Understanding White Ribbon: Its Emergence and Limits in Countering Men’S Violence in Australia

Understanding White Ribbon: Its Emergence and Limits in Countering Men’s Violence in Australia

Daniel Pitman

(Email: [email protected])

For the degree of Master of Research

School of Social Sciences

Western Sydney University

May 2020

______

Professor Stephen Tomsen

School of Social Sciences

Western Sydney University

Principal Supervisor

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not have been possible without the support of a village of people.

Firstly, I wish to thank my supervisor Professor Stephen Tomsen for his guidance and support throughout this project. It would not have been possible without him. I also wish to acknowledge and thank the initial supervision of Associate Professor Michael Salter.

To the tireless work and encouragement of Dr Alex Norman and Dr Jack Tsonis, whose efforts made the Master of Research a student centred environment and gave us all confidence to take the chance to be better students and academics. I also wish to thank Dr Rae Dufty-Jones and Professor James Arvanitakis who provided endless guidance and always had their doors open when I needed it.

To Libby Lloyd, Liam Dooley and Dan Gregory, whose insight helped me understand the not-for-profit sector and the foundations of White Ribbon.

To my partner Beth, who endured my midnight rambles and rising stress. Thank you for your love, and patience. I’m forever glad I began this thesis; without it I wouldn’t have met you.

To my family, who were patient with my late nights and piles of papers that made their own personal contribution to global warming.

And last but certainly not least, to my fellow postgraduate inmates, for figuratively and literally lifting spirits as we worked together. I particularly wish to thank Pete, Steve, Amelia, Flick, Beats, and Felicia.

iii

Statement of Authentication

The work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original except as acknowledged in the text. I hereby declare that I have not submitted this material, either in full or in part, for a degree at this or any other institution.

Daniel Pitman

Table of Contents

Table of Figures...... vii

Abstract ...... viii

Chapter One: Introduction—Topic Context and the White Ribbon Study ...... 1

1.1 Method ...... 5 1.2 Research Questions ...... 7 1.3 Thesis Structure ...... 7 Chapter Two: Australia’s Place in the Global Problem of Violence...... 9

2.1 Implications of a Southern Theory and Criminology...... 10 2.2 Measuring Violence Against Women ...... 12 2.3 Australia and the Global Incidence of Violence Against Women ...... 13 2.3.1 Intimate Partner Violence—Prevalence by Region ...... 14 2.3.2 Prevalence by Age ...... 15 2.3.3 Sexual Violence ...... 17 2.4 Australia’s Global Position of Violence Against Women ...... 18 2.5 An Australian Violence and Criminology ...... 19 2.6 Contemporary Violence in Australia...... 20 2.6.1 National Committee on Violence ...... 20 2.6.1 Australian Legal Developments ...... 21 2.6.2 Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence ...... 22 2.6.3 Trends in Interpersonal Violence ...... 23 2.6.4 Partner Violence Stability ...... 24 2.6.5 Prevalence of Violence by Relationship to Perpetrator ...... 24 2.6.6 Australian Homicide ...... 25 2.6.7 The Impact of Violence Against Women ...... 26 2.6.8 Rural Violence ...... 26 2.7 Conclusion ...... 27 Chapter Three: The Origins and Rise of White Ribbon—Globally and in Australia ...... 29

3.1 The Legacy of Feminist Movements ...... 30

3.1.1 First Wave Feminism...... 30 3.1.2 Second Wave Feminism ...... 31 3.2 Feminist Perspectives on Violence Against Women ...... 33 3.3 Masculinity Crisis ...... 34 3.3.1 Men’s Liberation and Pro-Feminist Men ...... 35 3.3.2 Anti-Feminist Men ...... 36 3.4 White Ribbon Canada ...... 38 3.4.1 The Story of Three Men Among Thousands ...... 39 3.4.2 Socio-Political Environment...... 40 3.4.3 The Symbol of the Ribbon: A Ribbon for Your Cause ...... 41 3.4.4 The White Ribbon Performance ...... 42 3.5 International Movement of Feminism ...... 44 3.6 White Ribbon Under MASA ...... 45 3.6.1 Reception to White Ribbon ...... 47 3.7 The Intermittent Years ...... 49 3.8 White Ribbon Foundation and UniFem ...... 50 3.9 A National Plan and a National Ribbon ...... 51 Chapter Four: Australia’s White Ribbon—Development, Stagnation and Demise . 54

4.1 Stages of Prevention ...... 56 4.2 White Ribbon’s Explanation of Violence and Gender ...... 58 4.3 Community Engagement and Awareness Raising ...... 61 4.4 Media Engagement ...... 62 4.5 The Call to Action and the Appeal to Gender Movements ...... 64 4.6 Ambassadors for Whom? ...... 65 4.7 The Economics of Violence Prevention ...... 68 4.8 The Fall of the National Ribbon ...... 74 Chapter Five: Conclusion—The Origins and Rise of White Ribbon—Globally and in Australia ...... 77

References ...... 81

Table of Figures Figure 1 Lifetime prevalence of physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence among ever-partnered women by WHO region ...... 15 Figure 2 Lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence by age group among ever- partnered women ...... 16 Figure 3 Women who experienced intimate partner violence, sexual violence or emotional abuse in the 12 months before the personal safety survey 2016, by age group...... 17

Figure 4 MASA’s 1992 advertisement for their anti-rape campaign ...... 45

Figure 5 Flood (2011) systems of prevention ...... 58

Figure 6 Self-harm images from White Ribbon 2006 campaign ...... 63

Figure 7. White Ribbon Australia net-profit per financial year (2009–2018) ...... 71

