Research that examined beliefs
about domestic violence show that the
public considers domestic violence to be a
frequently occurring problem. In addition,
the respondents’ usual estimate is that it is
quite widespread and that it leads to sig-
nicant social consequences (Carlson and
Pollitz Worden, 2005:1199). The results
of the present study have shown that more
than a half of respondents (57.3%) thought
that domestic violence is a common or very
common phenomenon in Slovenia, while
only 10.4% said that it is an uncommon or
very uncommon phenomenon. The major-
ity of respondents thought that the violence
rate in Slovenia is not higher than that of
other European countries. 13.6% of re-
spondents agreed with the statement that
the violence rate in Slovenia is higher than
that of other European countries. 52.8%
share the opinion that it is lower, and the
others were undecided.
Two thirds of respondents (67.3%) said
that domestic violence is a social problem,
whereas a not insignicant 32.7% answered
it is a private family problem. Therefore
they do not recognize it as an economic,
health or political problem. In addition,
most respondents thought that domestic vi-
olence most often remains a hidden part of
the private sphere. The vast majority said
that despite being a social problem domes-
tic violence remains hidden within the four
walls of the home (84%).
Therefore, the opinion of the majority
of respondents is that domestic violence
is frequently not spoken of or not reported

34
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
7
and that fewer cases of domestic violence
are uncovered than are actually happening.
More respondents who saw domestic vio-
lence as a social problem agreed with this
statement (86%) if compared to respond-
ents who viewed domestic violence as a
private problem (79%)6.
Given that a certain level of social tol-
erance of violence in the private sphere
certainly is a factor that enables its preva-
lence and perseverance, states coping with
violence against women and domestic
violence strive for the achievement of the
zero tolerance policy to violence7. In their
study on violence against women, Černič
Istenič et al. (2003:139) found a low level
of awareness among the professional and
in particular general public concerning do-
mestic violence against women, and sug-
gested that the attitudes toward violence in
general should be changed and stereotypes
about violence shattered. In their words,
»in the Slovene system of values there is
a concealed tolerance of violence« (Černič
Istenič et al., 2003:133). As a result, anoth-
er aim of the present study was to verify the
level of tolerance of domestic violence and
in particular of violence against women in
the answers of our respondents.
The majority of respondents agreed that
a husband cannot hit his wife under any
circumstances, and vice versa (an opin-
6
Correlation between the two answers was idden
within the four walls of the home. (χ²=7.489; p=0.024)
7
In April, 2009, the European Parliament adopted
a decnt, 2009). As early as 1997 the Resolution on the
Need to Establish a European Union Wide Campaign
for Zero Tolerance of Violence against Women was
adopted.
).
ion shared by 84.4% of respondents while
8.9% agreed with the opposite statement,
the others were undecided). Men expressed
slightly more tolerance of violence between
intimate partners (χ²=12.600; p=0.013).
Therefore, on the level of principles, the
respondents do not support (physical) ag-
gression against the partner. However, the
following questions (in particular the one
concerning various forms of abuse) reveal
a signicant level of tolerance towards vio-
lent acts within the family.
The answers presented in the following
tables indicate a higher level of tolerance of
violence than the answers to the previous
question.
Table 2.
»Slapping the wife/husband once is not domestic
violence«: Distribution of answers by gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
I do not
agree275 56.4 325 65.9 600 61.1
I neither
agree nor
disagree
72 14.8 70 14.2 142 14.5
I agree 141 28.9 98 19.9 239 24.4
Total 488 100.0 493 100.0 981 100.0
χ²=13.852; p=0.008
6
Correlation between the two answers was analysed: 1. In your opinion domestic violence is a) social problem
b) private problem and 2. Domestic violence remains hidden within the four walls of the home. (χ²=7.489; p=0.024)
7
In April, 2009, the European Parliament adopted a declaration against violence that suggests that one of
the following ve years (2010-2015) should be the European Year of zero tolerance of violence against women
(European Parliament, 2009). As early as 1997 the Resolution on the Need to Establish a European Union Wide
Campaign for Zero Tolerance of Violence against Women was adopted.
Ze
ro tolerance of violence is also advocated by the Ofce of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for
Equal Opportunities: »The whole system of the prevention of violence against women in their domestic environment
and partner relationships has to be based on zero tolerance of any form of violence.« (Urad Vlade Republike Slovenije
za enake možnosti, 2009).

35
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
Table 3.
