A new report from the University of Melbourne indicates that radical anti-feminism is the most prevalent form of violent extremism in Australia.
It also shows that nearly 20% of Australian men support a violent response to feminism, that sexist attitudes are a strong predictor of violent extremism, and that there is an urgent need for security services to address misogyny in Australia.
These shocking findings are the result of a survey of 1,020 Australian men and women, a representative sample of the population by age, sex, location and religion.
Report author Dr Sara Meger said, “it is imperative that misogynistic attitudes be treated as a serious predictor of violent extremism”.
◊
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your politics) the poor design of the study and the authors’ misinterpretation of the responses reveal that these conclusions are not supported by the data.
The authors define “violent extremism” (a phrase that appears 143 times in the 13 page report) as support for one or more of a series of conditional statements of the general form “violence is justified if…”. The conditions on which violence is “justified” are based on naïve stereotypes of religious, ethnic, racial and political group beliefs. The single statement used to identify anti-feminist violent extremism (and only that statement among the seven groups), however, doesn’t mention violence or any justification for it at all: “Feminism is damaging to our society and should resisted by force if necessary” (sic). What does “if necessary” mean here? And is “force” supposed to be a synonym for “violence”? Why not use the word “violence” if that’s what the study purports to measure?
Having identified as “radical anti-feminist violent extremists” the 19% of the male population (and 8% of the female population, incidentally) who believe that feminism is damaging to society it’s a short step to the report’s shocking conclusions.
The study presents a series of statements “designed to measure attitudes permissive of violence against women”, for example “Women going through custody battles make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence”. The 51% of men (and 31% of women!) who agree with that statement are classified as having an attitude supportive of “violence against women”. 31% of Australian women support violence against women! That should have been the headline.
This is a correlational study, not an experiment, and thus cannot support claims of causality (Social Science 101: Correlation does not imply causation). But several causal claims are made, such as “the evidence presented in this brief shows the significance and causal influence of misogynistic and racist attitudes for nearly all forms of violent extremism in Australia today”.
There is no indication that the statement items presented to the subjects were tested for validity or reliability. The wording of the items suggests that the authors just made up some sentences and asserted, without any justification at all, that agreement with one or another implies that the subject has some trait or other.
Dr Meger’s study has not been published in a reputable journal and probably – hopefully – couldn’t be. It’s rather disturbing that the University of Melbourne has published it at all, but perhaps not surprising. The publication states its urgent purpose explicitly – “the urgent need for a holistic approach to redressing racist and misogynistic attitudes as a matter of security urgency” – and refers to ASIO, the Dept of Home Affairs, the security services, state and federal police. If misogynistic attitudes “predict” (“cause”, even) violent extremism, as this report claims, then surely, for everyone’s safety, Australia needs legal sanctions against misogyny: criminal penalties for disagreeing with feminism.
A similar fallacious correlation/causation argument supported the criminalisation of coercive control in NSW and Queensland: the claim that 97% of intimate partner homicide was preceded by emotional and psychological abuse as a form of coercive control. As Queensland Premier Steven Miles said in March “coercive control is the most common factor that leads to domestic violence murders”. It may well be that coercive control is correlated with homicide, but surely it cannot be true that the action of coercive control causes homicide.
The problems with the amendments to the NSW Crimes Act 1900 to proscribe coercive control are manifold, not least the fact that it does not define “coerce” or “control”, except circularly: “a course of conduct against another person that consists of abusive behaviour” (54D(1)(a)); abusive behaviour includes “coercion or control of the person against whom the behaviour is directed” (54F(1)(b)).
This failure to define coercive control is illustrated in a 2021 article in the Canberra Law Review arguing for the introduction of a coercive control offence in the ACT. The author makes the point that “behaviours of coercive control appear innocuous to outsiders, particularly when viewed beyond the context of the relationship.” Clearly, the successful prosecution of an offence for which evidence cannot be observed by those outside the relationship must depend entirely on appropriate testimony from the complainant. She does not need to identify a specific threat; the legislation does not require one. A statement such as “he wanted me to do this thing and I felt like I had to” might be sufficient. In Queensland, coercive control is punishable by up to 14 years in prison, and a government website states that a sign of coercive control is that “they prefer you to stay home with them“.
A more immediate and effective defence against coercive control might be to learn how to say the word No. If saying No gives rise to a threat of violence, or to actual violence, there are already suitable laws in place to address it. In this respect, the legislation addressing coercive control is similar to the recently legislated requirement for affirmative consent before sexual activity: to alleviate the need for a woman ever to say No.
In the aftermath of the murder of Molly Ticehurst by an ex-boyfriend out on bail for sexually assaulting her, NSW passed changes to the Bail Act 2013. Anyone charged with certain domestic violence offences – including coercive control – must either be remanded in custody or, if they are released on bail, fitted with an ankle monitor.
The combination of these recent developments strengthens the entitlement women have to exercise state-enforced power over men – state-sanctioned coercive control, in effect – and there are no negative consequences for women who choose to do so due to malice, anger, jealousy, mental illness or any other inappropriate reason. “Be nice to me or I’ll call the police and have you fitted with an ankle monitor.”
What could go wrong?
Whatever the “underlying” causes of domestic violence – we hear it might be disrespect for women, or gender inequality, or alcohol and poverty – it’s self-evident that the immediate proximal cause of domestic violence is male anger. Are we supposed to believe that these changes to the law will reduce male anger?
The proportion of female representatives at all levels of Australian government is close to parity overall and continues to rise. All of the political parties recognise the importance and influence of the female vote – after all, women comprise a little over 51% of the voting population. There does not appear to be any constraint on the enactment of further feminist legislation, by which I mean legislation that is intended to protect, support or advantage women over men in some way. Legislation is usually expressed in gender-neutral language, of course, but occasionally the intention to protect women and punish men is made explicit, as in the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, 9(3)(b): “domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children”. This must be true – it’s the law.
And how do we all feel about this? Divided.
A 2023 IPA study asked young Australians whether women today receive preferential treatment; 56% of women said no; 59% of men said yes. A 2020 VicHealth study found that of those who expressed an opinion, 67% of men and 45% of women – 56% of the population as a whole – agree there is a “feminist war on men”.
If there really is a feminist war on men, as most people believe, there is no doubt the feminists are winning. The state holds the monopoly on violence, and if the democratic numbers – of voters and representatives – continue to support feminist legislation, as seems likely, then the “war on men” is almost certain to be victorious. Meanwhile, as the murder count rises and we even see an apparently misogynistic massacre of women at Bondi Junction there will clearly be some men who, feeling they have nothing to lose, will fight to the end.
In the words of the Joe Jackson song Real Men: “And if there’s war between the sexes, then there’ll be no people left.”
Personally, I value our society as it is and has been, I fear for its future if violent confrontation between the sexes continues, and I want us to find a way to end hostilities. I say we need to reach an armistice, a peace treaty. A way for men and women to live together in (relative) harmony. Historically speaking, a truly herculean task. But if the alternative is more bloodshed and possibly even an end to stable society it is worth attempting the near impossible. The relationship between men and women in Australia needs a reset.
This article was first published in The Spectator Australia.
Leave a Reply