Why are so many women being murdered?

TRIGGER WARNING FOR THOSE EXPERIENCING OR RECOVERING FROM FAMILY VIOLENCE

This week the news is full of family violence. New data shows that, in spite of the Australian government’s commitment to “ending family violence in one generation” and a target to reduce the number of women being killed by their partners by 25% annually, deaths increased by nearly 30%.

I wondered what might have contributed to this massive failure. I went and looked at The National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022 – 2033. It’s a visually beautiful document, well researched and well written but it’s also very long and unlikely to be read by those that most need to read it. They would need to deal with content like this:

“Violence against women and children is a problem of epidemic proportions in Australia. One in 3 women has experienced physical violence since the age of 15, and one in 5 has experienced sexual violence. On average, a woman is killed by an intimate partner every 10 days. Rates of violence are even higher for certain groups, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. A woman is also more likely to experience violence at particular life stages, such as while pregnant or while separating from a relationship.4 In 2021, girls aged 10 to 17 made up 42% of female sexual assault victims.”

There was nothing new here for me. As someone involved in policing family violence over 30 years ago I was struck by how little things had changed. There’s some new language and the welcome specific inclusion of the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and those that identify as part of the LBGTIQA+ communities, but these recommendations are startlingly similar to every other set of recommendations I’ve ever seen on this issue.

It’s ironic recommendations like those contained in this document are so often referred to as “motherhood statements”. The term is used to describe a recommendation that is well intentioned, but ineffective because it lacks any specific practical actions that might be taken to achieve it or because the funding needed to achieve it is inadequate or unavailable. Here’s an example from page 27 of this 143 page document:

“Steps towards reducing prevalence

To support progress towards reducing the prevalence of gender-based violence, the following steps need to be achieved:

• strengthen the capacity of the prevention workforce strengthen the capacity of specialist family, domestic and sexual violence services
• improve access to support services
• better coordinate and integrate systems and services
• deliver services in a culturally safe way
• improve community attitudes and norms
• advance gender equality
• increase women’s feelings of community safety
• ensure people have positive experiences when reporting experiences of violence to police and specialist services
• ensure victim-survivors have more positive experiences with, and outcomes through the justice system, including family law
• ensure men’s behaviour change programs and perpetrator interventions are effective”

This is basically a wish list. It’s thin on how we strengthen capacity, improve access or ensure anything. There’s a whole section on measuring outcomes that gives me great hope, because this kind of hard data analysis is often missing from past reports on this subject, but the measures are largely about surveying individuals to determine their perceptions. There’s not a lot of clear direction on how systemic change might be accomplished beyond statements around its desirability.

This document contains several worthy wish lists, but like every strategy document before it, I think it fails to specifically address the systemic drivers of family violence. I note that it describes patriarchy and has a heart rending statement on behalf of victims, designed to invoke empathy in all who read it, but I suspect that this document will primarily be ignored by those they most seek to influence.

To get to the heart of the matter I think we need to consider why “motherhood statement” is used to describe anything, and why it means “well meaning but ineffectual”. The language itself reflects an enduring social inequity that has remained largely unchanged by feminism or social reform. Using “motherhood” in this context implies that mothers aren’t powerful, and that we aren’t considered effective beyond the creation of platitudes. Inequity is embedded in our language, our culture and our traditions. Changing such entrenched dysfunction is hard. I’m pleased to see it getting the public attention it deserves.

So, while this topic is the subject of so much media attention and debate, I thought I would feed some of my own recommendations into the mix. Most of these are aimed at putting a fence at the top of the cliff rather than an ambulance at the bottom, but I’m pragmatic about the likelihood that we will keep finding the bodies of women at the base of the cliff, and that it will have been their intimate partners that pushed them. There will always be a need for an ongoing, effective response to those deaths. I fear this is the human-ness of humans.