»In order to keep the family together, one can put
up with being slapped once or twice«: Distribution
of answers gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
I do not
agree 257 53.6 372 77.2 629 65.4
I neither
agree nor
disagree
100 20.8 56 11.6 156 16.2
I agree 123 25.6 54 11.2 177 18.4
Total 480 100.0 482 100.0 962 100.0
χ²=85.564; p=0.000
Almost one quarter of respondents
agreed that slapping once should not be
labelled as domestic violence and 18.4%
agreed with the statement that in order to
keep the family together one can put up
with being slapped once or twice. Men
agreed with both statements more strongly
than women.
Table 4.
»If a husband or wife hits the partner for jealousy,
this means real love«: Distribution of answers by
gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
I do not
agree 305 62.9 402 82.9 706 72.9
I neither
agree
nor disa-
gree
100 20.6 36 7.4 136 14.0
I agree 80 16.5 47 9.7 127 13.1
Total 485 100.0 485 100.0 969 100.0
χ²=58.283; p=0.000
Compared to men, women agreed less
with the statement that hitting because of
jealousy means real love. Surprisingly, as
many as 16.5% of men, signicantly more
than women, equated hitting due to jealou-
sy with love.
Tolerance of violence is also shown by
the level of reaction to it.
Table 5.
»Would you inform the police if you suspected that
physical violence is happening in your neighbours’
home?« Distribution of answers by gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
I certainly
would 207 42.7 184 38.6 391 40.6
I probably
would 161 33.2 154 32.3 315 32.7
I probably
would not 74 15.3 99 20.8 173 18.0
I certainly
would not 43 8.9 40 8.4 83 8.6
Total 485 100.0 477 100.0 962 100.0
χ²=5.163; p=0.160
More than one quarter (24.2% of men
and 29.2% of women) of respondents (no
statistically signicant differences were fo-
und by gender) probably or certainly wo-
uld not report a suspected case of physical
violence in their neighbour’s home to the
police. A relatively high share of answers
»I probably would not« and »I certainly
would not« might indicate that a part of
the respondents perceives eventual repor-
ting to the police as an illicit interference
with another’s privacy and family, however
other factors, such as for example fear, sho-
uld not be excluded. These answers are in
line with the answers to the question on the
private/public nature of domestic violence,
when 32.7% of respondents said that dome-
stic violence is a private family problem.

36
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
Table 6.
»Do you dene these acts as forms of abuse?« To-
tal share of answers
Yes
N %
Checking pockets 464 49.3
Checking nancial resources
of the partner 571 61.9
Slapping once 613 63.6
Opening letters 648 67.9
Threatening 810 83.0
Verbal humiliation 859 87.4
Forced sexual intercourse 907 92.4
Intimidation 922 93.1
The data presented in Table 6 conrms
that some forms of abuse are more accept-
able in society than others. The majority
of respondents perceive these acts as vio-
lent; however, the share of those who hold
an opposite opinion is relatively high in
the case of some acts. Quite surprisingly,
as many as 36.4% of respondents said that
slapping once does not constitute an act
of abuse. Control of one’s partner is also
an almost acceptable behaviour; for more
than a half of respondents (50.7%), check-
ing the partner’s pockets does not consti-
tute a violent act, nor does checking their
nancial resources (38.1%) or opening
letters (32.1%). Among subtler forms of
abuse or, in other words, those that are usu-
ally classied as psychological violence, as
many as 17% did not view threats, 12.6%
verbal humiliation, and 6.9% intimidation
as abusive acts. A portion of respondents
even thought that forced sexual intercourse
is not a violent act. Although the share of
these respondents is relatively low (7.6%),
it certainly cannot be overlooked. Moreo-
ver, 6.6% of respondents said that they did
not know forcing sex upon their intimate
partner is a criminal offence.
These acts were compared by gen-
der and it was found that if compared to
men, women more frequently thought that
violent acts include slapping (χ=²42.977;
p=0.000), checking pockets (χ²=14.777;
p=0.000), threatening and verbal humili-
ation (χ²=42.977; p=0.030). No other sta-
tistically signicant differences were re-
corded, even though women agreed more
strongly than men that all of the above are
acts of violence. These answers partly con-
rm the results of a previous study which
revealed that women dene the param-
eters of domestic violence more broadly
than men and include non-physical abuse
among violent acts (Carlson and Pollitz
Worden, 2005:1200).
Table 7 supplements the beliefs which
acts can be labelled as violent. Most re-
spondents believe that intimidation can be
classied among domestic violence acts.
The opposite opinion is held by only 10.7%
of respondents (there are no differences by
gender).
