Here in Australia there were questions about the way the former PM Julia Gillard was treated not only by the current Prime Minister Tony Abbott but by talk back radio who didn’t seem to be able to accord the respect of public office to a woman.  Former PM Julia Gillard raised the misogyny issue, which I thought was brave at the time.

I recall coming back to Australia after my world trip.  The first thought of sexism was in New Zealand where I saw similarities in attitudes with Australian men.  The thought hadn’t entered my mind in other countries, I was seen as a westener and noted I was treated differently.  However, back in Australia I noticed it powerfully to my own surprise.  I don’t know if this is in my reality but the males I’ve observed in my own situation I have noted are not good communicators nor are they in touch emotionally.  Occasionally I meet a man who is able to express but the majority either can’t or express in ways that are put downs or inadequate from a communications point of view.  I think it is inherent in the culture of mateship (men) and attitudes towards women spring from this patriarchical viewpoint.  I think about this quite a lot these days as I have noticed some behaviours whereby I am aware that responses are not forthcoming to clarify their part.  In fact what I’ve been reflecting on is the silence of men.  I am still reflecting on this.  I will just reflect on a few women I’ve spoken to in the last 24 hours.  One was a chinese mechanical engineer at a alumni night.  She and I just randomly met and she spoke of conferences she had been to when it was mostly men.  She spoke of being one of a few women present. For her it wasn’t interesting. I asked her how men treated her as a woman, she said it took them time to get used to her. We thought of how it is a male dominated profession. I reflect on the fact that women are capable of engineering but are not trained, there are real lines of superiority/inferiority drawn around mechanical engineering, electronics, construction etc. Often the physical strength card is pulled as a man’s realm, yet women intellectually are capable and equipment can be designed.  It has enabled an enhancement of differences between the sexes.  My other friend spoke today of working physically hard in her cafe all day.  I work with her and she is non stop and very capable.  Her husband and son sit at home waiting to be fed.  She said they won’t get off the couch and make food.  They certainly won’t for her and her daughter who work together.  We both spoke about women training men to be dependent as women look after children and include men in that.  I told her I was glad I had no children as I am not trained to serve, thank goodness.  That doesn’t mean I don’t get up and help others (mostly women) when I see them cooking and serving.  I do it, not because I am a woman, but because I see they are tired and need help.  I note in most cases the men don’t notice.  So there is, in my view, a sense of entitlement and learned behaviour that women serve and men are served. I found that as a secretary when told to make coffee and in my role I had no right of reply, just do as I am told and serve, I wasn’t keen on it. My other friend years ago worked as a surveyor and she is blonde and attractive. She told me the men were very hard on her, they swore a lot and they tested her. She said they were hard. After a period of time they eased up, but she was put through the wringer. I know that other women have said they had to be twice as good to get noticed, so it is a barrier to break through to prove oneself not the stereotype but a unique person with talents. My friend and I talked about the low self esteem of women. I asked one of the other cafe girls whether she was aware that she was intelligent and could do anything she chose. She said she didn’t believe in herself. This woman is a strong woman, very capable and raising two girls on her own. She did it tough but didn’t think she was much. Wow I thought, we have a long way to go. So the low self esteem doesn’t help in domestic violence issues, maybe on some level they agree they are not good enough, there are energy responses when a person doesn’t value themselves. In fact that choice of words was exactly what my other friend used today stating women think they ‘are not good enough’. I felt that ring true. I am sure if we spoke to males they don’t think they are good enough either, my guess is that more women feel this given the male patriarchy that tends to create images of men as leaders, designers of society and those in control. That does impact on womens sense of power. Self image is important.

