How we can turn around horrific levels of violence against Australian women.

Violence against women is so deeply ingrained in our collective psyche it’s like we’re fish but we don’t see the water, says Fiona McCormack. If we are to turn it around, the CEO of Domestic Violence Victoria says we need to frame the deepening crisis in terms of power and justice.

Is Australia a good society? In so many ways, yes – we have so much going for us. But the reality is we have something quite unhealthy going on: violence against women.

My key message is this: we can turn this around. We can actually prevent violence against women from occurring in the first place and we can definitively reduce rates of recidivism.

The extent of the problem

The national average is a woman murdered every week by someone known to them.

Obviously we need to revisit that statistic. We’ve had 42 women murdered through violence so far this year. Not all of these women have been murdered by a current or ex-partner. But it’s important to know that all forms of violence against women are caused by the same factors, whether it occurs on the street or in the home and whether it’s perpetrated by a stranger or someone known.

Below are some of the women in Australia who have been killed by domestic violence this year. (Post continues after gallery.)

As concerning as these statistics are, the reality is they are only the tip of the iceberg of something that is rife in our community.

One in three Australian women will experience physical violence. Family violence is a key driver of 23 per cent of national homelessness in Australia. It comprises 40 per cent of police time. It’s a factor in over 50 per cent of substantiated child protection cases. And it’s costing us. Violence against women costs the Australian economy $13.6 billion every year. That’s not so far, that’s every year.

What are the causes?

One of the reasons I think it’s so prolific, is that it is still so misunderstood, so it’s clouded in myth. It’s still commonly maintained that women are as violent as men, and it’s still commonly misunderstood to be caused by mental health, drugs and alcohol, cultural factors, economic pressures, et cetera – and these can all be contributing but not causal factors. The common denominator in most of these cases is gender.

The uncomfortable truth is that this is something that is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men and where women and children are overwhelming the victims.

Does it mean all men are evil? Is it something inherent in men? Is there no hope?

There is hope because this certainly isn’t biological, it’s not innate. In fact, it’s the opposite. This is something deeply cultural – a part of our history deeply ingrained in our collective psyche. It’s like we’re fish but we don’t see the water.

International research shows that violence against women occurs in countries across the world to a greater or lesser extent depending upon some key factors:

– Rigid adherence to gender stereotypes

– The status of women compared to men

– Our violence-supportive attitudes

We often use the term ‘gender’ colloquially to mean physiological differences between men and women, but academically gender refers to social norms, the social expectations about the roles and rights of men and women in our society. Our expectations about men and women stem from a long cultural history and are essentially sexist.

Men who choose to use violence have hyper-masculine attitudes about their rights as men and the role and rights of women. They believe they have a right as men to behave this way and that it’s women who are to blame. Importantly, they see their partners and children as their possessions. That’s why we see so many women and children murdered as payback when women try to end a relationship.

A cultural aspect of how we define masculinity is that it is seen by many as something that has to be proved over and over. We women don’t have to prove to other women how much of a woman we are. But how common is it to see men challenge other men? ‘What are you? Are you a man? Are you a boy? Are you a girl?’

Men with hyper-masculine attitudes see it as critical that their masculinity isn’t doubted or challenged, which is why these attitudes are so problematic in the context of family violence. This is particularly so when women try to end a relationship and are made to pay. We would assess that about 50 per cent of the family violence the system deals with is post-separation violence, and it can go on for years.

When we look at population health outcomes, and at who is at risk of violence, we can identify another group: young men. Overwhelmingly, the violence they experience is perpetrated by other men - but we also see this as the norm. For example, when we talk about violence on the streets at night it’s often talked about as being linked to alcohol or linked to the fact that it’s late at night or that it’s in the city. What is rarely if ever talked about is the impact of gender.

This isn’t about men being less than men. It’s about reshaping expectations of what it is to be a man, about shedding concepts of masculinity that have such a negative impact on us as a society, particularly when ‘being a bloke’ involves derogatory attitudes towards women. I think that can be another way in which masculinity can be reasserted or affirmed by some men—by engaging in disrespectful comments about or behaviours toward women when they are together. With the development of healthier interpretations of masculinity we’d see a range of benefits in terms of reducing street violence, rates of violence against young men and bullying.

Then there is the status of women. Sometimes when women’s groups call for equal numbers of women in parliament, as CEOs, on boards, equal pay, et cetera, it can be misunderstood as being about equality just for equality’s sake. But the research shows that countries with the closest gender equality also have the lowest rates of violence against women.

When we have women in positions of leadership, it challenges our traditional norms about the roles of women and breaks down stereotypes. There are benefits in having women in leadership positions beyond lowering rates of violence in our community—consulting firm McKinsey reports that businesses perform better and see better returns. It also gives women agency and options. If women are mostly in lower paying roles, it can often affect whether or not they can afford to live independently. That means they are much less likely to remain in a violent relationship.

