20/12/2025
Some services or colleagues may not agree with what I share here, and Iโm okay with that.
This is my perspective on family violence, shaped by working in the sector since 2008. There has always been a strong emphasis on โnot colludingโ with men who use violence. In many workplaces Iโve worked in, we were expected to challenge men from the beginning. If we didnโt actively challenge them, it was often seen as collusion.
I remember, in one of my supervisions, I was told not to nod my head when a man was sharing his story or justifying his behaviour, that nodding itself could be seen as agreement. The expectation was to challenge and hold men accountable.
I understand the intention behind this. Accountability matters. Impact matters. Harm must be named.
But something about this โapproachโ never fully sat right with me.
If we challenge men from the very start, without first listening, and empathising are we modelling something different or are we unintentionally replicating the same dynamics of power, dominance, and dismissal that we are asking them to unlearnโ๏ธ
As professionals, what sorts of behaviours are we modellingโ
I believe this approach is, in itself, a form of collusion. ๐คท๐ฝโโ๏ธ
For me, nodding my head does not mean agreement. It means I am listening. I am present. I am paying attention. Empathy is not endorsement. Understanding is not excusing.
I believe men are more able to take responsibility when they feel heard and held accountable, not shamed, shut down, or met with force.
๐๐ฝ Accountability without empathy hardens defences.
๐๐ฝ Empathy without accountability minimises harm.
The work lives in holding both. That balance matters, for men, for partners, and especially for children.
๐I share this openly here because I am values-driven, and I choose to work only in environments that align with my personal and professional values.