“I don’t see how reflecting on myself is going to stop women being bashed or murdered.”
Joe Hildebrand’s words, in the wake of the latest victim of extreme violence directed at a young woman in Melbourne, are at the root of contemporary debates with the #NotAllMen faction, which by definition declines to engage in thoughtful reflection.
We have, thankfully, moved on from the abjuration of sufferers of domestic violence to progressive action, such as the establishment of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, an act of retrospection in itself and undoubtedly a huge step forward for the incomprehensible amount of women who have been or are currently victim to abuse by their partner.
At times like these I believe the most fundamental and progressive thing any of us can do is to reflect on our own behaviour and of those around us, while asking why does this keep happening and what can I do to stop it?
In his op-ed, Hildebrand correctly states that men are more violent than women, committing many more homicides and assaults than women do. However, the contention is then followed by an inexplicable flip towards a focus on the murder rates committed by men, with deliberately reductive math resulting in the assertion that only “0.0042 per cent of the male population” murder a woman over a two-year period in Australia. He goes on to state that men commit murder despite the threat of criminal punishment and therefore asking murderers to reflect upon their attitudes is a fruitless endeavour.
There are two main issues with this argument. Clearly, domestic violence appears in many forms other than murder — financial, social, and emotional to name a few. To reduce the issue to homicide alone is a gross misrepresentation of the issue at hand.
Secondly, Hildebrand fails to understand the cultural and societal basis of violence against women. According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, gender inequality is a key determinant of violence against women, going beyond economic considerations, including social norms and attitudes.
Keeping this in mind, Hildebrand may be right that asking murderers to reflect on their attitudes may not be an effective way of reducing the murder and abuse of women by their male partners. However, the World Health Organization did find that perpetrator programs are generating significantly positive behavioural and attitudinal progressions, suggesting that reflection and intervention does have a role to play in changing these behaviours.
Hildebrand moves on to blame the “failure of the Victorian criminal justice system”, utilising the brutal murders of Jill Meagher, Aiia Maasarwe and Eurydice Dixon as evidence, while hastily touching on a mental health alibi for the case of Courtney Herron’s brutal murder.
Soon after, Hildebrand again comes out against reflection, claiming he doesn’t disagree or feel threatened by the idea, only that “you don’t have to stretch your mind too far to realise how absurd [reflection is]”. I would challenge Joe as well as the men and women who agree with this assertion that some variety of fear may potentially be a contributing factor in this steadfast refusal to engage in inner contemplation.
Hildebrand continues his case for #NotAllMen and against reflection by referring to Muslims and young African males within the framework of terrorism and gang violence. He asks, did police ask these communities to reflect on their behaviour?
Well, not publicly, however the police and many other groups are absolutely working with them to do so. The African community, the Muslim community and even the Catholic community are working to address the inexcusable actions of the marginal groups within these communities. But how did this collaborative action begin? It begun with the act of reflection. It is through the act of reflection of all members inside and outside our communities that we can begin to progressively address the vast number of factors that contribute to acts of violence.
In the case of violence against women, social norms and attitudes need to be addressed, and as members of our society, it is a call for all of us to take time to reflect and upon doing so, act.
The closing argument in Hildebrand’s piece concerns the socio-economically disadvantaged, including the opportune twist away from homicide statistics to the more appropriate inclusion of domestic violence statistics.
Yes, domestic violence occurs at much higher rates among some segments of this population, and I do commend Hildebrand for what briefly appears to be some, albeit rhetorical, reflection, as well as some common sense approaches to addressing disadvantage in our society, namely housing and health provisions.
However, Hildebrand rejects this opportunity for reflection, and in doing so, forgoes the chance to consider the factors that may contribute to the greater incidences of violence observed in socio-economically disadvantaged communities.
I think Hildebrand means well. Although, I believe his audience would benefit if he were to engage in improved critical reflection before opining. His refusal to engage in any kind of critical self reflection results in a lack of contemplation of the underlying factors that contribute to the murdering of women by men and serves only to reinforce the false narrative that men, or any other group for that manner, have nothing to gain from retrospective action.
#YesAllMen have a role to play in calling out the attitudes and behaviours that lead to men viewing women as lesser, and consequently the violence against them.
From one privileged male to another, the cry for critical and intentional self-reflection is on us above all.
[Jesse Boyd is a social worker in Melbourne, and a cofounder of BreakBoundaries, a working group focusing on projects concerning the prevention of violence against women.]