The relevance of the status of women can be easier to understand when we consider that there are many women who experience far higher rates of violence, and more extensive violence, than others: women with disabilities, Aboriginal women and women newly arrived to Australia. It’s more difficult for them to use the justice system to get protection. Aboriginal women and women with disabilities might be reluctant to report for fear of having their kids removed, may be less likely to be believed or have the assaults taken seriously. Women with little or no English may not know there are laws in place or where to go for support and may fear being rejected from their communities. There’s a common myth that certain women seek out abusers as partners when the reality is that there are men who recognise there are few options for redress for certain women and take advantage of that fact.

So what would it take to deliver a just society?

At an individual level:

1. We need zero tolerance of violence against women.

We make so many excuses for these men and we have a long history of blaming her: 'She could just leave.' Every time we do this, we are completely absolving him of having to take responsibility for his actions.

Watch Christine Anu talk about being in an abusive relationship below. Post continues after video.

Another one I commonly hear is that men feel powerless and frustrated. Well, I feel powerless and frustrated, but like thousands and thousands of men and women across Australia, I make the decision everyday not to use violence or be abusive.

2. We must understand violence against women as a choice.

This is not a sudden loss of temper or control. Many times it doesn’t even involve physical abuse. It’s usually experienced by women as a range of behaviours meant to intimidate and control. It’s a deliberate choice. Most of these men are able to control themselves at work.

3. We must understand these are everyday men.

So many women don’t recognise they’re in an abusive relationship until it’s reached crisis, especially if they’re not experiencing physical violence.

That’s because they’re sent messages by the perpetrators that they are responsible. This is backed by the broader community when we make excuses.

It’s also because we think of these men as mad or bad. They’re either villains or they’re deranged. But they’re just everyday men who believe they have a right to behave this way. They can be great friends, colleagues, members of the local sporting clubs. They can be capable of great acts of kindness even at times towards their partner, or of civic acts. The difference is their attitudes towards women.

If we’re going to prevent murders, really it’s critical we start saying: 'No matter how disaffected a man feels, no matter how hard done by the system he is, it’s never okay to harm or take the life of your partner or your child.'

4. We need to challenge sexist or derogatory attitudes towards women.

Sexism can be seen as a little outdated. It’s not something we take particularly seriously, but it matters. Sometimes people can think they have to wait until they see a violent altercation before they can do something, but the reality is men particularly can play a major role in challenging the conditions that allow violence against women to flourish by challenging derogatory comments, sexist jokes, et cetera.

If we’re going to start preventing men from being violent in the first place, we need to challenge sexist attitudes and behaviours. Just as we know there is a link between racism and race-related violence, homophobia and homophobic violence, so there is a link between sexism and violence against women. Violence is the ultimate expression of sexism.

At a societal level:

We need to be intervening earlier. Providing women with information on the early warning signs is crucial because it also provides us with information on the patterns of control.

Some of those warning signs are:

- Is he resistant to you living an independent life?

- Is he resistant to you having your own bank account?

- Is he resistant to you socialising with friends independently?

- Is he overtly jealous? Does he monitor where you are and what you do?

- Is he respectful to you? He may be in the early stages but is he respectful to other women? Ex-girlfriends?

At a systems level:

We need to build a system of perpetrator accountability. At the moment there is a gaping hole in the system. Most of the system is directed towards women and children seeking support and protection when they need it. That is really important, but the reason why they’re seeking protection is going under the radar. We have very little intervention relating to men who choose to use violence. Intervention orders and men’s behaviour change programs are pretty much the limit, and even with men’s behaviour change programs we don’t have consistent standards.

Right now, the yardstick most commonly used to determine responses for children is whether or not the non-offending parent is acting protectively. So we put all the focus on her, but we don't gather info abouthis patterns of behaviour. We are not using that to inform decisions about the system. We are certainly not using that information to interrupt the violence earlier.

At a business level:

Businesses can make an incredible difference by focusing on respect, the status of women within their organisations, the numbers of women in leadership and the kinds of policies they have to support women in the workplace. Family violence clauses are a great place to start. Not only are they very useful in mitigating the long-term impact we see women experience—like losing their jobs, which then catapults them into long-term and chronic poverty and homelessness—but it usually comes with resources for businesses about what else they might do in their organisation.

Having businesses do something in this area sends a very strong message: 'Things are changing and we’re taking this seriously.'

At a government level:

There is so much work we need governments to be doing in this space. We’ve got a national framework, a national action plan. It’s an excellent framework, but it’s only as effective to the extent to which it’s invested in. In the federal budget the only new money that we saw in the context of the number of women we’ve seen murdered this year is an additional $20 million. Compare that to the government’s investment of $1.2 billion into preventing terrorism—which is really important; I’m not saying we shouldn’t invest in that—but it says something about our values.

Something else that you can do is challenge government. It’s not just about funding, it’s about leadership. We need governments to take a really strong stand. The funding is as much an indication to the broader community about how seriously this government takes violence against women as it is money that we actually need in the system.

We can fight violence against women. We've seen an incredible improvement in the way in which media reports on violence against women—now it is time to begin a conversation that challenges some of the deeply held and longtime cultural norms we hold.

Fiona McCormack is CEO of Domestic Violence Victoria. This is an edited extract of her speech for the Cranlana Programme 2015 Alumni Speaker Series.

This post originally appeared on the ABC and was republished here with full permission. 

© 2015 Australian Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved. Read the ABC Disclaimer here.