Table 7.
»Intimidation of the partner is not a form of domestic
violence«: Distribution of answers by gender.
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
I do not
agree 394 80.6 391 79.8 785 80.2
I neither
agree nor
disagree
52 10.6 37 7.6 89 9.1
I agree 43 8.8 62 12.7 105 10.7
Total 489 100.0 490 100.0 979 100.0
χ²=8.242; p=0.083
The answers reveal the high level of
awareness of the problem of domestic vio-
lence and its prevalence. Domestic violen-
ce is largely perceived as a social problem
that, however, remains hidden in the priva-
te sphere. Importantly, almost one third of
respondents actually placed domestic vio-
lence within the private sphere and there-

37
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
fore said that violence is a private problem.
The placement of domestic violence in the
sphere of privacy rather than public debate,
and the perception of violence as a priva-
te problem which should not be interfered
with is expressed on one hand by the tole-
rance of violent acts or non-perception of
some acts as violent, and on the other by
the non-responsiveness to violence (one
quarter of respondents would not report
suspected physical violence to the police).
A high level of tolerance was identied in
particular among less »tangible« forms of
abuse that can be classied in the category
of psychological violence (e.g., checking
pockets, checking nancial resources).
Although public opinion views domestic
violence (and violence against women) as
problematic, a level of tolerance of acts of
violence indicates that some situations are
understood as private and some circum-
stances as justications for abusive beha-
viour.
Different Beliefs about Causes of Vi-
olence
Domestic violence against women is
characterized by numerous generally ac-
cepted stereotypical conceptions or so
called myths that transmit beliefs that fre-
quently inculpate the victim of violence or
excuse the perpetrator (Filipčič, 2002; Har-
ne and Radford, 2008; van der Ent et al.,
2001). The reproduction of these beliefs in
the Slovene public is presented in the fol-
lowing sections.
Causes of Violence
In the opinion of respondents, the most
important factors that may lead to dome-
stic violence are alcohol (94%) and illegal
drugs (84%), followed by unemployment
(61.8%), dissatisfaction with marital life
(59.4%), and a difcult childhood (57.4%).
The factors that affect domestic violence
least are violent media content (35.3%),
low level of education (26.3%), and aflia-
tion to a different culture from that of the
respondents (25.8%).
Table 8.
Causes of domestic violence. Total share of
answers
No Neither
yes, nor no Yes
N % N % N %
Alcohol 17 1.7 42 4.2 933 94.0
Illegal drugs 53 5.6 100 10.5 804 84.0
Unemploy-
ment 84 8.5 293 29.7 610 61.8
Dissatisfacti-
on with mari-
tal life
93 9.5 303 31.1 579 59.4
Difcult child-
hood 145 14.9 271 27.7 562 57.4
Poor eco-
nomic status
(poverty)
152 15.4 331 33.4 506 51.1
Low self-
condence 209 21.7 317 33.0 436 45.3
Problems at
work 203 20.6 354 36.0 426 43.4
Violent me-
dia content 338 34.7 292 30.0 344 35.3
Low level of
education 387 39.6 333 34.1 257 26.3
Afliation to
a different
culture from
yours
422 45.0 273 29.1 242 25.8
Abusive behaviour is an innate charac-
teristic of a person
The belief that abusive behaviour is an
innate characteristic of a person is based
on a biological or psychological stance
and is relatively common, as the opinions
presented below conrm. A not insigni-
cant 30% of men and women included in
the study agreed that abusive behaviour is
innate to an individual. On the other hand,

38
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
4
0.6% of all respondents disagreed with
this statement. Focusing on the physiologi-
cal or personality characteristics of the per-
petrator of violence meets the needs of the
majority to see violence as behaviour that is
typical of someone different from them (Ja-
sinski, 2001:9). However, this transfers the
responsibility for violent acts to unchangea-
ble factors (e.g., genetics, mental disorder).
By doing so, it provides justications for
the behaviour of violent individuals without
allowing for an opportunity to change these
behavioural patterns. Nevertheless, these
beliefs are still strongly present.
Table 9.
»Abusive behaviour is an innate characteristic of a
person«: Distribution of answers by gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
I do not
agree 200 40.9 195 40.2 395 40.6
I neither
agree
nor disa-
gree
144 29.4 132 27.2 276 28.3
I agree 145 29.7 158 32.6 303 31.1
Total 489 100.0 485 100.0 974 100.0
χ²=1.874; p=0.759
It is sometimes the woman’s fault if
she gets hit by the man/she must have
deserved it
One of the most common beliefs re-
garding violence is that it is sometimes the
woman’s fault if she is experiencing any vi-
olence. She might provoke her partner with
her behaviour or could prevent violence by
behaving in accordance with some expec-
tations (e.g., quieten the children or do the
expected household chores). The woman
is thus supposed to be responsible both for
the cause of and solution to the problem
(Mahoney et al., 2001).