Figure 8 White Ribbon net-profit (2009-2018) ...... 71 Figure 9 Data retrieved and collated from White Ribbon Australia annual reports 2009– 2018...... 72

Figure 10 White Ribbon Finances by financial year in AUD ...... 73

vii

Abstract The White Ribbon campaign is the world’s largest transnational social movement organisation designed to engage men in the prevention of violence against women. Australia’s version of the campaign evolved to become the country’s largest community anti-violence organisation to engage men, and became central as a partner for the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children 2010-2022. The liquidation of the organisation in 2019 has left a vacuum in men’s politics and questions the feasibility and future of community mobilisation regarding men’s opposition to violence. This thesis explores the organisation’s historic origins, tracing its transfer from Canada to Australia, and its shift from grass roots activism to a professionalised national organisation. It critically analyses the mobilisation of White Ribbon, related organisational strategies and their limitations. Such limitations included a heavy campaign focus on symbolism and gesture at the same time as a failure to directly challenge the deeper structural aspects of gender inequality across the social spectrum.

viii

Chapter One: Introduction—Topic Context and the White Ribbon Study

The significance of men’s violence against women has become embedded within contemporary Australian national consciousness. Violence against women is not a new occurrence and it has risked becoming a banality of modern society. However, the last half of the 20th century witnessed a growing social project for the elimination of violence against women, driven by pressure from the women’s movement, and increased media and political attention to acts of sexual violence (Flood, 2005). Within Australia, highly publicized acts of violence against women have ignited public outrage, such as the infamous sexual assault and murder of Anita Cobby in Western Sydney in 1986. The Anita Cobby case, particularly, shocked Australia. Newspapers reporting the case sold entire print runs almost immediately, and public rage was palpable, with petitions to re-introduce the death penalty for her killers, and public protests at the police station and local courts when the killers were placed in custody (see Serisier, 2005). Some positive social outcomes also came from this pressure, with the families of Anita Cobby and Ebony Simpson (another highly-publicized victim of violent crime) establishing the Homicide Victims Support Group in 1993 (http://www.hvsgnsw.org.au/about), and pro-victim law reform for sentencing enshrined in the enactment of the Sentencing Act 1989 NSW.

Similar stories of violence have captivated Australia in recent years, such as the Melbourne killings of Jill Meagher in 2011, Eurydice Dixon in 2018, and Aiia Maasarwe in 2019, and most recently, the killing of Hannah Clarke and her three children in February 2020 in Queensland. The moral shock and media attention surrounding these crimes favoured criminal justice responses and legislative reforms. Such acts of violence against women and children have produced controversy regarding bail applications, pleas of provocation, sentencing, and trial processes.

Pressure to acknowledge the seriousness of crimes against Australian women was reflected in the establishment of the National Committee on Violence, 1990, and The National Plan to reduce Violence Against Women and their Children, 2010-2022. This also

1 led to a rise in visibility for key anti-violence advocates. Australian anti-violence campaigners with national acclaim, include Rosie Batty and David Morrison who both won the prestigious Australian of the Year awards in 2015 and 2016, respectively (australianoftheyear.org.au). This discursive shift and greater emphasis on violence against women is not unique to the Australian context, and is the outcome of a wider international push for the elimination of violence against women, as evident from both the World Health Organization’s (2010) and the United Nations’ (1993) identification and publicizing of the issue.

Violence against women has been identified as a major international social and health concern by the World Health Organization (2010). Nevertheless, national and local intervention attempts have been disparate, operating with competing ideology and funding avenues. In part, this is unsurprising given the major challenge presented by the scope of this violence. Violence against women has been defined as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life” (United Nations, 1993, p 2). The scope of such violence is expansive, involving a constellation of behaviours that vary by relation to the victim. The most common forms of violence experienced by women are domestic family violence and intimate partner violence. Approximately 35% of women globally have experienced physical or sexual aggression by an intimate partner; however, the severity and incidence differ considerably by context (WHO, 2017; Abramsky et al. 2011; AIHW, 2018). Within Australia, a conservative estimate is that approximately 1 in 6 women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous partner; comparatively, 1 in 16 men have experienced analogous violence (ABS, 2017). Gender violence within Australia results in multiple disadvantages to the victim, and correlates with increased use of social services and loss of employment, resulting in an estimated $22–26 billion (AUD) cost to the Australian economy in 2015–2016 (KPMG, 2016). These widespread societal and health impacts reinforce the necessity of intervention.

The implementation of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children 2010–2022 (hereafter the National Plan) represents Australia’s current, and

most substantial effort to eliminate male violence against women and children. The National Plan establishes the strategy and desired outcomes to reduce gender violence within Australia. The National Plan was endorsed by signatories from each state and territory government leader, and received bi-partisan support within the federal parliament (COAG, 2011, p.2). This national effort to reduce violence against women and children has seen an increase of coordination and reform between civil and political sectors, such as the Tasmanian Government’s requirement for all departments to undertake gender equality and workplace training, and the 2018 Australian law reform commission for family violence. Despite these progressive developments, there is still persistent fragmentation in areas of prevention, such as perpetrator interventions (AIHW, 2018).

The Australian National Plan prioritizes a combined effort from the corporate, political and community sector to eliminate gender violence within Australia through coordinated primary and tertiary prevention campaigns. To support this initiative, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) introduced new organizations, such as Australia’s National Research Organization on Women’s Safety (ANROWS - a national funding body to promote practice through research that resembles the Canadian Observatory on the Justice System Response to Intimate Partner Violence). Furthermore, the Federal Government initiated primary intervention campaigns such as OUR WATCH, and The Line as part of the National Plan’s aims to promote respectful relationships through “changing and shaping attitudes and behaviours of young people” (COAG, 2011, p. 18). These campaigns seek to shift attitudes that are supportive of violence held by men and boys.