This is a wicked problem, both literally and in systems thinking terms. We know what we want the future to look like but we don’t know how to get there. I’ve applied my policing experience and systems thinking knowledge to see if I can find some leverage points, where we get the greatest return for the least effort. This is also the application of permaculture design methodology (closely aligned to systems thinking) to see what novel solutions might emerge.

I offer these recommendations as my best effort at reforming a broken system. It’s just a first pass at my top 10. See what you think of these:

1. Lets ditch archaic attitudes to marriage and ensure women can afford to leave violent relationships

Our system still assumes that a couple will share their finances, and that a working partner will share income with a non-working partner. This is no longer the case. Many younger people now acknowledge that marriage is a failed pattern, and that one in four marriages will end in divorce. Couples are more likely to be together “for now” rather than “until death do us part” and yet the state assumes otherwise.

This insistence on historical patterns is particularly disadvantageous to women, who are overwhelmingly responsible for the care of children and the home, but who are unable to claim unemployment benefits or an equivalent form of independent financial support while doing so. Financial disadvantage is a major form of control in abusive relationships. It’s also time to pay women for the significant contribution that their “home making” provides to society, and to make it more attractive to men that might share that role.

Our social welfare system should treat all people as independent individuals. If two people choose to live together for a period of time and pool their resources they should not be disadvantaged just because their relationship is intimate. People in share houses don’t have this problem. Neither should women in relationships. Ideally, I’d like to see Universal Basic Income seriously considered because it would give women (and everyone else) a reliable and predictable income. It would also allow those being exploited or sexually harassed by employers to leave. Failing that, reforms that remove antiquated and patriarchal assumptions about income sharing should be removed.

Ideally, I would also end the pattern of women changing their surname upon marriage but I fear this one is so aligned with notions of romance that most women wanting to keep their surname capitulate rather than cause conflict within their relationship. What a sad pattern that establishes for the future. Nothing says “she’s my property now” more than this weird tradition. Perhaps the rare but very beautiful practice of a couple choosing a new shared surname will become common. There is certainly some heavy baggage attached to only women changing their names upon marriage.

2. Lets see government and business take real action on equity

Regardless of all the rhetoric, we still see men disproportionately running the show. If we’re serious about ending family violence then our governments, boards, professions and businesses need to be truly representative. The Australian Labour Party had a policy of putting female candidates into 50% of winnable seats back in the 1970’s. What happened? The Liberal Party are feeling the Teal backlash due, in no small part to their failure to have any real commitment to equity of representation. Boards are a whole other nightmare, with male-dominated self-justifying prejudice the standard. This all needs to change, and quickly.

There’s often a call for reform of systems to make them more “female-friendly” and this one is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Reforms in policing to provide for maternity leave, paternity leave and part time work happened because of women within the organisation (I was the first NSW police officer to ever work part time) but the discrimination against female leaders, and women in general in policing organisations continues; recently the NSW Commissioner was criticised for standing back while a male officer gave a briefing on an investigation, even though asking the lead investigator to brief the press is appropriate and has always been the format for major investigations. Had the commissioner been male the comment would not have been made. I think we need systemic reform in parallel to increased female representation and not an “either/or” approach to this issue.

Calls for quotas often attract the argument that we should only ever select on merit, but when “merit” is historically and contemporaneously defined by the men in power it will be defined in a way that perpetuates male dominance. We know this. More than three decades of merit based selection have not seen equal numbers of women and men selected which means that they system either discriminates in favour of men, or that women simply aren’t as intelligent, capable or interested. (No, it’s not the second one!) We need targets, and those targets need to recognise that we are NOT a minority. When governments, government departments, boards and businesses are at 52% female leadership I believe we will also see a reduction in family violence.

How about all major political parties commit to preselecting female candidates in any seat held by their opposition and in any seat held by them and vacated by a man until they achieve 52% female representation within government. That should shake things up a bit.