Table 10.
»It is sometimes the woman’s fault if she gets hit by
the man.« Distribution of answers by gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
I do not
agree 283 57.6 320 64.6 604 61.2
I neither
agree nor
disagree
116 23.6 88 17.8 204 20.7
I agree 92 18.7 87 17.6 179 18.1
Total 491 100.0 495 100.0 987 100.0
χ²=30.384; p=0.000
Although more than a half (61.2%) of
respondents did not agree with the state-
ment that it is sometimes the woman’s
fault if she gets hit by the man, as many
as 18.1% agreed with it, slightly fewer
women than men. Victim-blaming used to
be quite frequent in the past, in particular
with reference to sexual abuse. Amir (in
Bergen, 1998:98), for instance, explains
that it is the victim that exposes herself
and starts interactions with the perpetrator
while her behaviour provokes potentially
abusive behaviour. Decades of research
and new theories, in particular feminist,
have redirected the attention from the
victim who has had the responsibility for
abusive behaviour attributed to them. Nev-
ertheless, the occurrence of these beliefs is
still high, which is conrmed by the results
of the present study. Pollitz Worden and
Carlson (2005:1222) mention three aspects
of victim-blaming: the rst was presented
above and is that a woman’s behaviour pro-
vokes violent reactions (implicitly deserv-
ing them)8, the second views the woman as
8
The authors also mention that a few generations
ago this argument was legitimized in court decisions
(Pollitz Worden and Carlson, 2005).
8
The authors also mention that a few generations ago this argument was legitimized in court decisions (Pollitz
Worden and Carlson, 2005).

39
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
a masochist who enjoys violent behaviour
and thus invites it, and the nal blames the
victim for not leaving the violent relation-
ship.
Perpetrators certainly come from a
violent background, had a difcult
childhood
There is still no consensus in the inter-
national research community to what ex-
tent a difcult childhood leads to abusive
behaviour. Some early theories on violence
support inter-generational transmission of
violence and claim that violent behaviour
is learnt in the process of early socialization
(e.g. Straus and Jasinski, 2001), yet they do
not provide an explanation why some in-
dividuals become violent without having
been brought up in a violent environment,
nor why some adults who had been brought
up in a violent background do not grow into
violent adults. Thus, the family cannot rep-
resent the only formative factor of an in-
dividual’s personality and their behaviour.
According to some studies, only a minority
share of perpetrators of violence had ex-
perienced violence in their childhood (Ka-
ufman and Ziegler, 1987 in Jasinski, 2001).
Table 11.
»Can a difcult childhood lead to domestic
violence?« Distribution of answers by gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
No 97 19.1 49 10 146 14.9
Neither
yes nor
no
131 26.7 140 28.6 271 27.7
Yes 263 53.6 300 61.3 563 57.4
Total 491 100.0 489 100.0 980 100.0
χ²= 18.955; p=0.001
In the eyes of the Slovene public, a dif-
cult childhood is a signicant factor that
may lead to domestic violence, especially
among women: as many as 61.3% of wo-
men agreed with this statement – statisti-
cally signicantly more than men (53.6%).
These answers do not allow for a conclusi-
on as to whether a difcult childhood exer-
ts an inuence on abusive behaviour in the
sense of social learning theory, through the
experience of violence in childhood (in the
form of witnessing or experiencing abuse).
It can be assumed, however, that given the
prevalence of the social learning theory,
this belief is at least partly included in the
answers of the respondents.
Alcohol as a cause of violence/»Only
alcoholics beat their wives«
Although in the literature a direct causal
relationship between alcohol and violence
has been suggested (e.g., Flanzer, 1993),
alcohol is often just used as a justicati-
on for abusive acts in the family as many
violent men do not abuse alcohol (Harne
and Radford, 2008:19). The data presented
in Table 12 does not directly measure be-
liefs about alcohol as a cause of violence.
Nevertheless, we can deduce that alcohol
is perceived as a factor which signicantly
inuences violent behaviour. Among all
factors included in the study, alcohol is the
factor that most respondents see as a cause
of domestic violence.
Table 12.