A key feature of the backdrop to recent discussions about the role of men and boys as perpetrators of gender violence was the earlier emergence of White Ribbon in Australia. White Ribbon Australia engaged with men and boys well before the introduction of the National Plan, focussing on primary prevention of violence against women by encouraging men to pledge to “never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women” (White Ribbon Foundation, 2010, p. 1). Congruent with the increase in national efforts and the wider discourse of violence prevention, White Ribbon Australia was acknowledged as a “key national partner” in the implementation of the National Plan’s Third Action Plan

(COAG, 2016, p. 41), and saw engagement by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as he personally undertook the White Ribbon Oath at the 2011 CEO Challenge (White Ribbon Foundation, 2010).

Yet White Ribbon Australia did not arise in a political vacuum as regards campaigns against male violence. Prior to the rise of White Ribbon, concern about violence against women saw the (1970s onwards) mobilization of a women’s social movement campaigning for its elimination. Early attempts include awareness campaigns like the creation of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women by the United Nations in 1981, and the second wave feminist movements in the 20th century (Flood, 2005; 2010). These changes were followed by a significant global and local shift in violence prevention campaigns, with the mobilization of a novel men’s movement to engage men and boys in violence prevention. These disparate men’s social movements (see Clatterbaugh, 1997) have prompted key male agents to mobilize and engage in violence prevention, most notably the White Ribbon campaign.

The White Ribbon campaign was established by Jack Layton, Michael Kaufman and Ron Sluser in Canada in 1991. It has since evolved and spread internationally to become the largest international men’s social movement to engage men in prevention of violence against women. The programme has spread to more than 60 countries (Kaufman, 2012a). Australia imported the White Ribbon campaign and—in the early 2000s— Australia’s became one of the largest White Ribbon campaigns in the world, with a nationwide social movement organization that engaged the political, corporate and community spheres. The circumstances behind this expansion, stagnation, and the remarkable recent decline of White Ribbon Australia (moving into liquidation on October 3rd, 2019) are the principal subject matter of this thesis project. This current history presents a unique research opportunity, with White Ribbon Australia now presenting an important case study for the evolution of a global anti-violence movement, and its reach, adaptation and apparent limits in the Australian context.

White Ribbon has been a social movement organization that operates on the fundamental belief that men could play an integral role in the prevention of violence against women. This conviction is also reflected in a larger scholarship of primary prevention that

seeks ways to engage men to create broad societal change through attitude and behaviour change in relation to gender inequality (AIHW, 2018; Flood, 2015; 2019; Pease, 2019). There has been a significant difference in how the original Canadian White Ribbon campaign, and the White Ribbon Australia campaign have operated to achieve this. The Canadian campaign was primarily a consciousness-raising social movement; however, the Australian campaign produced training programmes for schools and workplaces to reduce violence (among other initiatives), in addition to consciousness raising.

The method of engagement by White Ribbon (Goldrick-Jones, 2002; 2004; Pease, 2017b), and primary prevention in general, is highly debated, within public, feminist, and academic circles (Powell & Henry, 2014; Jewkes et al. 2015a; 2015b; Flood, 2019). Yet, though situated within the larger environment of violence prevention, White Ribbon became internationally recognized and a prominent player in the conceptualization and operation of violence prevention efforts within Australia.

In tandem with White Ribbon Australia’s growth and prominence in the last decade, there was a rise in public criticism. In recent years, White Ribbon Australia faced significant destabilization, such as the dismissal of White Ribbon Ambassadors (ABC News, 2015), and abandonment by sponsors resulting in a financial deficit (Owen, 2018). White Ribbon Australia’s relevance in violence prevention was often questioned in the media (Ford, 2015; Price, 2017; 2018; Funnell 2016a; 2016b). Given the long-term prominence and favour in many political circles of White Ribbon Australia, the recent instability and divided public discourse make necessary a critical examination and assessment of the organisation’s history, paying particular attention to its overall contribution and limitations in the prevention of gender violence in Australia.

1.1 Method This thesis is a semi-historical, archival and media-based analysis of the contemporary development, evolution, and fall of White Ribbon Australia. The researcher was unable to obtain data directly from White Ribbon Australia in 2019 and 2020. This was likely due to the organization’s precarious position during this period, and, as a result, all data discussed is derived from secondary, publicly available sources. Nevertheless, this archival, document and media form of study is not a necessarily weak knowledge base. Furthermore,

the researcher has been motivated by the goals of balance, fairness, and objectivity in a critical approach to understanding important people, issues and events.

The study is multi-sourced and reflects considerable effort gathering, collating, analysing—and, in part, theorizing—information regarding a matter of key scholarly and public interest. Previous scholarship has highlighted concerns about the organization’s method of engaging men in violence prevention (Flood, 2019 provides a comprehensive guide for engaging men), and there has been direct criticism of the rhetoric of White Ribbon Australia (Seymour, 2017). Notable commentators have criticized White Ribbon, and most men’s movements in general, for the colonization and appropriation of women’s experiences (Spark, 1994; Goldrick-Jones, 1996; 2002; Pease 2008; 2017a). Recently, Seymour (2017) criticized the construction of gender in White Ribbon Australia’s campaign messages, and Bell (2018) also analysed the motivation and demographics of members from the White Ribbon Ambassador campaign. Within Australia, Michael Flood and Bob Pease have previously advocated for the campaign, having both been directly involved as scholar activists within Australia. However, as far as the author is aware, this is the first scholarly analysis performed following the recent demise of White Ribbon Australia.