Employment equity is particularly critical in those government departments that deal directly with family violence, including policing, health, social welfare and the judicial system. We also need a zero tolerance policy within those systems, so that those convicted of family violence are prevented from working within them. (How has this not already happened?) Reform should include direct communication with the partners of employees and advice on who to contact if they are victims. In the case of the police force, I would create a dedicated family violence squad within each local area command that had specific responsibility for ensuring that the partners of police officers experiencing violence were protected and the offenders removed from the organisation. Their scope would extend to all members of the community experiencing family violence and to liaison with other government departments, but there is a particular need to ensure that violent offenders are removed from policing.

3. Let’s make criminal records for violent crimes publicly accessible

I know this one will be controversial but consider this: Government departments routinely check criminal histories before employing someone and a police check is now a requirement for many jobs, but a woman entering a relationship with a violent man has no way of knowing his criminal history, unless she happens to be friends with one of his past victims (and even then, many women fall into the “beauty and the beast” trap, believing their love can somehow transform a monster -can we please have public burnings of that fairy tale!).

I would continue the protections for teenagers and those that commit non-violent crimes, and also those provisions that allow people to apply to have their criminal record wiped after a suitable period. In NSW this is currently three years for young people and ten years for adults. This is good law.

This change will be embarrassing for family violence offenders. That’s what I’m hoping for. The whole point of a criminal history is to serve as a disincentive to commit crimes in the first place while providing the court with information on past behaviour when sentencing. I want violent offenders to know that conviction will mean that anyone and everyone knows what they did, and I want women to be able to go online and check the history of a man they are dating before deciding to commit to a relationship. Yes, this would work both ways and violent people of all persuasions would be called out, including female offenders, which brings me to …….

4. Let’s remove gender from language when it isn’t relevant

I know that the 34 female murder victims killed by intimate partners in the last year were all killed by men. In this statement, gender matters. It reminds us to look at the drivers of family violence and the extent to which common attitudes involving gender intersect with the disproportionate violence by one gender against another. Campaigns specifically based on gender are as relevant here as public health campaigns for breast cancer or prostate cancer.

There is also a whole realm of gendered language that feeds the monster. Consider the difference between a policeman and a policewoman, between and actor and actress, and what happens when people add “female” to an occupation. I like Serena Williams response when she asked what it was like to be on of the world’s best female athletes. She replied that she was one of the world’s best athletes. When you can understand her response you can appreciate how important this shift in language could be.

It annoys me that these changes to language are so often dismissed as “political correctness” (what does that even mean?). I think “correctness” or “politeness” is more accurate. As someone who spent 20 years as a police officer I know the difference that gendered descriptions can make in the eyes of the public. As a “policewoman” I was often asked if I was allowed to wear a gun!

Gendered language is appropriate when it’s used appropriately. We also need to acknowledge that any services or facilities provided to victims should be accessible to all victims, and language needs to reflect that. Even when we know that the overwhelming majority of victims will be female, accessibility still matters.

I also think that in a general sense, removing gendered language when we can goes a long way towards breaking down the gender stereotypes that underpin family violence. If all police are “police officers” then they clearly have the same powers and responsibilities. Neither is “less than”. If all people are people first, and their gender is only mentioned when it’s relevant then the clear message is one of equity. I wish it were possible to abolish gendered pronouns. A friend from a culture where there is no differentiation between male and female pronouns reports a noticeable difference in the level of equity. They believe this is definitely linked to language and they noticed that their partner experienced much higher levels of discrimination when they moved to Australia. I’m guessing you can figure out which one of them is male and which one of them is female.

5. Let’s reform the bail provisions and inform magistrates of consequences

It’s distressing to any decent minded person to read that someone has been murdered by an intimate partner out on bail for offences against them. The problem is embedded within the bail act which as a “presumption in favour of bail” because people are innocent until proven guilty. Courts can take into account the protection of victims, but time and again we see examples of circumstances where they fail to do so.

