In Australia, national anger at men’s violence against women is at boiling point. Following multiple killings, Australians are marching on the streets demanding change. Governments are nervous, emphasizing their existing approaches in media interviews, but searching for new solutions.
Data are critically important to prevention: They help us to understand whether we are gaining or losing ground, what might be reducing violence or making it worse and what interventions could work.
However, data would never fully capture what it is like to endure, or witness that violence or live in a society saturated with it. Data might fluctuate here or there, but the fact remains that men’s violence is a constant threat in Australia.
Illustration: Constance Chou
Australia has made some gains. Homicide rates have halved since 1990, almost certainly due to former Australian prime minister John Howard’s gun control legislation rather than positive cultural change. With guns off the streets, men’s violence became less lethal. When gun control measures were introduced after the Port Arthur massacre, an unintended but important consequence was that rates of intimate partner homicide saw a long-term decline.
Another intervention designed to reduce public violence by men — alcohol restrictions — has also had the effect of reducing domestic violence in some places. When the New South Wales government responded to alcohol-related violence and street deaths in 2008 with restrictive late-night alcohol policies in Newcastle, the reported rate of domestic violence dropped by almost one-third, while it increased in places without those policies.
The fact is that the most effective interventions to prevent domestic, family and sexual violence and homicide have been made in response to male public violence, not men’s private violence. Prevention approaches specific to violence against women have focused on changing attitudes to gender equality and violence, and are struggling to demonstrate positive outcomes.
Despite record levels of national investment in gendered violence prevention, intimate partner homicides appear to be on the increase. Meanwhile, in New South Wales, reports of domestic violence to police have risen over the past five years, particularly in relation to stalking, intimidation, harassment and breaches of apprehended violence orders. Reports of sexual assault have also increased, suggesting a greater willingness to report and the profile of victims is becoming younger.
A major child victimization survey suggests that minors engaging in harmful sexual behavior toward other minors is more common now than in previous generations. Girls and young women are complaining about their male partners mimicking sexual behavior from pornography that is unwanted and painful, even if it is not necessarily illegal. Early childhood victimization for boys and girls increases their risk of perpetration and victimization respectively, yet therapeutic services for traumatized children are scarce and waitlists are long.
Social norms and attitudes are important drivers of violence (and nonviolence), but they do not arise independently of our everyday lives. They reflect the attempts to understand and cope with the society that people find themselves in: one in which male violence seems natural and inevitable because it is ubiquitous, where industries such as alcohol and pornography are permitted to profit from violence against women, where victimized children and women have to cope with the trauma of abuse because the society has not committed the resources to their well-being and safety.
This is not a perfect analogy, but men’s violence is a bit like an infectious disease. If it is not prevented or treated, it tends to spread. Education and public awareness are important, but they are not, in themselves, a cure. It is one thing to be told that men’s violence is driven by gender inequality and those inequalities must be rectified by collective action, but if the practical work of prevention and treatment is neglected, while the community struggles under the burden of violence with inadequate investment in safety, healing and recovery, and the problem is exacerbated by predatory industries and harmful systems, then it is little wonder that people are not making the headway they hoped for.
Where we see positive change happening, it is not at the level of an entire country, state or territory. It is at the level of motivated communities and institutions, where people have banded together to identify local problems and develop innovative solutions, based on research but also their knowledge of what works in their own context. There is no whole-of-population panacea for violence against women. Society needs a strategic, coordinated and practical approach that integrates many different responses and listens closely to frontline workers and community members.
Michael Salter is the director of Childlight in the University of New South Wales’ School of Social Sciences and an expert in child sexual exploitation and gendered violence.
As India’s six-week-long general election grinds past the halfway mark, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s messaging has shifted from confident to shrill. After the first couple of phases of polling showed a 3 percentage point drop in turnout, Modi and his party leaders have largely stopped promoting their accomplishments of the past 10 years — or, for that matter, the “Modi guarantees” offered in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) manifesto for the next five. Instead, making the majority Hindu population fear and loathe Muslims seems to be the BJP’s preferred talking point. Modi went on the offensive in an April 21
The people of Taiwan recently received confirmation of the strength of American support for their security. Of four foreign aid bills that Congress passed and President Biden signed in April, the bill legislating additional support for Taiwan garnered the most votes. Three hundred eighty-five members of the House of Representatives voted to provide foreign military financing to Taiwan versus only 34 against. More members of Congress voted to support Taiwan than Ukraine, Israel, or banning TikTok. There was scant debate over whether the United States should provide greater support for Taiwan. It was understood and broadly accepted that doing so
As Ukraine leads the global fight for democracy, Taiwan, facing a potential war with China, should draw lessons from Ukraine’s cyberwarfare success. Taiwan has been enhancing its arsenal with advanced weapons from the West in anticipation of a possible full-scale invasion. However, Taipei should also consider Ukraine’s effective digital warfare, notably the “IT [information technology] Army,” a decentralized force instrumental in Kyiv’s cybercampaigns. In February 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marked the onset of a significant cyberwar, where fears of a “digital Pearl Harbor” in Ukraine were unmet, thanks to robust cyberdefenses backed by Western public and private support. This led
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is attempting to create an alternative international world order to the US-dominated model. China has benefited hugely from the current order since former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) opened up its economy five decades ago. Countries can be categorized as continental or maritime, and to a great degree this determines their optimum foreign policy. China is continental, as is Russia. The US initially followed a continental foreign policy, before it settled on a maritime model. The British empire was so successful because a tiny island kingdom built a formidable naval presence. The US-dominated world order, stabilized by