This project’s novel analysis regarding the growth and fall of White Ribbon Australia will contribute to the broader scholarship of violence prevention methods. Furthermore, the study gives an account of the shifting aims, strategies and effects of White Ribbon Australia—with a final reflection on its achievements and shortcomings in publicizing, understanding and countering men’s violence. There are many credible precedents for this sort of social analysis: the study of pressure groups, and detailed studies of social movements, are both widely respected in political science and sociology as valuable forms of research (Koopmans, 2009; Messner, Greenberg & Peretz, 2015), including significant research on global social movements (Moghadam, 2012). Social movement research provides an avenue of analysis for a social concern or injustice, and the mobilization and function of social groups, which is foundational to the social sciences. The impact of social movements and pressure group research are integral to understanding the formation of the agenda on the public discourse. It is through such a mobilization of

public opinion that the organization in question, White Ribbon Australia, first came to prominence. Thus, the adoption of this methodological focus is appropriate for the current study.

1.2 Research Questions Throughout the course of this thesis, the author will endeavour to answer the following key questions:

● What is the extent of male violence against women, and what is the historical and social context that perpetuates and shapes this violence? ● How is Australia situated within the global context of violence against women, and what is the historical context that perpetuates this violence? ● How did White Ribbon Australia develop as an organization and a public campaign in Australia over the last three decades? ● What were White Ribbon Australia’s distinctive views about the causes of and solution to male violence, and how have these changed over time? ● Furthermore, how successful or viable were the understandings and strategies that White Ribbon Australia advocated? Did these features have any relation to the fall of White Ribbon Australia in 2019? ● Overall, what do the findings of this study indicate about dominant forms of men’s politics in relation to men’s violence in Australia and similar wealthy nations?

1.3 Thesis Structure This thesis will not be a comprehensive analysis of violence against women within Australia or on an international level, as this is not feasible within the constraints of the project. However, it will provide a critical analysis of the most prominent men’s campaign to eliminate violence against women. The historic antecedents and evolution of the organization will provide insight into the current social engagement of related violence prevention, and the benefits and limitations of its impact.

Chapter two presents a short overview of men’s violence internationally and within Australia, and refers to the unique aspects of Australian society and history that sustain violence and that might impede intervention methods.

Chapter three examines the origins of White Ribbon, globally and in Australia. The examination analyses the impact of the second wave feminist movement, and key figures and events that promoted once controversial but now general views about violence against women, and how this provided impetus for the establishment of prevention programmes. Subsequently, chapter four analyses the details of White Ribbon’s mobilization in Australia. Both the model of violence and the violence prevention proposed by White Ribbon Australia will be examined in comparison to other prominent violence prevention models, and their rival constructions of masculinity.

The final chapter of this thesis assesses the stagnation and fall of White Ribbon Australia, its achievements, limitations, and failings. It highlights the challenges of primary prevention that the White Ribbon Australia campaign attempted to engage, the implications this may have for the White Ribbon campaign in similar wealthy countries, and the potential difficulties the adoption of this style of campaign may pose to other nations.

Chapter Two: Australia’s Place in the Global Problem of Violence

All patterns and forms of violence are produced within a greater social context. This context shapes the likelihood and feasibility of different prevention methods. Violence against women is part of this: it is a global issue, present in all nation states, with approximately one in three women having experienced some form of violence (WHO, 2013). Yet, it is by no means homogenous in its perpetration and level of victimization. There are distinctions between the violence prevalent within stabilized western nation states of the Global North, and that within fragile or failed states of the Global South (see Carrington, Hogg & Sozzo, 2018; WHO, 2014). Increased fragility of states and communities produces higher levels of violence, and it is estimated that “one in four people on the planet, more than 1.5 billion, live in fragile and conflict-affected states or in countries with very high levels of violence” (The World Bank, 2011, p. 2).

It is well established that violence against women is primarily perpetrated by men, and it is most commonly explained in international efforts through a human ecological model (see Heise, 1998; 2011; WHO, 2014). This model is effective in demonstrating that violence is not produced by a single cause, but rather it is “a multifaceted phenomenon grounded in the interplay among personal, situational and sociocultural factors” (Heise, 2011, p. 6). The ecological model has significant implications for violence prevention, which will be discussed in detail in chapter 4. Of note here is the implication that the development and behaviour of the individual is the construct of interacting systems, nominally the microsystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and mesosystem of any social behaviour (Heise, 19981; Bronfenbrenner, 1977). These interactions provide the context and ability for people to produce their behaviour, and these are not constrained to an isolated geography or context, but produced through a greater global macrosystem of influence. The structure of this global macrosystem is formed through historic and

1 Heise elaborates on Belsky’s (1980) framework for the aetiology of child abuse, and introduces a different framework of analysis, particularly introducing factors situated within the personal history sphere.

contemporary interactions of power and knowledge, and this understanding is evident in the promulgation and adoption of UN and WHO ideas of violence and prevention.

The demarcation between centres of power and economic stability in the globalized world further shapes views regarding the justification and perpetration of violence against women (see True, 2012), and ideas about male investment in gendered power and hierarchy.2 There is a continued privileging and centring of Western discourses, which may not translate cross-culturally. Australia is geographically located within the Global South, but as a settler state, Australia has received significant anomalous power through the adoption and propagation of Western social and economic practices, and is significantly higher in ratings of human development compared to its neighbours (Chappell, 2016, p. 15). These practices privilege Western discourses, and the translation of specific theory in understanding the perpetration of violence, and this process is best explained through Connell’s Southern Theory.