Now moving on to the domestic violence issue, my first thoughts there were that men have denied the feminine within. What that means psychologically is that both men and women have the feminine and masculine in them. The reason I know this 100% is that I’ve met women who are masculine, I can identify them very quickly, they tend to be in control, they can be hard emotionally, men tend to serve them and they dominate.  I know this type well.  The feminine one’s tend to be unsure, serve others readily, they are sensitive and appear to reveal vulnerabilities.  Now I am not saying one is strong the other weak, in truth I’ve found emotional insensitivity to be a weaker state of being, as emotions navigate.  I am just expressing this to give an example.  With the men I’ve met those men who are feminine tend to be loners, they are sensitive, I notice they are artistic, empathetic and kind.  The masculine types tend to dominate, control, more structural then emotional.  There are distinctive types.  The domestic violence in my view (overt violence) happens through the masculine types, although there is passive aggressive types that suppress and give the silent treatment.  Of course there is violence by women too which tends to be masked by society as their violence is verbal and typically not physical.  But I have definitely witnessed men being bullied and dominated by masculine females.  So I tend to think (I could be wrong) but I see the out of balanced masculine as the one that typically is violent overtly or covertly.  I’ve seen women who appear sickly and fragile but use that as manipulation as they haven’t dealt with their own issues. I recall years ago a friend of mine, a clown no less had masks. He had a wimpy type of mask and a dominant one for his theatre work. Now he put on the wimpy mask and told me to role play. I felt the bully in me come out. I was so surprised as I realised we all have this in us. When the person appeared weak it brought out the dominant in me, interesting. So if we move into an energetic overview, the law of attraction comes to mind, if on some level you think you are less or nothing, then the other may sense that and act it out subconsciously/consciously feeling the power (of ego). Women (or men) may not leave an abusive relationship if on some level they do not believe in themselves being better off out there or they lack confidence in finding another partner, fearful of being alone is a big one. I’ve definitely seen men succumb to violent women, suppressing themselves and women too scared to be late home. Fear is what they had in common and no sense of self respect is an interesting musing.

So how does this feed into the proposition below.  My gut feeling is the violence is all over the world not just here in Australia, yet there is much work to be done here with boys and men.  The violent movies that depict males as violent and somehow stronger is a problem I feel.  I do think the violent games create unreal achetypes of males that are overly muscly and they dominate to win.  If boys play this all their lives they will see the feminine (in men and women) as weak, which it isn’t.  I personally prefer men that are feminine in terms of sensitivity and kindness.  I know from my own peace education work looking at discrimination, I asked the boys and girls to form a circle.  I had a plastercine mould with a tuff of wool as hair depicting a person.  I told the children to press into the plastercine either hard (negative) or soft (positive) they could say whatever they wanted.  I was not lost on the socialisation of the boys and girls.  Girls played the petite role and pressed lightly saying nice words, the boys (mostly) pressed hard and displayed aggression.  I knew as I observed they were playing out a stereotype and trying to impress their friends.  Had they showed a soft side they would be ridiculed.  I think that is at the heart of male violence.  They are taught from a young age to see the feminine (within them and girls) as weak.  They see bullying, aggression as natural, similar to the law of the jungle, they see it as strong. This type of thinking is reinforced over and over through movies and games.  So no wonder there is domestic violence.  Another important factor is women are trained to be the nurturers (not all women are natural nurturers, again I’ve seen masculine females that have no clue on how to raise kids).  So women are taught to be soft, ladylike and close their legs.  The males are taught to be boisterous and be a man.  I’ll give another example whilst the thought is there.  I remember seeing an interesting experiment where female and male babies were given jump suits. One was blue (boys) and one was pink (girls).  The boy was put in the pink jumpsuit and adults were asked to interact with the child.  What was interesting was that the boy (pink jumpsuit) was treated softly, words like ‘cute’, ‘isn’t she pretty’ and ‘gentle’ were evident.  The child was handled much more gently.  Now the little girl was put in the blue jumpsuit.  Guess what happened?  The adults were rougher with the child, calling her a ‘little man’ and handling her roughly as they thought she was a boy.  I saw so clearly how stereotypes are projected onto children and they grow into the role through conditioning. 

