We already know how to stop domestic violence: close the inequity gap

The very public death of 33-year-old Fiona Warzywoda, who was stabbed in a central shopping precinct in Melbourne’s western suburbs on April 16, shocked the community. Since then, we have seen a spate of articles calling for tougher punitive measures, more forceful policing and stricter enforcement of existing laws surrounding domestic violence.

But what has been absent from the coverage is the fact that we actually know what is needed to eradicate violence against women: the elimination of sexism and gender inequality across society.

For the past few months, I have been investigating violence against women and reporting on initiatives to combat its devastating impact on Australian lives. The project, in co-operation with Melbourne University’s Centre for Advancing Journalism, draws on the domestic violence sector for direction in determining how the issue can best be covered and which aspects warrant greater media attention.

What has astonished me is that a problem that seems at first to be so amorphous and difficult to fix is actually well understood by those working towards its elimination.

Violence against women has been proved to be caused by three factors: gender inequity, supportive attitudes towards violence and a rigid adherence to gender roles. Put simply, the more sexism and gender inequality that exists in society, the higher the levels of violence against women.

A report from Unifem, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, plots gender equity and violence from a variety of international sources. Countries with the greatest equality between the sexes — Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden, for example — are among those with the lowest rates of violence against women. Conversely, where the gender gap is widest, such as in Yemen, Pakistan, Chad and Syria, rates of violence against women are highest. Australia ranks mid-stream in much of the data …

What’s important to note about this research is that the sexism that causes higher levels of such violence is not some obscure, alien form of sexism specific only to psychopaths and killers. It is the very same sexism we see every day in the street, in our homes, our workplaces, in pop culture and politics.

It is hard to understand how a tasteless joke at the pub is linked to the death, on average, of one Australian woman every week at the hand of her intimate partner or ex-partner. But Emily Maguire, a leading expert in violence prevention, explains that the link between gender equity and violence works on a cultural level rather than an individual level.

We’re not saying that if you hold these attitudes you’re going to perpetrate violence,” said Maguire. “What we’re saying is that in a patriarchal society, where people think women and men should and shouldn’t do certain things, and where there’s a culture where violence is tolerated, individuals who live in that world are more likely to perpetrate violence [than they would if things were more equal].”

What this means is that all of us, every day, could be contributing to a culture where violence against women is more likely to be perpetrated. What this also means is that we all have the capacity to contribute — through our interactions, relationships and political choices — to building a world where violence against women is greatly reduced.

There are many ways to increase gender equality in society: strengthening reproductive rights, increasing the number of women in Parliament, giving single mothers access to entitlements and ending wage disparity are just a few of the strategies feminists have put forward in the last year.

In recent years, we’ve seen many high-profile people, including Victorian Premier Denis Napthine, urging us to “say no to violence”. What we have not seen is these same people taking a public stand against the sexism and gender inequality at the root of that violence and in favour of the feminist tactics that work to demolish it.

And, frankly, trying to stop violence against women without feminism is like trying to fight cancer without oncology — it’s not going to work.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page

Tags: , , ,

Categories: Australia

5 Responses

Comments page: 1 |
  1. Given that the DV sector just got dudded in the Vic budget, theres every reason to make a fuss leading up to approaching state election. It wouldn’t cost the ALP much to be lightyears ahead of LNP, and sadly its a very topical issue.

    by Liamj on May 7, 2014 at 2:42 pm

  2. With a pugilist PM who has no intention of seeing women as equals and who considers that men are adults and women are to obey it looks like nothing will happen to improve attitudes and thus reduce domestic violence. The PM wants men in charge and that is why we have other men using domestic violence - to maintain control.

    by Tom Jones on May 7, 2014 at 8:26 pm

  3. This is one of the best articles on preventing family violence that I’ve read lately.

    It goes right back to root causes.

    I worked in a women’s refuge 30 years ago and this analysis was around then. It is very hard to make this vision real however and we have the pieces of the jigsaw together piece by piece because few are going to see the full picture.

    It has taken 30 years to get Governments to see what a critical issue we are facing in family violence. Yet those same Governments still offer piecemeal solutions.

    Thanks Bec Zajac. Keep writing.


    by BookishMisfit on May 8, 2014 at 10:45 am

  4. While I agree with most of what was written, I take issue with one point you made, “ending wage disparity”.

    There is no wage disparity.

    The difference in earnings between women and men are all down to personal choices made by individuals. This has been shown time and time again to be the case.

    Additionally, intimate partner violence (IPV) is not just about men abusing women. Studies have shown that in roughly half of all violent relationships, the violence is reciprocal (i.e. both partners are violent to each other).

    Additionally, when the IPV is non-reciprocal (i.e. only one partner is violent), the violent partner is more likely to be the woman.


    Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”


    The International Dating Violence Study3 found that among students at 31 universities worldwide male and female students had similar rates of physically assaulting a partner (25% of men and 28% of women at the median university). There was parity for perpetrating severe assaults (used a knife or gun, punched or hit partner with something that could hurt, choked partner, slammed partner against a wall, beat up partner, burned or scalded partner on purpose, kicked partner) - 9% of male and female students at the median university. For severe injury (passed out, required medical attention or broke a bone) the perpetration rate was higher for males (median rate 3.1% by men and 1.2% by women).”

    I think the conclusion in the second link I provided really sums up my position on this nicely.

    Only examining rates of violence perpetrated against women risks perpetuating an inaccurate stereotype of women as victims and men as aggressors. This may hinder women from receiving support to reduce their own perpetration of violence and may contribute to the underreporting of violence perpetrated by women against men.”

    And to be clear, I am against all forms of domestic violence.

    by spiggot on May 8, 2014 at 12:33 pm

  5. Oh dear, way to make the author’s point for her. I’m not sure referencing ‘the spearhead’ as a source will do anything for your credibility - it certainly doesn’t prove the gender wage gap doesn’t exist; just that you frequent corners of the internet reserved for ‘guttural hatred’ of women.

    by Claire on Jun 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm

« | »