2.1 Implications of a Southern Theory and Criminology The conceptualization of Southern Theory draws a geo-political relation of power between the North and South, with the North representing Anglo-western metropolitan seats of power. The political economy of knowledge is North-centred, produced in the metropole and distributed to the periphery, displacing Southern and Indigenous knowledges, thus producing readings from the centre (Connell, 2007, 2014b). The dominance of Northern power and the globalized world is a product of imperialist projects of the 19th and 20th century which established the Global North as the normative benchmark for the periphery to aspire to, producing the modernity myth that the dominance of the Global North is not produced by conquest but by historical precedence (Connell, 2007, p. 38). This silenced the role of violence in the establishment of current economic, social, and global systems of power, and the forms of ‘legitimate’ violence that reconstitute and perpetuate the dominant hierarchies.

2 Connell (2016) gives a detailed account of the construction of masculinities in the global context, which has uneven effects on the construction of violence against women.

Despite mass decolonization in the mid-late 20th century, today, many countries in the Global South wrestle with the legacy of colonialism, and continuing western influence and intervention through globalized social and economic means; which has seen increased the violence of failed states with high crime (Carrington, Hogg, Sozzo, 2018). The globalized market has seen the “states and ruling classes in the periphery used the removal of social protections and privatization of public assets to bolster their position in the global markets” (Connell, 2016b, p. 309). The flexibility of economic systems, and their global market sees the renegotiation of labour and may limit or broaden the migration of social movement and freedom; shaping the masculinities and violence in rural (Carrington & Hogg, 2016) and disadvantaged communities. Furthermore, the promotion of women’s economic freedom and social mobility may be stymied in global economic restructuring.

The failure of states, and advent of conflict zones, sees the increase of gender violence with the weaponization of rape against women to further destabilize the social and cultural structures of the defending community (True, 2012). This produces intergenerational harm and continued destabilization (see Ferrales & McElrath, 2014; Engle, 2018). Chinkin (2014) provides a substantial overview of the gender-specific harms inflicted upon women in armed conflict, and the international legal frameworks produced to respond to the harm, and the limited implementation and effectiveness of those responses.

Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo (2018) propose a southern criminology built on Connell’s contributions to contend with the historic geo-political divide and its role in criminal and violent behaviour. This does not assume that there is a universal southern experience of crime and violence, for the Global North is a product of centuries of interactions and cultures spanning the globe (Sen, 2006, cited in Carrington, Hogg & Sozzo, 2018), with globalization and processes from the non-western world (see Beckert, 2014). Rather, southern criminology “seeks to insert these events and relations back into history and contemporary analysis” (Carrington, Hogg, & Sozzo, 2018, p. 60). The influence of metropolitan thinking is evident in the advent of criminology, which was amidst a locus of significant economic and social upheaval in the later 19th and 20th centuries. This upheaval made criminology susceptible to the modernization thesis,

metropolitan thinking that crime and social disorder were just symptomatic of urbanization and industrialization (Hogg & Carrington, 2006), and cementing romanticized agrarian idealism, despite increased susceptibility to violence in rural communities (Carrington & Hogg, 2016; Hogg, Carrington & Sozzo, 2018).

The persistence of this knowledge production and understanding is present in violence against women research and intervention, with the methodological reliance on North American models of understanding violence (Heise, 1998; 2011; Pence & Paymar, 1993). The influence of the Global North continues, particularly in Australian criminology (Stubbs and Tomsen, 2016), and especially regarding studies that measure the extent of male violence (Machado, Dias, and Coelho, 2010). As violence is produced and influenced through a geo-political network of power and inequality, it is important to ask what the contextual factors are that reconstitute gendered violence and any prevention efforts. Furthermore, violence is a “slippery concept—nonlinear, productive, destructive, and reproductive” (Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois, 2004, p. 1), and this has shaped significant debates about reporting and studying it.

2.2 Measuring Violence Against Women Population surveys are regularly used to determine incident rates, and provide useful tools for estimating the prevalence of violence, for they may capture the incident rate beyond criminal reports; but, the categorization and measurement of violence is constrained. Of significant concern is that the many surveys are derivations of the North American Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), which has been transposed across contexts, and methodological similarities may be found in the WHO (2013) regional estimate study. The CTS (Straus, 1979; revised by Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) is possibly the most common measurement for domestic violence,3 and focuses on three categories of conflict between family members (including toward children): reason, verbal aggression, and violence.4 The limitation of CTS and similar scales is that they identify

3 The CTS originally used the categorization of intra-family violence rather than domestic violence, which did not account for non-family member violence, such as unmarried intimate partners. 4 The CTS considered violence as behaviours of physical assault, and omitted psychological dimensions, sexual coercion and financial control until its revision in 1996.

singular acts of violence “rather than more general patterns of behavior, and the physical violence items of the CTS are still the most widely used approach to assessing levels of domestic violence” (Kelly & Johnson, 2008, p. 480). There is resistance to this method, as it risks promoting ideas of gender parity for violence perpetration, and omits patterns of behaviour, emphasising physical incidents whilst neglecting other behaviours (Wangmann, 2011; Johnson, 2013). The CTS is further criticized for not identifying the intensity, context, consequences or rationale of violent behaviour, particularly, as it omits the social and health impacts of the violence (Dobash & Dobash, 2004; Johnson, 2010; Flood, 2019).

Population surveys generally provide less reliable estimates for certain population groups with small sample sizes, which include: the elderly, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, people with disabilities, and the LGBTIQA community (Mitra-Kahn et al. 2016), thus limiting intergroup analysis. Though the efficacy of violence statistics has been criticized for not capturing the extent and nature of violence against women, it provides a limited tool for understanding the estimated scope of the global problem.