I would introduce a requirement for all magistrates releasing people on bail to be personally advised of any violence committed by that person. It might help to better connect them to the consequences of their decisions.. I would also add a clause to the act that required magistrates to consider the data in relation to intimate partner violence and the high likelihood of reoffending before making a determination on bail.

I’m aware that one of the greatest disincentives to refusing bail is that someone will be incarcerated, and in those rare circumstances where they are innocent this is harsh and unreasonable treatment. We need alternatives to gaol, which brings me to …..

6. Let’s create safe houses for family violence suspects

Yes, you read that right. Suspects! We need a place that isn’t a gaol where those accused of family violence can receive counselling and treatment, including treatment for drug, alcohol and gambling addictions because they play a huge role in family violence.

This works on a number of levels. Firstly, victims should not be required to leave their homes in order to be safe. The trauma and financial impact of a system that forces them to do so cannot be overstated. We also know that there is a period immediately following arrest when people are most dangerous, and victims are most at risk. Providing offenders with temporary accomodation could provide improved victim safety, and it would certainly provide greater peace of mind.

The safe house I’m imagining would provide those accused of family violence with bed and board in a shared facility much like any good drug rehabilitation facility. It would be secured at night to prevent anyone from leaving. Offenders and suspects would be fitted with tracking devices to monitor their movements and allowed to continue working. Victims would be given an emergency alert button that could be activated to call police immediately if the offender approaches them.

I’m calling them safe houses because they help to keep victims safe and to support offenders to become safe.

This one is costly, I know, but I think less costly than women’s refuges (which we will always need, so please don’t divert funding from them!) and the massive costs associated with ongoing family violence.

7. Let’s recognise that victims might love offenders and not remove their right to choose

In NSW the legislation compiles a police officer to take action where there is evidence of violence. This action is supposed to be taken regardless of the wishes of the victim. I have always had a problem with this law. A person, usually female, is living in circumstances where her safety and her right to self-determination have been undermined by another person, usually a man, and when she seeks police help her right to self-determination is undermined by a police officer, usually a man, and no guarantee of her safety can be provided. This dynamic is, I think, central to the under-reporting of family violence until it escalates to life-threatening proportions.

This is also the foundation of a system that leaves police dismayed and disillusioned, as they continually see victims withdraw their complaints as partners swing back around to “honeymooning” and seek their forgiveness.

It’s a system that is perfectly designed to get exactly the results it gets; under-reporting, withdrawal of complaints, failed prosecutions, lack of early intervention and, ultimately, higher levels of victimisation.

The alternative is a robust early intervention service that precedes police action. It would include proactive marketing of some form of relationship counselling for all couples (I’m a fan of the Gottman method for it’s evidence-based outcomes). We need to be teaching people the essential skills for communication and conflict BEFORE things escalate to violence, and we need a way to make attending this kind of training a source of pride.

We also need a diversion option for police that recognises the simple reality of many family violence situations; these two people love each other and lack the skills to be in a relationship without it deteriorating to the point of violence. If safe houses for suspects and offenders become available this would give police an alternative to arrest, followed by inevitable release, followed often by retaliatory violence against partners.

I allow that there are some seriously psychopathic violent offenders in the mix and this would never be suitable for repeat offenders. I’m wondering if the immediate arrest of any person with a history of family violence followed by psychiatric assessment is a possibility, much like we used to “arrest” those experiencing a serious mental health episode and transport them to a psychiatric hospital. (Yes, I know police can no longer “section” people and I suspect this has contributed significantly to increased suicides among those experiencing mental illness but that’s a topic for another day).

8. Let’s make parental leave generous and compulsory for both parents

As radical as it sounds, there are now countries on earth where this is standard practice. This change clearly recognises that both parents share responsibility for their babies, and that caring for babies and children is an important thing to do. If you want to change the status of mothers then get fathers to spend the first twelve months of a child’s life sharing the care. And let’s not stop there. Many male-dominated organisations still fail to provide adequate provision for employees wanting to care newborn babies or sick children, or even to take a day off for some parenting responsibility. And while we’re at it …..