When I think of myself as a girl I remember wanting to ride skateboards.  My mother even used the words ‘tom boy’ to describe me when it wasn’t true.  I simply was athletic and enjoyed the movement of a board on 4 wheels.  I also dressed as a teenager as a hippy, I was the only one, so I wasn’t seen exactly as a pretty girl, I was seen as someone probably into drugs.  That was not true either, I was into peace.   I learned young that being attractive gave girls a sense of value and being ugly they were treated as ‘shit’ pardon the slang.  The sexualisation of girls was very evident by society, you only have to look at magazines and examine the porno industry.  Women are very much type cast as weak, sexual and objects.  I’ve had an experience of the latter and it so surprises me.  I tend to see the objectivisation as sexuality in men without any desire to know the woman as a person.  They feel no desire to treat her as a feeling being.  Instead it is the body they are checking out.  I find that interesting as a woman.  I’ve always gone my own way, I couldn’t care less about the latest fashions, nor do I care about shopping, I wear what I like and I never dress a man.  I prefer men to be free.  I was fortunate to have married a man who had no idea of the stereotype.  He was himself and he had no desire to treat me as a female, thank god.  We shared the cooking, cleaning and shopping.  We didn’t share money.  I look back and I recall there was no gender conflict as neither of us treated the other as their gender.  We both just helped each other as best friends and when one didn’t work the other did the housework to be efficient.  I think I had the best relationship as I was free. My husband even taught me to ride a motorbike.  He would lend me his 550 CBX Honda and I’d ride it to university.  I’ve never had any restrictions or jealousy directed at me.  He wasn’t into flowers and he didn’t praise me, but I knew he loved me in his way.  He was not a big talker, but when he did he got his facts right and he was honest.  What I particularly loved about this beautiful man was his humility.  He had no ego and he never judged anything I said.  I can feel the domestic violence issue coming into my consciousness at this point.  I think judgement is part of it. Unquestioned thoughts projected onto the partner.  I sense the one who is violent feels inferior so they seek to control and dominate to feel power.  Not unlike the profile of the bully seeking to feel bigger, this is to feel the ego expand.  The ego is the perceived identity.  So the man/woman engaged in domestic violence who is overtly/covertly violent is seeking to take the others power.  In my relationship neither of us had the slightest desire to control or take power.  We accepted each other.  When I didn’t know what he though I asked.  I didn’t presume he thought like me.  I had the most wonderful relationship based on respect and honouring differences.   We didn’t have one fight, I was very happy.

So this flow of consciousness I’ve allowed to explore the issue without analysis, just going into experience and inner feeling. 

I would say that culturally here in Australia males are trained to ignore and suppress their emotions as it is seen as weak. Thus they block the feelings that would navigate them through life.  This causes frustration as feelings are blocked, violence explodes as a result in my view. The violence comes from suppression of emotions and a sense of inferiority.  After the violence they carry guilt as well. If they don’t feel their emotions at all or fully they won’t release them in a healthy way and they will not grow as people. Their emotional world can be stunted. Instead they will hide from any emotional situations or seek to suppress it as they do themselves. Perhaps in the case where a woman cries and gets emotional the man tries to shut her down, as he can’t allow himself to feel so he projects his own suppression on her. That is my feeling on the subject.  So programs to help men to express their feelings would be healthy for them. I think alcoholics anonymous is very good, I’ve heard men realise through this training that they were blocked and in denial. As they come out of the mind control imposed by other men and the media they start to feel human again, and this is what connects them to empathy and their humanity.  They start to feel good about themselves and stop drinking or using substances to feel a sense of peace.  I feel I am right.  I’d be interested to know what others feel (note I am naturally saying ‘feel’ not ‘think’ – that is emotional intelligence at the forefront of my mind).  I will add to that, heart based intelligence is exploring intelligently through the heart and using the mind to explain, not the other way around. There is a difference. That is how I am writing now from the heart. So, women tend to be less violent overall as they are trained to express their feelings, it is okay to cry, and being seen as weak can have advantages, you can be yourself, you don’t have to be seen to be strong. So women release a lot of negativity through their emotions.  Some of course do it through verbal violence which is also destructive and violent.  So I wish to qualify if they cry it out without projection and talk it through without cruelty, then that would be healthy for them.

So let’s explore what the United Nations thinks of the Australian Government in terms of violence against women.

Is Australia the only government in the world not responsible for violence against women? Apparently.

Is Australia the only government in the world not responsible for violence against women? Apparently.