2.3 Australia and the Global Incidence of Violence Against Women The following provides a comparison between Australian and global prevalence of violence against women. The types of violence examined are those identified within the World Health Organization’s regional estimates, which are: intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner sexual assault, and non-partner sexual violence. These elide other relationships of interpersonal violence, including non-physical forms of violence, such as psychological abuse or the deprivation of liberties.

Despite these limitations, the prevalence rates determined by the World Health Organization are the most obvious global source due to standardized testing across multiple contexts (Abramsky et al., 2011; WHO, 2013). The results from the detailed Australian Personal Safety Survey 2016 (ABS, 2017) can be used to supplement the findings from the World Health Organization, and is designed to be analogous to the World Health

Organization tools.5 Australia is identified within the WHO regional estimates as a high- income country, within the Western Pacific Region, and as such will be directly compared to similarly wealthy nations and the statistics of its region.

2.3.1 Intimate Partner Violence—Prevalence by Region The World Health Organization global and regional estimates of violence against women, categorize intimate partner violence as physical and sexual violence, though the definition of physical violence accounts for threats of violence with a weapon but no other threats of physical violence.6 It is estimated that the global incidence of intimate partner violence committed against ever-partnered women, which includes current or former intimate partners, is 30% (95% CI = 27.8 to 32.2%) (WHO, 2013). When examined by region, Western Pacific and high-income countries have the lowest prevalence of violence (see fig 1. below).

WHO region Prevalence, % 95% CI, % Low- and middle-income regions: Africa 36.6 32.7 to 40.5 Americas 29.8 25.8 to 33.9 Eastern Mediterranean 37.0 30.9 to 43.1 Europe 25.4 20.9 to 30.0 South-East Asia 37.7 32.8 to 42.6

5 Nevertheless, there are some issues of scope and terminology. For example, the Australian Personal Safety Survey discusses the violence within the previous year, while the WHO measure is if the individual has ever experienced violence. 6 “Physical violence is defined as: being slapped or having something thrown at you that could hurt you, being pushed or shoved, being hit with a fist or something else that could hurt, being kicked, dragged or beaten up, being choked or burnt on purpose, and/or being threatened with, or actually, having a gun, knife or other weapon used on you.” (WHO, 2013, p. 6).

Western Pacific 24.6 20.1 to 29.0 High income 23.2 20.2 to 26.2 Figure 1 Lifetime prevalence of physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence among ever-partnered women by WHO region7

Within Australia, approximately 17% (1.6 million) of women have experienced partner violence,8 from a current or previous partner, excluding non-cohabitating partners (ABS, 2017). The personal safety survey defines violence as “any incident involving the occurrence, attempt or threat of either physical or sexual assault experienced by a person since the age of 15” (ABS, 2017), and, as a result, it conflates overt incidents of violence with threats.

The rate and risk of violence experienced by women from current or previous cohabitating partners is three times more likely than men, as 6.1% of Australian men (547,600) have experienced partner violence since the age of 15. When accounting for non- cohabitating partners, approximately 23% of women and 7.8% of men have experienced violence by an intimate partner (ABS, 2017). The research indicates that intimate partner violence is most common with cohabitating partners, though non-cohabitating partner violence and dating violence are still significant forms of violence that impact women. Australia’s prevalence of intimate partner violence against women is similar when compared to high income countries, and not significantly less prevalent than the overall Western Pacific region, which has the lowest level of intimate partner violence (IPV) compared to other regions.

2.3.2 Prevalence by Age Age plays a significant role in exposure to gendered violence. Globally, violence commonly starts early in women’s lives and relationships, as 29.4% of women aged 15–19 have experienced violence (Fig, 2. WHO, 2013). Prevalence continues to rise until

7 Reproduced from WHO, 2013, Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non- partner sexual violence. 8 The Personal Safety Survey, 2016, identifies a partner as a person “the respondent lives with, or lived with at some point, in a married or defacto relationship” (ABS, 2017). Alternatively, the “term intimate partner is used to describe a current partner (living with), previous partner (lived with), boyfriend/girlfriend/date and ex-boyfriend/girlfriend (did not live with).

15 it peaks at the age group of 40–44 years, but then declines for women experiencing violence aged 50 years and above.

Age group, years Prevalence, % 95% CI, % 15-19 29.4 26.8 to 32.1 20-24 31.6 29.2 to 33.9 25-29 32.3 30.0 to 34.6 30-34 31.1 28.9 to 33.4 35-39 36.6 30.0 to 43.2 40-44 37.8 30.7 to 44.9 45-49 29.2 26.9 to 31.5 50-54 25.5 18.6 to 32.4 55-59 15.1 6.1 to 24.1 60-64 19.6 9.6 to 29.5 65-69 22.2 12.8 to 31.6 Figure 2 Lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence by age group among ever-partnered women (WHO, 2013)

Comparatively, Australia represents a similar trend in violence victimization by age (see figure 3.) that indicates a specific vulnerability for women in a younger age group. Age is important to the vulnerability to violence and the combined evidence of Australian and international research indicates that age is a consistent predictor of the experience of intimate partner and sexual violence.