9. Let’s make high quality childcare free and available to everyone

Nothing damages a woman’s career prospects more than the birth of a child, but the same event makes little difference to a man. The lack of affordable child care also places many families in situations where the only economically viable option is for a woman to stay home and care for children. Even though women have had decades of improved access to education and reforms to employment practices we are, on the whole, much more likely to face wage discrimination, sex based harassment and job insecurity. We’re unlikely to be sacked to “give the job to a bread winner” (for younger readers, yes, this used to happen) the pervading attitude that women should stop working when they have children, or at the very least reduce their working hours and therefore their income is as persistent as pigeon shit on statues.

Finally, perhaps most importantly….

10. Let’s provide highly visible shop front services for those seeking advice about family violence

Ideally, I would also like these facilities to provide free relationship training to anyone interested in accessing it (and this would help to reduce the inevitable stress experienced by those working with victims. They would also be a one-stop-shop for connecting people to police, social welfare, emergency housing, medical care and counselling. Making them dual purpose removes any stigma that might otherwise be associated with walking in. You might just be there for a course.

That’s it for now. AsI said out the outset, this is just my first pass at my top ten. I’m sure as I toss all of the variables around inside my head I’ll think of some other points of leverage. I also want to acknowledge that ALL of the recommendations in the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children have enormous merit. I am completely on board with improving services to victims and reforming offender treatment. I couldn’t agree more about the need to improve policing services and judicial processes. It’s good to see improving the awareness of men and boys included. It’s all great, but there’s a serious lack of HOW in this document and the one before it. I think that’s why we are now in a worse position that we were a year ago.

I hope that contributing to the discussion helps to result in real action. Lately, I keep remembering the argument I used to have with my Dad about abortion. Dad was a member of the Legislative Assembly in NSW at a time when several men within the house were seeking to reform the law on abortion (there were no women). Abortion was illegal. Dad was prepared to compromise with opponents and amend the law so that abortion could be considered “on medical grounds” and I wanted him to stick to his guns, and hold out for abortion on demand. Dad compromised, and his speech to parliament played a significant part in the amendment being passed into law. He said this:

“Gentlemen, make no mistake. We are not debating whether or not women will have abortions, but the conditions under which they will have them.”

Forty something years later this still resonates with me as a reminder to really pay attention to the underlying systems and the people within them. All of the previous efforts and reducing the deaths associated with family violence have failed. I think that’s down to misunderstanding about how change is ever achieved. It’s not going to happen as a consequence of a 143 page report full of good intentions and great ideas (and they ARE great ideas!). We need to find points of leverage that tip the system over. It’s no good debating the conditions under which women will be killed. We need to determine which changes will result in saving lives.

My father’s passion for reform on abortion law was personal. His mother died when he was 13. His father forced her to terminate a pregnancy and the horrible things done to her by an unqualified person killed her slowly over several months. Dad’s father refused to see her, and Dad would take a convoluted series of public transport options across Sydney to watch her waste away. My grandmother lived during a time when women passed from the ownership of their fathers to the ownership of their husbands upon marriage. They could be beaten and raped. They had no legal recourse. In order to obtain social welfare a woman needed to prove she had been destitute for twelve months.

We’ve come a long way. We need to keep going.

I grew up knowing I didn’t have a paternal grandmother, but I didn’t hear her story until Dad sought to change the legislation. He won our argument by saying, “I don’t disagree with you. Women should have the right to decide whether or not they want to be pregnant, but how many women will die while fight for something I can’t win?” Pragmatism over idealism.

That’s where I land on this issue. I’m tired of lofty goals like “end family violence in one generation”. I’m weary of summits, reports, reviews, Royal Commissions, recommendations and rhetoric. We need real action and we need it right now. We need improvement, even if those improvements are less that ideal.

Because people are dying, and most of them are women, and there can only be one true test of any program designed to change that:

Less deaths.