»Can the use of alcohol lead to domestic violen-
ce?« Distribution of answers by gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
No 12 2.4 61.2 18 1.8
Neither
yes nor no 30 6.0 13 2.6 43 4.3
Yes 455 91.5 477 96.1 932 93.8
Total 497 100.0 496 100.0 993 100.0
χ²=17.326; p=0.002

40
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
In Slovenia, the prevalent opinion is
that alcohol is a cause of domestic violen-
ce. This is the opinion held by 91.5% of
male respondents and as many as 96.1% of
female respondents.
»Domestic violence only occurs in fa-
milies from lower social classes/among
poor classes«
The universal nature of violence is of-
ten emphasized, also in documents that fo-
cus on domestic violence. The Handbook
on Effective Police Responses to Violence
against Women for example states: »Any
woman, regardless of age, race, ethnicity,
education, cultural identity, socio-econo-
mic status, occupation, religion, sexual
orientation or physical or mental abiliti-
es, may be vulnerable to violence« (The
Handbook on Effective Police Responses
to Violence against Women, 2010:33). The
perpetrators and victims of violence can be
of different age, and belong to different cul-
tures and social classes. The answers of the
respondents indicate that in their opinion a
poor economic situation is a signicant fac-
tor which may lead to domestic violence,
as stated by approximately one half of all
respondents (49.3% of men and 53.1% of
women).
Table 13.
»Can a poor economic situation lead to domestic
violence?« Distribution of answers by gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
No 69 13.9 83 16.8 152 15.3
Neither
yes nor no 182 36.8 149 30.2 331 33.5
Yes 244 49.3 262 53.1 506 51.2
Total 495 100.0 494 100.0 989 100.0
χ²=5.831; p=0.212
The opinion on the inuence of the so-
cio-economic situation on domestic vio-
lence can be indirectly measured through
the question of the level of education as
a factor of inuence on domestic violen-
ce. Approximately 40% of respondents
answered that the level of education does
not exert an inuence on domestic violen-
ce while one quarter said it does. No stati-
stically signicant differences were found
between men and women.
Table 14.
»Can the level of education be a cause of domestic
violence?« Distribution of answers by gender
Men Women Total
N % N % N %
No 196 40.1 190 38.9 386 39.5
Neither
yes nor no 162 33.1 171 35 333 34.1
Yes 131 26.8 127 26 258 26.4
Total 489 100.0 482 100.0 977 100.0
χ²=1.026; p=0.906
Similar to the ndings of the study done
by Pollitz Worden and Carlson in their pu-
blic opinion survey (2005), the ndings of
the present study indicate several factors
that can be said to downplay the personal
responsibility of violent individuals, for in-
stance the use of alcohol or the perpetrator’s
difcult childhood. Conventional under-
standing of violent acts as irrational, unpre-
dictable and unpremeditated acts perpetra-
ted only by alcoholics, mentally unstable
individuals, and people from the lowest
classes of society is thus reproduced (Do-
bash and Dobash 1998a:141). Therefore,
the (at least partial) reproduction of stere-
otypes on domestic violence diminishes
the responsibility or provides justications
for violent acts or, on the other hand, put
the blame on the victim. The preservation
of these myths, which include assumptions

41
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
on gender relations, on the distribution of
power in partner relationships, families,
and society, and on the private and public
spheres lead to further legitimization and
reproduction of violence in society. These
beliefs can have a direct inuence on be-
havioural practices in relation to violence
against women, as stated in the analysis
of working practices concerning violence
against women in Slovenia (Veselič, 2007).
In the words of Gilbert (2002), the way in
which society understands violence has
implications for social policies and for the
direct experiences of women who are vic-
tims of violence within the framework of
the criminal legal system.
CONCLUSION
The public opinion views reveal a dual
attitude towards domestic violence. On one
hand, the public recognizes the problem
and considers it a frequent phenomenon, a
social problem and responsibility, while on
the other hand it displays a relatively high
level of tolerance of some forms of abuse
and the belief that domestic violence is a
private matter. Tolerance of domestic vio-
lence against women as a factor of repro-
duction of violence is an indicator of the
actual level of awareness of violence as a
social problem. Social tolerance is greater
regarding acts of violence which can be
described as psychological violence, which
is expressed through a high level of support
to abusive acts such as control of the par-
tner (checking pockets, opening letters,
checking nancial resources). A relatively
high level of tolerance is also displayed in
relation to physical aggression in the form
of a single event.
