This page contains a selection of recent news articles and commentary about male victims of violence and abuse plus related issues. These articles are presented as a community service, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the One in Three Campaign.

Please send any relevant news articles to us by clicking here and we will post them on this page.


Recent Australian intimate partner violence research finds high rates of male victimisation

Recent Australian research by Ahmadabadi et al in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence has found that males more often remain in an abusive relationship and report experiencing higher rates of intimate partner violence in their current relationships compared with females. The paper, Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence in Current and Prior Relationships, adds to the growing research literature supporting a gender symmetry model of family violence.


Although much available research indicates that intimate partner violence (IPV) is male perpetrated, growing recent evidence suggests a gender symmetry model of family violence. This article examines gender differences in IPV in current and prior relationships reported by young adults. Data comprised 2,060 young adults (62.1% females) who participated in the 30- year follow-up of the Mater Hospital and University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy (MUSP) in Brisbane, Australia. The Composite Abuse Scale was used to measure IPV during the last 12 months in the respondents’ most recent relationship. Similar proportions of males and females reported leaving their prior relationships. Both males and females who were not currently in a relationship reported experiencing much higher rates of IPV than those who were in a relationship. There were no differences in the past experience of IPV between males and females who were not currently in a relationship, but males in a current relationship reported they experienced most forms of IPV more often than did females. IPV typically involves both male and female perpetrators and victims. It does appear that the majority of relationships involving higher rates of IPV were dissolved. IPV was more likely to have occurred in relationships that ended than in relationships that persisted. Males more often remain in an abusive relationship and report experiencing higher rates of IPV in their current relationships compared with females.

You can access the full study here.


Bundaberg push for Australia’s first men’s refuge

The main objective with Jeremiah House is to provide an emergency men’s refuge centre with support for fathers experiencing family domestic violence.

A group of Bundaberg residents have launched a new charity to help men and their children who are escaping domestic violence.

Jeremiah House will be the first of its kind in Australia, aimed at providing support and refuge to fathers and their children who are fleeing emergency family domestic violence crisis situations.

The news was released the same day a Brisbane woman who stabbed her husband to death because she was “angry and annoyed” that he got home late from work, has been sentenced to nine years in prison for manslaughter.

Founder of Jeremiah House Peter Symes said Jeremiah House only exists on paper at this stage.

“We are looking for a major sponsor so we can open our doors,” he said.

Jeremiah house is also looking for fellow volunteers who are interested in helping out.

Co-founder Robert Stoker said Jeremiah House would provide short-term emergency accommodation, supply nightly meals, clothing, counselling, financial budgeting advice and much more.

“We will help clients with their day-to-day life skills, preparing and cooking meals, house cleaning, parenting skills, and accessing local community specialists,” he said.

Jeremiah House officially launched as a charity in 2018 and they’re now after the community support.

“Our head office will be in Bundaberg Queensland but our vision is to be Australia-wide within the next 10 years,” Mr Symes said.

The main objective for Jeremiah House is to provide an emergency men’s refuge centre with support for fathers experiencing family domestic violence. The same as a women refuge in Australia.

“Jeremiah House is most needed in our communities of Australia,” Mr Stoker said.

“Sponsors and donations are the key to unlocking the doors for Jeremiah House to becoming a reality.”

The charity refuge is asking for donations to help them get the charity up and running.

To connect with Jeremiah House visit their Facebook page.


Exciting new avenues for violence-prevention ignored so as to fit the gendered violence narrative

As someone working in the field of family violence prevention, I was interested to read Jane Gilmore’s latest article in The Age titled "This is why sexist jokes are dangerous." In it, Gilmore cites a recent study by US researchers Jennifer Ruh Linder and W. Andrew Collins published in the Journal of Family Psychology. Gilmore writes,

"Longitudinal research published by the Journal of Family Psychology found that while seeing violence between parents had a significant impact on the likelihood of boys using violence as adults, the attitudes of their friends when they were 16 years of age had an even stronger impact. These findings have been duplicated in many other studies and prove the point that poor attitudes to women and gender normalise and enable violence against women."

Reading Linder and Collins’ study, I was surprised to discover that not only had Gilmore gotten her facts wrong, she had ignored interesting and relevant findings from the study that could potentially reduce family violence (or, in Gilmore’s language, reduce "violence against women").

The study actually didn’t investigate the attitudes of boys’ friends when they were 16 years of age AT ALL. It found that "individuals who had higher quality friendships at 16 years of age reported lower levels of perpetration and victimisation in subsequent romantic relationships at 21 years of age", and "observed conflict management at 21 years of age was best predicted by friendship quality." In other words, when boys (and girls) have stronger peer friendships, they are less likely to become perpetrators or victims of family violence, and are more likely to resolve relationship conflict without the use of violence.

