Violence against women in Australia is an epidemic and its worst manifestation lies in the spate of murders seen over the past year.
Now police are openly connecting the idea of toxic masculinity to violence against women, with Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius linking the recent murder of Courtney Herron to “men’s behaviour”.
“Every time I hear about a woman being attacked — for me as a man — it gives me some pause for reflection about what it is in our community that makes men think it’s OK to attack women, or take what they want from women,” he said.
Other women killed at the hands of men in the last 12 months include Eurydice Dixon, Aya Maasarwe, Natalina Angok and Preethi Reddy. Herron is the 20th woman to be killed this year. And with each death the idea that violence against women is fostered by toxic masculinity is gaining prominence — though the term does tend to polarise people. So, what exactly is toxic masculinity? And are there any proactive policy solutions that can actually stem its effects?
What is toxic masculinity?
Put simply, toxic masculinity refers to the harmful aspects and/or effects of traditional masculinity. It refers to ideas of what a man is supposed to be, how men are expected to act, and how those ideas can result in harmful and sometimes violent attitudes towards women.
The American Psychology Association has broadly defined “traditional masculinity ideology” as “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence”. In practice guidelines released last year, the APA pointed out that men and boys are affected by these “descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive cognitions” physically and mentally.
The term toxic masculinity can put some people offside, however, and detractors often interpret it as a demonisation of men and masculinity. Studio 10‘s Joe Hildebrand labelled the recent comments from Victoria Police “nonsensical”.
“I don’t see [how] me reflecting on myself is going to stop women being bashed or murdered, because I’ve never bashed or murdered anyone,” he said. “Maybe it’s a Victorian police problem. May we should say what is it about Victorians that makes them want to kill people? … I don’t understand what difference they expect this to make.”
Is there a direct link to violence?
Several surveys have crunched the numbers to provide insight into the attitudes and beliefs of young men. One Australian survey of men between 18 and 30 from the Jesuit Social Services’ Men’s Project found that young men who “conform to traditional definitions of manhood are more likely to suffer harm to themselves, and do harm to others”.
According to the recently published findings of a 2017 survey, from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), one quarter of men believed violence was excusable if it was a result of a temporary loss of control. One quarter of surveyed men agreed that if a violent person felt regretful afterwards, violence was excusable.
When young men between 16-24 years old were surveyed, a third believed women who said they had been raped had “led the man on and then had regrets”. Almost a quarter of young men thought women find it flattering to be “persistently pursued”, even if women are not interested. And the same young men were also more likely to share ideas of gender equality in public life rather than in their own intimate relationships.
More than 40% of young Australians surveyed also agreed with the statement that it was “natural for a man to want to appear in control of his partner in front of his male friends”.
A ‘hugely preventative’ plan
Concurrent Australian state governments support actions to reduce violence against women and, despite the much-needed ongoing work, Australia is ahead of many other countries.
Renee Imbesi from VicHealth and ANROWS told Crikey that government partnerships with the community can have, and in fact were having, a “hugely preventative” impact. “Australia is leading the way, and it is the only country to have a national plan to reduce violence against women.”
The 12-year National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children — which was instituted in 2010 — is now in its fourth stage. In March, the federal government dedicated $328 million to undertake the 2019-22 fourth phase of the national action plan.
“I’m not trying to oversell it, but we are actually quite advanced — we have a national framework for preventative violence before it occurs,” Imbesi said. “What underpins that is solid evidence based on what works and also what doesn’t work.”
One of the most effective preventive measures to counter violence against women includes the role of bystanders in shaping social norms. What that looked like in Victoria, for example, was teaching young men at universities how to be active bystanders in situations where they could speak up if they saw disrespect towards women and sexism.
“It’s not about changing their worldview or dropping their personality, it’s just asking them to react in the moment … [in a way that] fits with their beliefs.”
Action and reaction
Imbesi said it was common and somewhat understandable for men, and some women, to have an initially defensive reaction to critiques of toxic masculinity. But the reactionaries, she said, were out of step with the evidence, which has highlighted ongoing problems with men’s attitudes towards women.
She said previous initiatives geared towards young men that focused on preventing smoking or preventing road trauma (young male P-platers were most likely to get into car accidents) did not draw ire because the focus was on “empowering” them to make healthier choices that benefited them.