Over the last decades, domestic violen-
ce against women has been increasingly
recognized as a public problem. Never-
theless, the belief that domestic violence
should be placed into the private sphere
without considering it a social problem
also continues to persist. The public (at le-
ast in part) reproduces stereotypical beliefs
about gender roles and partner relationshi-
ps as well as those concerning abusive
behaviour, which focus on the individual
and psychological traits of each individual
and thus downplay the responsibility of the
perpetrator of violence. Importantly, some
victim-blaming myths are also reproduced.
In this way the understanding of domestic
violence (and of violence against women)
as a broader social problem and a problem
of gender inequality escapes general public
opinion, even though in general, domestic
violence is understood as gender asymme-
tric or, in other words, as violence perpe-
trated by men against women and children.
The above mentioned social acceptance
of violence against women to some extent
reects structurally grounded gender rela-
tions and inequalities that, despite being
questioned and problematized, are still dee-
ply rooted in our societies. Institutionally
and culturally supported, they contribute to
the acceptance of violence against women
and its reproduction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opini-
on on public policy: A review and an agenda.
Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29-40.
doi:10.1177/106591290305600103
Bergen Kennedy, R. (1998). Intimate violence:
A brief introduction. In R. Bergen Kennedy
(Ed.), Issues in Intimate Violence (pp. ix–xiii)
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Council of Europe (2006). Blueprint of the Co-
un
cil of Europe Campaign to combat violence
against women, including domestic violence.
Available at http://www.wave-network.org/
images/doku/coe_campaignvaw_blueprint.pdf
Council of Europe (2008). Resolution 1635. Com-
bating violence against women: towards a Co-
uncil of Europe convention. Available at http://
assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/
AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1635.htm

42
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
Černič Istenič, M., & Kneževič, D. (Eds.) (2003).
Nasilje nad ženskami ali kako doseči ničelno
toleranco. Analiza strokovnih, znanstvenih in
statističnih podatkov o nasilju nad ženskami
v družini za Slovenijo v obdobju od 1998 do
2003. Ljubljana: Inštitut za medicinske vede,
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU.
Dobash, Russell P., & Emerson Dobash, R.
(1998). Cross-border encounters: Challenges
and opportunities. In R. Emerson Dobash &
Russel P. Dobash (Eds.), Rethinking violence
against women (pp. 1–23). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Dutton, D. G. (1998). The abusive personality:
Violence and control in intimate relationship.
New York: The Guilford Press.
European Commission (2005). EQUAL Guide on
gender mainstreaming. Luxembourg: Of-
ce for Ofcial publications of the European
communities. Available at http://ec.europa.
eu/employment_social/equal/data/document/
gendermain_en.pdf
European Parliament (2004). Resolution on the cu-
rrent situation in combating violence against
women and any future action. 2004/2002 (INI).
Available at http://www.wave-network.org/
images/doku/ep_res_combatingvaw_2006.pdf
European Union (1997). Resolution on the need
to establish a European Union wide campai-
gn for zero tolerance of violence against wo-
men. Available at http://www.wave-network.
org/images/doku/e.p_res_zerotolerance-
vaw_1997.pdf
Filipčič, K. (2004). Sistemski pristop k obravnava-
nju nasilja v družini. In P. Selič (Ed.), Nasilje
v družini – poti do rešitev (pp. 75). Ljubljana:
Varuh človekovih pravic.
Filipčič, K., Zaviršek, D., Mežnar, Š., Šugman, K.,
Končina Peternel, M., & Habjan, V. (2004).
Strokovna izhodišča s predlogi rešitev za si-
stemsko ureditev varstva pred nasiljem v dru-
žini. Ljubljana: Inštitut za primerjalno pravi
pri Pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani.
Finkelhor, D. (1983). Common features of family
abuse. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. G. Ho-
taling & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of
families, (pp. 17–28). London: Sage Publica-
tions.
Gelles, R. J. (1993). Family violence. In R. Hamp-
ton, T. P. Gullota, G. R. Adams & E. H. Potter
III. (Eds.), Family violence: Prevention and
treatment (pp. 1–24). London: Sage Publica-
tions.
Gotnar, M., & Veselič, Š. (2004). Domestic violen-
ce – violence against women. Country Study.
Slovenia. Ljubljana: Mirovni inštitut.
Hagemann-White, C. (2006). Combating violence
against women. Stocktaking study on the me-
asures and actions taken in Council of Europe
member States. Equality Division. Directo-
rate General of Human Rights. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe. Available at http://www.
coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Equality/PDF_
CDEG(2006)3_E.pdf .