Gilmore was correct that the study found seeing violence between parents affected the use of violence as adults, but it didn't find that it increased the likelihood of boys using violence. Instead it found that at 21 years of age, witnessing of partner violence was associated positively with victimisation. As well as Gilmore getting this fact wrong, this wasn’t actually one of the most significant findings of the study.

The most consistent predictor of both perpetration and victimisation at 21 as well as 23 years of age was parent–child boundary violations at 13 years of age. Parent-child boundary violations was a combined measure of two other measures: seductive relationship and boundary dissolution.

"Seductive relationship rated behaviours occurring between the parent [usually the mother] and adolescent that usually occur only between romantic partners. Examples of such behaviours included intrusive physical contact, private jokes, and intimate or coy voices. Boundary dissolution referred to three types of intrusive or overly familiar behaviours: "spousification", in which the adolescent met the caretaking needs of the parent; "parentification," in which the adolescent displayed nurturance or limit setting as a parent would; and peer-role diffusion, in which both the adolescent and the parent acted in a manner similar to adolescents. Examples of such behaviours included signs of disrespect of the parent by the child, high levels of caretaking of the parent by the child, and avoidance of responsibility by the parent."

These parent–child boundary violations "had not been considered previously in research on relationship violence. Those individuals who experienced higher levels of behaviours such as casually seductive and role-reversal behaviours by the parent in early adolescence reported higher levels of physical perpetration and victimisation in their romantic relationships in early adulthood."

“In addition to the significant impact of boundary violations, negative parent–child interactions in adolescence also contributed to likelihood of later physical aggression. Negative interactions in the parent–child relationship at 13 years of age were positively associated with victimisation at 21 years of age. Individuals with a history of hostile, negative, and conflictual parent–child interactions were more likely to be victims in their romantic relationships.”

The study also found that at 23 years of age, childhood abuse was correlated positively with both perpetration and victimisation. It found, like most other studies, that most dating violence was bilateral. And finally, the study found that family violence was gendered, but not in the way Gilmore would like to think: at 23 years of age, male participants reported higher levels of victimisation than female participants.

The study provides exciting new avenues for further violence-prevention research.

"…The almost exclusive focus on early family violence as the primary factor in the likelihood of children’s later violent relationships provides an incomplete picture of the development of romantic aggression. Quality of parent–child relationship experiences in adolescence had predictive power above and beyond early family violence and was a more consistent predictor of physical aggression and conflict management. In addition, friendship quality was a key predictor of romantic aggression, especially of observable conflict management skills in romantic relationships."

It’s a great pity that it appears Gilmore’s ideological blinders caused her to fit the study’s actual findings into her pre-existing “violence against women” narrative so that she not only misled readers with major factual errors, but also missed out on disseminating the most exciting findings of the study that show great promise at reducing family violence.


Are 'men' the problem?

This is our belated contribution to the #MeToo discussion. When we make female perpetrators invisible, we make their mostly male victims invisible too. Blaming ‘men’ not only makes it harder for male victims to get help, it also puts them at risk of secondary victimisation when they present as a victim yet are treated like a perpetrator.

#MeToo #MenToo #Gillette #TheBestMenCanBe #APA #MenAreTheProblem




WA 10 Year Strategy for Reducing Family and Domestic Violence - have your say!



10 Year Strategy for Reducing Family and Domestic Violence

The State Government is developing a 10 Year Strategy for Reducing Family and Domestic Violence in Western Australia (the Strategy). It will guide a whole of community approach to prevention and earlier intervention, victim safety and perpetrator accountability. 

The Strategy will include a focus on access and inclusion, and consider the unique and diverse needs of Aboriginal people, people with disability, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, LGBTQ+ people, and people in regional and remote Western Australia. 

A dedicated approach to Aboriginal family safety

The Strategy will also include a dedicated approach to Aboriginal family safety. This is in recognition of the significant over-representation of Aboriginal women and children as victims of family violence, the ongoing impact of colonisation for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, and the importance of community owned and led responses grounded in Aboriginal law and culture.

Dedicated consultation processes that focus on working alongside Aboriginal people are being developed to inform this approach. For further information please contact 

Have your say!

To inform development of the Strategy, the Department of Communities is undertaking extensive consultation between December 2018 and June 2019 and wants to hear from all Western Australians. Have your say through a range of options, outlined below.

Click to read more ...