How Embarrassing: Attitudes that Support Violence

Who has perpetrated the greater violence against women – Matthew Newton, or his lawyer Chris Murphy?

You may be surprised to learn that you don’t need to be violent yourself, to be contributing to the problem of violence against women. It is possible to hold violence-supportive beliefs that make it more likely for an individual to be violent against women. Furthermore, if these beliefs are commonly shared, it can increase the likelihood that a community will have higher levels of violence against women.

VicHealth 2007 has identified a number of ’violence supportive attitudes’ that:

• trivialise violence and its impacts (as for example when domestic violence is portrayed as nothing more than normal relationship conflict, or rape is portrayed as something women fantasise about);
• blame the victim of violence (as in the belief that women ask for rape’ in their manner of dress);
• [deny] violence occured (as in the case of claims that women frequently falsify violence) or that certain behaviours are not violence (illustrated by the view that forced sex in marriage is not rape, reflected until recently in some states criminal law for example Victoria 1981);
• [justify or excuse] violence (such as the belief which diminishes men’s responsibility for rape by asserting that it occurs because they cannot control their need for sex).

Some examples of myths about violence against women:

• Violence Against Women is uncommon. Wrong: Up to half of all women will experience male physical or sexual violence
• Alcohol is to blame for family violence. Wrong: Alcoholic is implicated as a trigger in only some instances of family violence.
• Family violence occurs in other communities, or ‘ethnic’ communities’ not around here. Wrong: Family violence affects all classes and communities.
• Domestic violence victims ask for it, why don’t they just leave? Wrong: No one asks to be hurt, and sometimes leaving is more difficult than it sounds.

Let’s return then to our original question of who has perpetrated the greatest violence against women? We know that Matthew Newton plead guilty to attacking his former partner at their Rozelle home in Sydney, 2006. Therefore by his own plea we are left in no doubt about whether he actually committed an offence. We applaud his admission of guilt and sincerely hope that he takes steps to ensure that his actions are never again repeated. 

But now let’s review some of the reported statements made by Matthew Newton’s lawyer, Chris Murphy, and see if they reflect any of the violence supportive beliefs or myths outlined above?

• Chris Murphy was reported as describing the assault charges against the entertainer as a “very minor matter”. According to the Sydney Morning Herald 17 January 2007, he reportedly stated “Ninety people died in Iraq today, most of them kids,” “This is a very minor matter.” 

By referring to the assault charges as ‘a very minor matter’ it appears that Mr Murphy is minimising the criminality, or seriousness of violence against women. By referring to children killed in Iraq, he diverted attention from the seriousness of acts of violence against women.

• It was reported in The Australian on 17 January 2007, that Mr Murphy had told the court the charges were the “residue of an expired relationship”.

One could alternatively describe the charges as resultant from criminal actions, or violations of human rights. We hope that by describing the charges as the residue (or all that remains of an expired relationship), Chris Murphy was not suggesting that violence is a normal part of intimate relationships.  

• In the Sydney Morning Herald 12 June 2007, it was reported that Mr Murphy stated that it was not a situation of a drunken husband being a regular wife-beater.

In case Mr Murphy’s comments are misinterpreted here, we wish to clarify that alcohol does not cause domestic violence. Blame for domestic violence should not be directed at alcohol itself but at the person who chooses to inflict the violence. Using alcohol is never an excuse or justifiable explanation for violence against women.

• The Sydney Morning Herald further reported Chris Murphy’s statement that “The last words this young man told [x-partner] before the [charges] came into effect was that they loved each other.”

Again, in case this be misinterpreted, we would like to clarify that loving relationships do not involve violence. One of the most damaging aspects of family violence is the ‘brain washing effect’ or cycle of being violently hurt, and then being later told ‘I’m sorry’ and ‘I love you’.

Attitudes that support Violence against Women are an embarrassment. Let’s not remain silent but be courageous in challenging comments that perpetuate violence.

WHITE RIBBON DAY TEAM