By Jenna Price / Nov 12, 2014 8:36AM / / (4)

Latest stories

Must reads site wide

Time magazine wants to ban the word feminist? I can’t even

OPINIONSREAD

Why we’ll miss Gail Kelly

OPINIONSREAD

Four ways to make super better for women

SUPER & INSURANCEREAD

Gail Kelly resigns from Westpac

TOP STORIESREAD

Why Tanya Plibersek is a feminist

EDITOR’S AGENDAREAD

The Federal government has badly fumbled the way it has treated the epidemic of violence against women in report to a major UN committee.

Australia’s fifth report on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment claimed that violence against women was not committed by officials of the state – and therefore was not in the remit of the UN Committee which oversees compliance to the treaty.

But the Committee rejected aspects of the report and overnight, the Federal Government was forced to address criticisms of its submission.
The Committee said last night: “If the Australian government is not responsible for violence against women, it is the only country which is not.”

Daniel Webb, director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, said Australia retreated somewhat from its earlier position that it had no responsibility for violence against women in Australia, which is occurring in epidemic proportions.

The government was forced to accept it can be responsible if it ‘acquiesces’ to violence. But international law requires more than that – Australia is legally required to take reasonable and effective measures to prevent, investigate, punish and redress violence against women. But Webb said: “Australia’s concession didn’t go as far as it should. But it was at least constructive that they have abandoned the ‘it’s not our problem’ defence.”

The Committee Against Torture also chided Australia’s direction in areas of human rights including the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees and said Australia should be among the leaders in the region n implementing the torture convention.

This international embarrassment could have been avoided. The Federal Government was warned of its errors two years ago by experts in international human rights law.

A letter to the Attorney-General in 2012 from the Human Rights Law Centre said it was a matter of concern that the Draft Report claimed “domestic violence does not fall within the scope of the Convention under articles 2 and 16, as it is not conduct that is committed by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiesce of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”. Instead, the Attorney-General’s department chose to ignore the advice.

The letter went on to say international law has clearly established that the state must act with due diligence to prevent or respond to any violations of human rights law – and in the case of violence against women, governments must take reasonable and effective measures to prevent, investigate, punish and redress domestic violence.

Just last month, a coalition of NGOs compiled a lengthy report on which detailed continued and serious concerns about the state of Australia’s human rights which was also submitted to Committee Against Torture. The NGOs endorsing the report included Oxfam Australia, Save The Children Australia, Uniting Justice Australia and more than 70 other organisations.

The scene was set earlier this week, when the Australian government was called to appear before the United Nations Committee Against Torture where a team of experts assessed Australia’s human rights records.

The Committee had already highlighted key areas where it asked Australia to explain its performance: in particular, treatment of refugees and asylum seekers; treatment of Indigenous Australians; and the rate of violence against women.

The appearance is a standard process, says Fiona McGaughey, a lecturer in international human rights law at the Centre for Human Rights Education at Curtin University. It exists so that countries can update the committee on the progress made towards human rights in individual countries.

“Typically, governments accentuate the positives and don’t dwell on the negatives,” said McGaughey. But it’s unusual for a country to have its own interpretation of what human rights are – and particularly when it comes to the Convention Against Torture.

But, as the Committee made clear on Monday night at a full hearing in Geneva, that interpretation is incorrect. No other country made the argument that violence against women was outside of the parameters of the inquiry.

“Governments also have an obligation to ensure that steps are being taken to prevent violence against women from occurring – prevent, remedy, investigate, prosecute,” said Rachel Ball, the director of advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre.

Ball, one of the authors of the submission which went to the Attorney-General’s office in 2012, did not wish to see the Federal Government’s embarrassment on the world stage. “It’s not uncommon for there to be differences in interpretation – the surprise was that it was on this issue.”

More important than this international embarrassment is the need for a complete overhaul of the way in which violence against women is treated in Australia.

The report from NGOs has called on the Federal government to fund front line services; to address high rates of violence against women with disabilities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women; and to address the institutional barriers to ending violence.

And both that report and the submission from the Australian Human Rights Commission have called on governments in Australia to monitor the implementation of Coronial Inquest findings, to address systemic failures to protect women from domestic violence.