by Dr James Alexander, psychologist

﻿I share the outrage about the recent rape and murder of yet another woman who was doing nothing more than walking home at night in Melbourne. I share the ethical/moral stance that women should be free to go wherever they like, at any time, wearing whatever they choose and remain unmolested for doing so. The problem is that current reality does not indicate that it is safe to do so – even though it should be. Past realities also suggest that it has never been safe to do so, although it is right to hope that one day it may be different. I agree that we need to put energy into changing the nature of reality so that violence against anyone is viewed as being totally unacceptable. And this does involve changing socialisation messages given primarily to males, as we appear to be society’s main perpetrators. Statistics indicate that most violence in society is committed in domestic relationships, and contrary to the standard narrative, women also have blood on their hands. However, it is apparent that a great deal of public violence is committed by men – mostly, it is committed against other (innocent) men, but the abduction-rape-murder of a woman scenario is an almost completely male act, despite the fact that there are cases when women have an active involvement as co-perpetrators.

We need to put energy into changing the nature of reality so that violence against anyone is viewed as being totally unacceptable.

I raised my two sons and one daughter to be well aware of the unfortunate dangers of being out at night. This was a reality which I did not like. My sons learnt that they are more likely to be the victim of a random act of violence than girls, even when minding their own business. In addition to crime statistics, this lesson was taught to me by male psychology clients who were coward-punched to the face or head for no reason other than for being there. This often results in severe facial fractures, brain damage and death. My daughter was warned that she was also vulnerable to random acts of violence, more likely to be a sexual predator nature. Again, lessons learnt from many of my female clients, sometimes abducted while in the company of friends in apparently ‘safe’ places. The disturbing reality is that society is nowhere near as safe as it should be, or as we would like to believe. So, agreed – we need to give our sons very important and emphatic messages about women’s rights to equal respect, dignity, opportunities and safety. We as males have a responsibility to all members of society, including women, children and other men.

At the same time, I believe we need to not vilify our sons simply because of their gender. Some radical feminists view all males as either perpetrators or potential perpetrators of violence against women; and at the very least, as beneficiaries of other men’s acts of violence against women – we are meant to get some kind of pleasure from such acts. One has to question the wisdom of raising little boys to believe that they are morally corrupt by virtue of something so out of their control as gender, both from a moral/ethical perspective as well as a practical one. As well as being able to see acts of violence against women on a quantitative continuum, there is also a qualitative difference with men who have the capacity to abduct, rape and murder a woman. Many men with this capacity are in prison for crimes against women. Most of them are genuine misogynists, with a very deep and genuine hatred of all women, way beyond the suburban husband who complains about his ‘nagging’ wife at times or tells sexist jokes. The perpetrators of heinous crimes against women are generally psychopaths with little or no care about the well being or feelings of others. Most of them are highly traumatised from childhoods of severe abuse, with the hatred of women sometimes deriving from abuse at the hands of women. No, this is not a blaming of women for misogynist psychopaths (or a plea for leniency in punishment), but a pointing towards the reality of what has gone wrong in their lives to result in such distortions of psychological makeup and terrible crimes. Childhood abuse and trauma has consequences, and the flavour of those consequences can be related to the flavour of the abuse.

Viewing little boys as potential perpetrators against women, simply by virtue of their gender, raises questions of the ‘Pygmalion effect’. Social psychologist David Rosenthal demonstrated with classes of primary school children that academic ability of selected children could be boosted over the course of a year simply by telling their teachers (falsely) that they were intellectual ‘bloomers’. When the teachers believed this positive assessment, it was unconsciously communicated to the designated children, who had been found average but selected as ‘bloomer’s at random. The children in turn picked up on the subtle cues, internalised them and then proceeded to develop accordingly. Raising little boys to perceive, even subtly, that they are guilty of a terrible potential, just by virtue of their gender, could be expected to give rise to a similar Pygmalion effect. What does an adolescent male do when confronted with all the confusing and frustrating trials of the mating game when he has internalised the toxic notion that he is fundamentally morally flawed and guilty in potential? Many will simply carry the burden in their lack of confidence and socially unsuccessful awkwardness in relating to females; and some, very few may erupt in the type of violence which he has been raised to believe is his inherent tendency. Having experienced traumatic abuse as a child would increase the risk of this terrible outcome.

Obviously, we all have the potential for all sorts of horrible behaviour, simply because humans can behave in all sorts of horrible ways.

Then there is the morality of believing that any individual boy is guilty in potential of being violent towards women. Obviously, we all have the potential for all sorts of horrible behaviour, simply because humans can behave in all sorts of horrible ways. But radical feminism makes a special case for males, and little boys. Statistics are rarely helpful when discussing emotive issues such as these, but I will venture there regardless. More children are murdered by their mothers each year in Australia than by their fathers. On the basis of this, are we to raise girls to believe that they are potential murderers of their own children? Notions of any child, boy or girl as being guilty in potential has echoes of the barbaric doctrine of ‘original sin’, in which children are assumed to be born evil. As a culture we appear to have outgrown this medieval slight against human nature, but the radical feminist narrative revives it on the basis of gender- although the term is not used, boys are viewed as born ‘evil’ because of their chromosomes.

The families who care enough about the gender messages they are giving their children tend not to be the families in which children are so abused and traumatised that they fill our prisons with violent genuine misogynists. Caring and aware families are likely to only burden their sons if they raise them with suspicion and fear of their evil potential. Better to raise them with all the right socialisation messages about respect and equality and the belief that they will be forces for good in the world. Better for them emotionally/psychologically, and better for the world in terms of having more young men who have grown with a confidence in their capacity for positive behaviour.

I sincerely hope that we can attain a state of safety in our society for women so that they can enjoy the freedom to walk alone at night. I sincerely hope that we can create a society that is free of fear for men who are at risk of being coward-punched or glassed in a public space, just for being there. I support all efforts to create the social changes required to make this more likely. And in the meantime, I will still encourage people to think about the risks they are running, knowing that there are mentally unstable people in the world who will view them as lumps of meat for their pleasure, or as vehicles for the expression of their bitterness. I urge people to not confuse the valid moral/ethical stance (we should be allowed to go anywhere we like, unmolested) with the current reality – the world is potentially dangerous. Yes, most violence occurs in the home. And in addition to this fact, there are very real dangers in public spaces. These dangers can be enhanced through not taking them seriously, or through insisting that reality should be other than what it demonstrably is. When reality trumps our vision of what should be in such horrific ways, we need to accommodate that reality in our view of the world, as distasteful as it is.

by Dr James Alexander, psychologist

with permission