Author: Di Simboro

MP Julie Banks resigned after being bullied at the time of the leadership spill, citing “Cultural and gender bias, bullying and intimidation of women in politics.” (Quoted from The Guardian 29.08.2018) Her actions resulted in what is called victim blaming in family violence – blaming the person who has been subjected to abuse and intimidation, claiming that they are the cause of the abuse.  I was particularly interested in the liberal ‘boys club’ defense of their “robust” strategies of forcing others to do what they wanted them to do.

The reality is our Prime Minister (Malcolm Turnbull at that time in case you have lost track) was voted in by the people, but in a “bloodless coup” (which seems to have become acceptable practise in Australian Politics) people from his own party conspired and collaborated against him and therefore against the voter consensus to remove him from office – thereby shooting themselves in the foot and weakening their own party. The party is now divided against itself (as is the Labour Party) losing respect and support from voters. Who do we choose to elect from this time forward when both parties have clearly self-destructed and are choosing not to see that the issue at hand is of their own creation?

Bullying is in business, bullying is in the workplace, bullying is in the schools, bullying or excessive unwarranted aggression is in elite sports, bullying starts in the homes and what has been created is what I call a ‘new normal’ of aggressive behaviour in the minds of children. That bullying mentality is now playing out on the floor of the Australian Parliament where the Politicians are acting out these aggressive, bullying behaviours in a public and private arena just like children. (Which most people can attest to after witnessing their Question time.)

Defending coercive strategies as “robust” politics, defending the undermining of female MP’s who are speaking up against these tactics and then victim blaming them – the same strategy I witness in cases of Family Violence, because it serves the “bully” by deflecting attention away from themselves and their aggressive behavioural choices and actions and onto their victim. Why? So they don’t have to be held accountable for their actions and so they don’t have the spotlight focused on them. For example: people are so busy asking “why didn’t she leave the violent relationship?” that they have forgotten what was done to her that caused her to leave was unacceptable.

A hypothetical question: Maybe we should pre-select and groom existing bullies who are academically bright in schools  to become Politicians and short-cut the process – reward them for their bullying behaviour so they can feel confident and fully supported, then systematically blame their young victims so that they will come to know ‘their place’ in society and just shut down – eliminating resistance?

Crushing any opposition to current party tactics in order to get the outcome they want, results in an entire party filled with like-minded individuals who cannot trust their own party members and a Prime Minister who has a target painted on his or her back as they head down the road towards the next leadership spill. It honestly sounds a bit communistic or dictatorial – like a dictator saying “kill the people who threaten my supreme power and control”. Our Politicians are just psychologically “killing” perceived threats to their power instead of using actual physical weapons and then asking people who have witnessed the massacre to vote for them.

One last comment – when the bullying or systemic abuse is evident at the very top (Prime Minister/MP’s) it cannot help but filter all the way down the chain. It’s fine for the government to claim they are addressing bullying and abuse in broader society, but I recommend that it’s time Politicians turned their focus to the mirror in front of them – pluck out the plank in their own eyes before addressing the splinter in someone else’s eye.

Hearing about the increasing incidence of rape on University Campuses in Australia I was concerned. I watched the documentary “Brave Miss World” which addresses the issue of undisclosed rape. There is a high incidence of rape in University Campuses throughout the USA. There was a story of one young woman who was raped on campus and she did not report it or tell her family, because it was a source of family pride that family members had attended the same University for generations – like a rite of passage. She was worried about the impact her disclosure would have on the respect and pride they held for their chosen University.

“Hazing” for the young men starting University:

As a new male student in a new environment, the need to belong is a powerful driving force behind their decisions and actions in the early stages of their University life. Belonging to a fraternity is something that is “sold” as a powerful brotherhood, which provides belonging and a level of protection that will result in success and powerful connections that will impact their future careers or business pursuits.

Part of the hazing process is to invite girls into the Frat House with a clear intent (but not necessarily expressed to the girls before their arrival) to have sex. Remembering that the girls are most likely new to the University and they crave acceptance and the desire to belong too.

The girls who accept the invitation to visit the Frat House are seen as:

• The fulfillment of the requirements for successful transition into the brotherhood, or
• The barrier to success – not as a woman with rights or feelings. Her willing entrance into the Frat House is deemed as her permission.

The inductee’s goal is clear – he has already been conditioned to do whatever is asked of him in order to gain acceptance, no matter how humiliating or degrading. This is acceptance at any cost – even at the cost of his life.

Rape may be a violation of his own values and beliefs, but his brothers are looking on and goading him. In the back of his mind:

• He knows that each of them has fulfilled these conditions themselves and
• He admires, respects and wants to be like them, so
• He has to do what they have done in order to gain their approval and
• As far as he is aware no-one has faced consequences in the past.

Failure to rape or violate the woman results in:

• A threat to the man’s masculinity,
• Threat to the security of the Frat House and its traditions and culture,
• Puts into question what has happened in the past and would require the existing Frat brothers to admit and take responsibility for their behavioural choices in the past, most likely resulting in legal consequences,
• Represents a major threat to the substantial financial support received by the University from former brotherhood students.
• Personal threat to the new inductee – not belonging and opposition from the entire brotherhood, now and in the future.