Age group, years Intimate partner Sexual violence, % Partner emotional violence, % abuse, %

18-24 5.4 5.9 3.4

25-34 3.3 3.5 5.9

35-44 2.2 1.2 6.5

45-54 1.9 0.8 6.5

55-64 1.0 0.6 4.5

65+ 0.8 0.3 2.2

Figure 3 Women who experienced intimate partner violence, sexual violence or emotional abuse in the 12 months before the personal safety survey 2016, by age group. Reproduced from AIHW (2019)

2.3.3 Sexual Violence True estimates of non-partner sexual violence are difficult to reach, as many cases are unreported, and significant variance is found in multi-country studies (see Jewkes, Fulu, Roselli & Garcia-Moreno, 2013). Determining trends of sexual assault is further complicated by definitional differences (Stubbs, 2016), even among states or provinces within countries, and many countries do not collect population-based data for intimate partner sexual violence or non-partner sexual violence (WHO, 2013). Consequently, the disparities have produced significant gaps in data (WHO, 2013). Australia is relatively proactive in providing data on violent crime and has more robust databases for prevalence estimates.

Destabilized nations and conflict zones severely impact the perpetration of sexual violence (see True, 2012), and data recording and prevention methods. The WHO regional estimates identified 6 conflict-zones within their regional data analysis (WHO, 2013, p. 19). Notably, it is estimated that 1 in 4 people globally “live in conflict-affected states or in countries with very high levels of violence” (World Bank, 2011, p. 2). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume in any global estimates of violence against women and sexual assault of women that the impact of conflict is highly significant.

Within Australia, approximately 18% of women (1.7 million) and 4.7% of men (428,800) men have experienced sexual violence.9 The proportion of women experiencing sexual violence within the last 12 months in Australia remained relatively stable between the 2005 and 2016 surveys (1.6% in 2005 to 1.8% in 2016), but there was a mild fluctuation between 2012 and 2016, increasing from 1.2% to 1.8%. “Women were eight times more likely to experience sexual violence by a partner than men” (5.1% to 0.6%) (ABS, 2017). Regarding sexual harassment, 53% of women (5.5 million) and 25% of men (2.2 million) have also experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime (ABS, 2017).

There are significant difficulties in determining sexual assault/violence in intimate partner relationships, because of low reporting, and cross-culturally marital or partner rape is not universally accepted, and even within Australia this was not legally recognized until the 1970s (see Scutt, 1980). However, in Australia, family and domestic violence (FDV) accounted for 34% of all female victim sexual assaults recorded nationally in 2018, the highest number of victims since the FDV criteria were established in 2013 (ABS, 2019c). It is difficult to determine if this is a behavioural trend, or an increase in reporting due to awareness campaigns.

2.4 Australia’s Global Position of Violence Against Women Globally, Australia has similar levels of violence against women to comparable high-income regions. The striking difference between different nations around the globe is the overall increased level of violence in the Global South, and countries impacted by significant disadvantage or as failed states. Levels of destabilization and disadvantage have been shown to increase the prevalence of violence (Cattaneo & DeLoveh, 2008, Carrington & Hogg, 2018), but shared risk factors, such as violence-supportive norms, male dominance, and poor legal sanctions are consistent cross-culturally (Abramsky et al. 2011;

9 In the Personal Safety Survey, sexual violence is defined “as the occurrence, attempt or threat of sexual assault experienced by a person since the age of 15.” Sexual assault is “an act of a sexual nature carried out against a person’s will through the use of physical force, intimidation or coercion, including any attempts to do this. This includes rape, attempted rape, aggravated sexual assault (assault with a weapon), indecent assault, penetration by objects, forced sexual activity that did not end in penetration and attempts to force a person into sexual activity. Incidents so defined would be an offence under state and territory criminal law.” Sexual threat is “the threat of acts of a sexual nature that were made face-to-face where the person believed it was able to and likely to be carried out.” (ABS, 2017).

Jewkes et al. 2015a; 2015b). Nevertheless, both globally and in Australia violence is primarily committed by men. This indicates the necessity of focusing on this violence as a masculine problem. The relationship between men and violence will be discussed further in chapter three and chapter four, particularly regarding White Ribbon’s understanding of violence and their preferred prevention methods. With few exceptions, the majority of anti- violence programmes have come from high-income countries, and may not simply translate to low income settings, “where economic and social conditions and the epidemiology of the different forms of violence are very different” (WHO, 2014, p. 39).

2.5 An Australian Violence and Criminology Contemporary Australian social identity is born from a legacy of violence, beginning with the deportation of criminals from Great Britain to a continent that served the purpose of both prison and settlement. Colonial Australia would produce the continent- wide displacement and mass-murder of Indigenous peoples, the effects of which are still witnessed now with Indigenous life lost in custody and debate around Australian sovereign identity through the ritual of Australia Day. The settlement of New South Wales was based on interlaced networks of violence which included violence perpetrated by both the state and the citizenry, such as the mass transportation and convictism mentioned earlier, Indigenous resistance to settlement, disorderly gold rushes, and violent crime (Finnane, 1994). The crime and justice issues of colonial Sydney were shaped by demography, political and economic interests (Grabosky, 1977).

A masculine military identity formed within the juvenile years of the British colonization of Australia, where the early governors of the settlement were navy or army personnel. Australia’s militarism has continued, with the ANZAC myth, regular participation in international conflict, most recently the War on Terror, and the instigation of the paramilitary Border Protection Force. These developments have reaffirmed the patriarchal structure of Australian political life, bringing on the rise of the political strongman, embodied most recently by Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Abbott, a conservative politician, built his identity and nationalistic political campaign on stopping illegal migrants, also known as asylum seekers, and penned a passionate plea on the importance of the ANZAC soldier as a moral guide for modern generations (Abbott, 2015).

Furthermore, Australian governments have zealously passed more than 60 anti-terrorism legislation reforms since 2001, with limited checks and balances (Davis, McGarrity & Williams 2015; cited in Stubbs & Tomsen, 2016 p. 6).