“No one wants to see more women killed, it’s easy to get on board with that,” Imbesi said. However, she said, it was more difficult getting men on board to look at their own day-to-day actions and how they influenced and enabled other men. She promised more initiatives to challenge these norms — moving towards ideals of healthier masculinity — were on the horizon.
What should the government be doing to stop violence against women? Send your comments to boss@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, domestic or family violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000.
The American Psychology Association has ZERO credibility on any issue associated with violence, particularly violence perpetrated against people with less capacity to resist.
Or, do we not recall this disgraceful episode, perpetrated by those at the very top of the APA, and for their own financial enrichment?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/14/apa-senior-officials-torture-report-cia
“Three senior officials lose their jobs at APA after US torture scandal”
The torture scandal consuming the US’s premiere professional association of psychologists has cost three senior officials their jobs, part of a reckoning that reformers hope will lead to criminal prosecutions.
US torture doctors could face charges after report alleges post-9/11 ‘collusion’
“As the American Psychological Association copes with the damage reaped by an independent investigation that found it complicit in US torture, the group announced on Tuesday that its chief executive officer, its deputy CEO and its communications chief are no longer with the APA.
All three were implicated in the 542-page report issued this month by former federal prosecutor David Hoffman, who concluded that APA leaders “colluded” with the US department of defense and aided the CIA in loosening professional ethics and other guidelines to permit psychologist participation in torture…….”
From memory, one or two of those principals were handsomely rewarded for that ‘complicity’ – a figure of $60M comes to mind.
As for “toxic masculinity”, which without doubt manifests most strongly through rampant US led militarism, too many advocates have allowed themselves to be ‘snowed’ into believing the problem needs to be dealt with at the micro level, thus ignoring or paying less attention to the greatest source of that toxicity, and this ‘case’ is a first class example of that;
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/28/assanges-assault-on-toxic-masculinist-militarism/
Quite aside from the omission that the male responsible for the death of Herron was no less deranged (via the same drugs and mental problems) and Herron there exists (quoted from the article) this gem : “Violence against women in Australia is an epidemic ..”
Perhaps we could define “epidemic” as opposed to (let’s assume) more prevalent than the previous two years; I can’t say because *I* have not undertaken the research.
“Now police are openly connecting the idea of toxic masculinity to violence …”
Oh : let’s also define the word “toxic” in this context. Substances that at toxic are considered so for particular
reasons that are NOT analogous to social events.
Aside from the barely disguised implication of bad = white + male + liberal-minded the article assumes that violence towards females ought to be deemed as distinct to violence in general which is something of
a non sequitur in itself. The matter is very much less one of socialisation (although socialisation is clearly important) but of intrinsic chemical processes that have been around for some hundreds of millions of years; our closest primate ancestor : circa about 6 million years. As an aside it seems that only males (and not females) can become violent.
The research of the Webbs (Sydney & Betrice) was undermined by the assertion that the “problem” of poverty and starvation in the slums was caused by over-population; only. Unemployment, per se, was not a factor. Have I made the point? Besides, the result of the excessive bonking was god’s punishment.
The major criticism of the article, for which I imply no originality whatsoever, is that the expression ‘toxic masculinity’ flatters the assertion while obscuring the reality of the subject (see above). Such ontological errors are known to the sciences but since the influence of post-structuralism within the humanities a contempt for empiricism has been (1) engineered and (2) encouraged.
The chemical serotonin (strictly an amine) is, among others, responsible for aggression in everything from mammals to crustaceans. Your bio-chem friends will tell you that humans and much closer to fish (same phylum) than crustaceans are to fish.
A most disingenuous article, scribbled by an amateur for the consumption of the equally uninformed. A scant internet search on the topic would yield a more informative treatment of the topic. The topic is anything but new!
Yes kyle its rather disheartening to see another tragic young persons murder shoehorned into this year’s pop psychology narrative. The evidence suggests that the recent high profile murders are about mental illness and dysfunction though this was definitely not the case for Jill Meagher. It’s to be hoped we start bemoaning toxic mental illness, toxic disability or toxic race.
If our discourse is to be dictated by poorly designed and poorly analysed surveys by well meaning amateurs we’re unlikely to get far.