It seems that the idea of “fun” for the established Fraternity is:

• Getting inductees drunk (even if they didn’t drink before)
• Humiliating new inductees,
• The sexual conquest of women with or without consent and point scoring.

Frat houses USA quote:

Yale University Public chant – the pledges of the Delta Kappa Eosilon Fraternity – “No means yes, yes means anal.” Shouting it in an area where freshmen women live.

 

 

The two Muslim women said: “Only Scholars are able to determine what a scriptural passage means” – means handing our own power over to other people who are supposed to be experts in the accurate translation of the scripture and failing to fulfill our own responsibility of following our conscience.

1. We are choosing not to question something that absolutely needs to be questioned.
2. We are making the assumption that the scholar we are delegating to and trusting this task with is a man who has the beliefs, values and morals that will ensure a fully accurate and authentic translation, because if he is a man who believes that women who are perceived to be disobedient should be punished until obedient, (remember the meaning of the word ‘disobedient’ is determined by him,) then he will translate the scripture in a way that is aligned with his own personal beliefs.

Throughout history people have been using quotes from scriptures to judge and condemn others and not searching (or praying) to really understand what it is that is really meant. When was the revelation given? What was happening at that time in history and how then does that revelation relate to us now in this era? When these revelations were given a women’s status in society was far different to what it is now.

Those two women happily ‘educating’ children about the scriptural interpretation of passages in the Koran, would form part of the community response to a disclosure of family violence. My concern is that they would dismiss the woman’s concerns and urge her to go back to her violent husband, putting her (and her children) at further risk. Their beliefs that it is the husband’s responsibility to take corrective measures for a wife he believes has been disobedient, would leave a victim of family violence with nowhere to go – except back to the husband for more “corrective” measures.

The need to belong to a community is a strong driving force when seeking security and comfort in a crisis. Sometimes the fear of becoming isolated from the community and what it represents is a stronger factor in the decision to stay, overriding the fear of the violence from her husband. Identity is attached to our connections to our tribe (community) and our beliefs, values and morals. Even though we know that the husband’s violence is wrong, the problem is that “by leaving him I would violate my religious beliefs, my values and my morals, which form a strong part of my identity”. It is more likely that the motivating force behind a woman in this situation finally leaving her violent husband is her overriding protective instinct towards her children – a woman will ultimately do anything to keep her kids safe from harm.

The interesting part about all of this is that the woman is doing everything to check herself and her alignment with her beliefs, values and morals along this path, and it is only when she starts to realize that it is her husband who is the violator and that is something outside of her control, is she free to leave.

The problem is not the discussion about the scriptures condoning “measured” punishment of a disobedient wife, it is the fact that a man who believes he has been given the right to coerce obedience from his wife is the same one who determines what constitutes “disobedience” in his mind. The word “disobedience” in the mind of an abuser who is seeking to punish by using his brute force can become a weapon in and of itself. What needs to be addressed is the belief that behaving that way is OK.

FV exists in all faiths and non-faiths. It is an issue that is common to us all. Making it about religion is simply a distraction to divert attention away from self and my beliefs, values and morals. Family violence is something we all need to be concerned about and that we need to address in a collaborative way – regardless of religious, racial, cultural or any other differences that we think might stand in the way.

Scriptural point scoring is creating a new problem. This attack on a religion and it’s scriptures while choosing to overlook the core problem that is common to all, serves only to widen the chasm between us. When it becomes “them and us”, tribal forces kick in and the veil of secrecy is put up in order to protect the tribe from another external attack. If there is another disclosure of family violence it will be kept within the tribe, shutting down the possibility of external assistance that is appropriate to the woman’s and children’s needs. We will hear less and less about those disclosures. We are creating a new problem, instead of solving a problem that has plagued mankind as a whole throughout history.

Perpetrators of violence the whole world over exert control through instilling fear in the people they are trying to control – and it can work for a while, but it is NEVER sustainable. Finally their victim will risk even death to escape – we see this in the huge refugee population globally – people risking everything to flee from dictatorships, oppression, civil war, ethnic “cleansing” and we see it in the refuges that women and children flee to when escaping from family violence.

Family violence originally started at the family level but does not stay behind closed doors, even though we may try to hide it there. The resultant effects of family violence make their way out into society and effect everyone – in schools, in the workplace, in Australians favourite sports – in the way we believe it is acceptable to treat one another. You may not be part of the statistic stating one in three women are affected by family violence, but I guarantee that family violence is already affecting you through friends, family, employers, Police or Lawyers or Judges, Politicians, Doctors ….. I can go on and on ….. It’s in every profession, in every social class. It is not just a gender problem, it is an attitude and behaviour problem.

Family Violence is not a popular or easy topic, but it is a necessary one. Let’s start talking after we clear away the “tribal” barriers that stand in the way of genuinely honest discussion. Instead of pointing the finger outward (which is the habit of perpetrators of violence), let’s point the finger inward and ask what can I do to help resolve this problem? The answers will come when we ask the right questions.