Harne, L., & Radford, J. (2008). Tackling domes-
tic violence: Theories, policies and practice.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Heiskanen, M., & Piispa, M. (1998). Faith, hope,
battering. A survey of men’s violence against
women in Finland. Statistics Finland. Helsin-
ki: Oy Edita Ab.
Jasinski, J. L. (2001). Theoretical explanations for
violence against women. In M. C. Renzetti, R.
Kennedy Bergen & J. Edleson (Eds.), Source-
book on violence against women (pp. 5-21).
London: Sage Publications.
Jogan, M. (1986). Ženske in diskriminacija. Lju-
bljana: Delavska enotnost.
Kanduč, Z. (2001). Vzroki, razlogi in okoliščine
družinskega nasilja: viktimološki pogledi. Re-
vija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 52(2),
109-121.
Kozmik, V., & Dobnikar, M. (1999). Dosje: na-
silje nad ženskami. Ljubljana: Urad vlade
za žensko politiko Društvo SOS telefon,
Feministično informacijsko kulturno središče,
Društvo za nenasilno komunikacijo.
Krizsan, A. (2005). Domestic violence: A public
matter. Paper prepared for workshop European
Articulations of Gender Inequality.
Lundgren, E., Heimer, G., Westerstrand, J., & Kal-
liokoski, A.-M. (2002). Captured queen. Men’s
violence against women in »equal« Sweden: A
prevalence study. Stockholm: Fritzes Offentli-
ga Publikationer.

43
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
Luthar, B., Jontes, D., & Šadl, Z. (2006). Medijs-
ke reprezentacije družinskega nasilja. Končno
poročilo projekta. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubl-
jani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Center za ra-
ziskovanje družbenega komuniciranja. Avail-
able at http://www.mddsz.gov.si/leadmin/
mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/r_
medijske_reprezentacije_druz_nasilja.pdf
Ministrstvo za delo, družino in socialne zadeve
Republike Slovenije (2007). Predlog Zakona
o preprečevanju nasilja v družini (EVA 2006-
2611-0097). Available at http://www.mddsz.
gov.si/fileadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/
dokumenti__pdf/z_preprec_nasilja_vlada_
sep07.pdf
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Kimes, L. A. (1999). The
social construction of violence: The case of
sexual and domestic violence. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 234-245.
doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_6
Murray, S., & Powell A. (2009). What’s the
problem? Australian public policy con-
structions of domestic and family violence.
Violence Against Women, 15(5), 532-552.
doi:10.1177/1077801209331408
Papež, I., & Hočevar, M. (2007). Nasilje nad
ženskami je družbenopolitični problem. In Š.
Veselič (Ed.), Na poti iz nasilja. Prakse dela
proti nasilju nad ženskami. Ljubljana: Društvo
SOS telefon.
Pascall, G. (1997). Social policy. A new feminist
analysis. New York: Routledge.
Pascall , G., & Manning, N. (2000). Gender and
social policy: Comparing welfare states in
Central and Eastern Europe and the former So-
viet Union. Journal of European Social Policy,
10(3), 240-266
Pollitz Worden, A., & Carlson, B. E. (2005). At-
titudes and beliefs about domestic violence:
Results of a public opinion survey, I. De-
nitions of domestic violence, criminal do-
mestic violence and prevalence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 20(10), 1197-1218.
doi:10.1177/0886260505278530
P
ollitz Worden, A., & Carlson, B. E. (2005). Attitudes
and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of
a public opinion survey, II. Beliefs about caus-
es. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(10),
1219-1243. doi:10.1177/0886260505278531
Pravilnik o prepovedi približevanja določenemu
kraju ali osebi. Uradni list RS, št. 95/2004.
Pravilnik o sodelovanju organov ter o delovanju
centrov za socialno delo, multidisciplinarnih
timov in regijskih služb pri obravnavi nasilja v
družini. Uradni list RS, št. 31/2009.
Reid, S. (2003). Preventing violence against wo-
men – a European perspective. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe Publishing
Robnik, S., Skornšek-Pleš, T., & Veselič, Š.
(2003). Nasilje nad ženskami v družini– ana-
liza stanja. Ljubljana: Društvo za nenasilno
komunikacijo, Strokovni svet za problematiko
nasilja.
Rožman, I., & Knežević Hočevar, D. (2005). Ti-
skani mediji o nasilju nad ženskami v družini.
Socialno delo, 44(3), 187-193.
Sainsbury, D. (Ed.). (1994). Gendering welfare
states. London: Sage Publications.