Ifs nice to care but the road to ruin is paved with good intentions.
… we don’t start bemoaning toxic mental illness… etc
Person A (male) and Person B (female) both suffered from mental illness.
Guess which one murdered the other?
Has the reverse never occurred ? Perhaps murder by motor vehicle is more attractive (at least of late) to females. Then we have had a few female relatives knocking off kids.
Binary comparison woopwoop : dangerous !
Not dangerous at all. There is such a thing as crime statistics. Do you dispute them?
Statistics is a topic with which I do clam come some some comprehension. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term ‘binary comparison’.
That aspect aside, if you believe that you have something useful to quote then lets see it.
The sentiment may be right, but the policy is woefully linked to addressing the problem, and the governments’ (state/territory & federal) funding is a total insult to women.
How many women are killed, injured or made homeless by men each year in Australia? Hundreds killed, thousands injured and made homeless. And this ignores the costs such violence impacts on people who are cared for by these women (mostly children).
Compare this to the efforts and funding against terrorism in Australia. ..the number of people killed or injured in Australia is miniscule by comparison. Yet our governments spend billions each year on this and enact laws impinging on hard fought for freedoms.
The whole thing just underlines the fact that women don’t really count (although we may say they do).
The governments need to take the issue seriously, as warranted by the size of the problem. They don’t at the moment. How insulting is it that the Liberal government’s response to domestic violence is to ‘allow’ women to use their own superannuation money to escape. …no consequence for the man. Why not apply the same principle to farmers in drought. ..let them use their own money.
Sources first Mark (you have provided nothing) and then let’s consider policy.
Toxic masculinity and sexism cannot fully explain this and other recent random murders of women – relying on “toxic masculinity” to explain these incidents merely individualises material, social problems and shifts the burden of a gutted social safety net onto bad individual male attitudes. While there’s no doubt that sexist attitudes played a role in Ms Herron’s (and others’) murder, sexist attitudes alone are just not an adequate explanation.
There are so many factors in this crime and Ms Herron’s circumstances (homelessness, mental health issues, drug use issues, general social exclusion) that are attributable to the frightening insecurity and instability that is characteristic of late capitalism in Australia.
To take one example, lack of accessible public housing is massive issue – waitlists for public housing are years long. Not having stable housing exacerbates other problems. Mental health treatment is poorly funded (10x medicare rebated psychologist sessions per calendar year) and drug use is merely a way to cope with frightening and insecure circumstances. None of these issues are a surprise – we live in times where governments are constantly slashing social services.
If the government was really committed to ending family violence and keeping women safe, it would stop focusing so much on “toxic masculinity” and start massively investing in more public housing (instead of selling off public housing in lucrative areas and privatising the problem through social housing), among other basic social services.
Glance over just a few of the novels of Dostoevsky and the matter is anything but new. As you say, there are any number of causes; poverty and an absese of suitable accommodation being one. There is also the socialisation.
When you next having a beer with a school teacher inquire as to the interference they can anticipate in regard to a student in regard to grades or assessments of attitude. For most (all?) schools teaches are obliged to tick a box to express a “pre-constructed” comment. They have not the liberty to express their own comments. The Principals are in complete compliance.
With a life time (to cica 19) of being told that “you are wonderful | you can do no wrong | you are loved etc”
a sense of divine right, not unsurprisingly, appears and manifests itself into serious crime.
Then, for the unemployed, there is no strategy to utilise leisure time effectively otherwise than in a haze of noxious substances. Do you think their might be a pattern ?
But wait : there is a solution : remove the toxic (whatever that expression might mean) from masculinity.
‘Toxic masculinity’ is another case of what people are against, rather than what they are for. It is highly likely to provoke some men to embrace ‘toxic’ as a macho label. Less psychologically satisfying then blaming some group is to define and support what you do want. How about a contemporary version of what it means to be a ‘real man’ and put some support behind it showing the benefits for all.
At a broad level it is about building positive social values, which should aim at the whole population.
The other aspect to this issue is what is the relative contribution of mental illness and homelessness compared to cultural contributors such as ‘toxic masculinity’. One thing I am confident of is that it is much cheaper to denounce toxic masculinity than it is to effectively deal with mental illness and homelessness.