Mixed feelings on the demise of White Ribbon Australia

Media release - for immediate release - 8th October 2019

Last week brought news of the demise of White Ribbon Australia.  

Some commentators have celebrated White Ribbon’s demise, finding positives in the fact that an organisation widely perceived as anti-male has failed. Others have been saddened by the news, lamenting that there will now be a gap in the area of primary prevention of some men’s violence against women. Our feelings are mixed.

We desperately need individuals and organisations working in the primary prevention space, but are concerned that White Ribbon failed to acknowledge the frequency and severity of family violence against males.

There is no need to attack male victims in order to support female victims.

The damage caused over the past decade by White Ribbon’s downplaying of the numbers and experiences of male victims of family violence; their use of false and misleading research and data; and their seemingly blind focus upon gender equality and patriarchy theory was immense. Their use of these techniques in school programs was especially dangerous, teaching young girls to fear boys, when the data shows that girls and boys are just as likely to use relationship violence, and they are just as likely to have witnessed Mum hitting Dad as the reverse.

The ABS Personal Safety Survey shows that between 2005 and 2016, the proportion of men who reported experiencing current partner violence in the last 12 months rose 5-fold, compared to a 50% rise in the proportion of women who reported experiencing it. This would indicate that the lack of attention to male victims of family violence by programs such as White Ribbon, Our Watch and ANROWS may be worth addressing so that all victims receive support and attention.

Rather than seeing the demise of White Ribbon, we would have preferred that they were genuinely honest in their approach and methodologies: continuing to work to prevent the use of violence by some men towards women, but in a way that supported rather than undermining and discrediting male victims of violence and abuse, that cited more balanced and complete data and peer-reviewed research, and that targeted all the causes of domestic and family violence.

We hope that from the ashes of White Ribbon may rise such a grass-roots organisation. It would be even better if this organisation could be broad-minded enough to work to end all family violence, not just some men’s violence against women. We believe our society has the capacity to support all victims of family violence, whether young or old, male or female, gay or straight, rich or poor, wherever they live. 

MEDIA CONTACT

Greg Andresen, Senior Researcher, One in Three Campaign, 0403 813 925 or info@oneinthree.com.au

You can download a copy of this media release in PDF format from here.

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.

Abstract

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.

• Originally published on Medianet.

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

YouTube https://youtu.be/B40nmG5lYSw

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/OneInThree/videos/401372107293944/&show_text=1