Sedmak, M., & Kralj, A. (2006). Nevarna
zasebnost – nasilje v družinah v Sloveniji.
Družboslovne razprave, 23(63), 93-110.
Sedmak, M., Kralj, A., Medarič, Z., & Simčič, B.
(2006). Nasilje v družinah v Sloveniji: rezulta-
ti raziskave. Koper: Univerza na Primorskem,
Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče.
Selič, P. (Ed.). (2004). Nasilje v družini-poti do re-
šitev. Posebno poročilo. Ljubljana: RS Varuh
človekovih pravic.
Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives.
A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles & D.
R. Loseke (Eds.), Current Controversies on
Family Violence (pp. 67-87). London: Sage
Publications.
Švab, A. (1997). Ženske kot manjšina skozi
spremembe v feminizmu drugega vala.
Družboslovne razprave, 13(24-25), 59-76.
Švab, A. (2001). Družina: od modernosti k
postmodernosti. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in
publicistično središče.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of
the prevalence, incidence and consequences
of violence against women. Research report.
Findings from the National violence against
women survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice. Ofce of Justice Programs.
Available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdfles1/

44
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
nij/183781.pdf?PHPSESSID=9b0f266925c06
211980333e713e2e399
United Nations (1995). Report of the Fourth World
Conference of Women. Available at http://
www.wave-network.org/images/doku/un_bei-
jing1995_pa_report.pdf
United Nations (2010). Handbook on effective po-
lice responses to violence against women. New
York: United Nation Publications. Available at
http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-
prison-reform/hb_eff_police_responses.pdf
Veselič, Š. (Ed.). (2007). Na poti iz nasilja. Prak-
se dela proti nasilju nad ženskami. Ljubljana:
Društvo SOS telefon.
Vode, A. (1998). Spol in upor. Ljubljana: Krtina.
Walker, L. E. (1983). The battered women syn-
drome study. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G.
G. Hotaling & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The Dark
Side of Families (pp. 31-48). London: Sage
Publications.
Walby, S. (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Produc-
tive tensions in theory and practice. Social
Politics: International Studies in Gender, State
and Society, 12(3), 321-343. doi:10.1093/sp/
jxi018
Walby, S., & Allen, J. (2004). Domestic violence,
sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the
British Crime Survey. Home Ofce Research
Study 276. London: Home Ofce. Available
at http://www.homeofce.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/
hors276.pdf
Williams F. (1994). Social policy: A critical intro-
duction. Issues of race, gender and class (2nd
ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Yllö, K. A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gen-
der, power and violence. In R. J. Gelles & D.
R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on
family violence (pp. 47–62). London: Sage
Publications.
Zakon o preprečevanju nasilja v družini
(ZPND). Uradni list RS, št. 16/2008. Avai-
lable at http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.
jsp?urlid=200816&stevilka=487
Zaviršek, D. (1993). Nasilje v družini. IB revija,
27(1-2), 16-21.

45
Rev. soc. polit., god. 18, br. 1, str. 25-45, Zagreb 2011. Medarić Z.: Domestic Violence against Women in Slovenia...
Sažetak
OBITELJSKO NASILJE NAD ŽENAMA U SLOVENIJI: JAVNI PROBLEM?
Zorana Medarić
Znanstveno-istraživački centar Kopar
Kopar, Slovenija
Osnovni cilj rada jest analiza nasilja nad ženama u obitelji i pitanja u kojoj mjeri je
identiciran kao relevantan društveni i politički problem u Sloveniji. Problem je analiziran
kroz promjene na razini politike, a posebice u kontekstu rezultata empirijskog istraživanja
javnog mnijenja koje obično reektira stupanj prepoznavanja i prihvaćenja problema u
društvu, kao i uvjerenja o nekom društvenom problemu. Analiza empirijskih rezultata istra-
živanja nasilja nad ženama u obitelji upućuje na dvojnost pogleda na nasilje nad ženama. S
jedne strane, javnost je svjesna problema nasilja nad ženama, prepoznaje ga kao društveni
problem i odgovornost, dok s druge strane, pokazuje relativno visoku razinu tolerancije za
određene oblike nasilja i vjerovanje da je nasilje privatna stvar. U javnosti se tako često
reproduciraju stereotipni pogledi i mitovi o nasilju nad ženama u obitelji i ne prepoznaje
ga se kao važan društveni problem.
Ključne riječi: nasilje nad ženama, obitelj, javno mišljenje, javna politika.