The history of modern Australia is a particularly masculine affair, and the legacy of its colonial past has impacted the formation of gendered and racialized orders in Australia (Connell, 2014a). White settlers combated the continent’s Indigenous population for possession of their land, and cultural dispossession (Reynolds, 1989), and women were shipped to the burgeoning penal colony as dehumanized breeding stock and to “curb rebellions among the men” (Summers, 2016, p. 23). Further gendered struggles may be found through the state-inflicted violence (see Grabosky, 1977, for a social history of NSW violence) which gave rise to the myth and masculinity of the bushranger, particularly Ned Kelly, as seen through the repetitious films of his story (The Story of the Kelly Gang 1906, The Kelly Gang 1920, Ned Kelly 1970, Ned Kelly 2003, True History of the Kelly Gang 2019).

The violence of Australia’s past has left the nation with “two great sources of national discomfort”: the shame of its convict history as a “convict stain” and “the indelible stain” of Aboriginal dispossession” (Roberts, 2012: 214, citing Henry Reynolds). Australia’s problematic past is either slowly recognized or silenced, as evident in the history wars and criminology bringing colonial history into understanding of violence (Carrington & Hogg, 2016; Cunneen, 2011; see also Carrington, Hogg, & Sozzo, 2018) and Indigenous violence and dispossession (Cunneen & Rowe, 2016).10 Australia has made advances in critical, feminist and Indigenous criminology to rectify in part the inheritance from Australia’s past, such as via the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and the National Committee on Violence (NCV), established in 1988.

2.6 Contemporary Violence in Australia

2.6.1 National Committee on Violence

10 For research on the epistemological violence of discrediting of Indigenous knowledges see Cunneen (2011); Cunneen & Rowe (2016); Nakata (2007).

The National Committee, announced in October 1988 (Chappell, 1989), was formed in response to increased public concern regarding the extent of violence in Australia. The purpose of the committee was to establish the state of violence within Australia, and to ease public concern. The NCV released the 9-part paper series, Violence Today regarding the state of violence in Australia and provided recommendations for legal and policy reform (1989). The series covered the following: violence, crime and Australian society; violence against children; violence in sport; violence and public contact workers; violence on television; violence, disputes, and their resolution; racist violence; political violence; and, importantly, domestic violence.

The National Committee on Violence established what is now taken for granted: that violence is patterned by socio-demographic factors such as gender, class, age, race and locality; violence is relational and associated with socio-economic disadvantage and other forms of inequality; for violence offences, other than sexual assault and domestic violence, victims and offenders share similar profiles; and, rates of violence differ substantially across Australian jurisdictions (Stubbs & Tomsen, 2016, p. 6). The National Committee identified that there were serious limits in official measures of violence, and sexual violence and domestic violence were regularly underreported (which the National Council on Violence Against Women and their Children has since attempted to address). Furthermore, areas of public concern and the real prevalence of violence were not necessarily congruent.

Perceptions that violent crime has increased have been situated within a network of broader general anxieties about crime, and with an often-exaggerated focus on the threat of pathological dangerous individuals (Brown, 2016). Nevertheless, the National Committee on Violence set precedence for numerous commissions, and plans to further understand or combat violence. Most importantly, the eventual instigation of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children 2010–2022, informed Australia’s national efforts and standards. The National Plan has been integral to the growth of White Ribbon Australia, and as such it will be discussed in detail in chapter three.

2.6.1 Australian Legal Developments

Since the 1970s, the push for the elimination of violence against women and improved gender equality in Australia has instigated various taskforces, legal and social policy inquiries and enactments (see Lake, 1999; Scutt, 1980; NCV 1989; Tyson, 2011). What these stressed was the traditional construction of women in the law and criminal law as a subordinate other, of prior ownership to the male, particularly through marriage (see Scutt, 1977), with continued disenfranchisement and blindness to women’s needs. This enabled the perpetration of male violence and perpetrator protection from the law. This was especially so when the character of women were as having a propensity to deceive and make false statements prevailed in rape cases (Scutt, 1992). Furthermore, women’s perceived moral standing shaped legal interpretations of harm, as prostitutes and other unsavoury women were said to experience less harm from violence and rape than a chaste woman (see Scutt, 1994).

Chappell (1989) proposed as part of the 1990 National Committee on Violence that the evolution of criminal justice services would result in victims being more willing to report crimes, and the police being less inclined to view such reports as fabrications. However, there is historic, and continued deprivation of women’s rights in the criminal justice services. Modern persistence of male excuse and provocation rhetoric is evident in the current investigation of the killing of Hannah Clarke, as the primary police investigator stated: “We need to look at every piece of information […] Is this an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and her children perishing at the hands of her husband or is this an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues he’s suffered by certain circumstances into committing acts of this form?” (Truu, 2020). Sexist and archaic characterizations of women persist in the judgements and treatment of women in the criminal justice system (see, Tyson, 2011; Tyson, Kirkwood, & McKenzie, 2017).

2.6.2 Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence There are major disparities in the reporting of violence against women. This is partly due to the limitation in methods for data collection beyond overt forms of violence, which are generally physical or sexual violence. This limits collection regarding coercive forms of violence, like economic violence (WHO, 2013). This is exacerbated by issues of reporting which include, but are not limited to: legal and correctional institutions, absent

community support, deprived autonomy of the reporter, and a social endorsement or acceptance of intimate partner violence (Donnermeyer et al., 2013; Madhani et al., 2017; Dowling, Morgan, Boyd, & Voce, 2018). This discrepancy in reporting is not confined to violence against women, but it strongly characterizes it.

When regarding incidents of domestic and intimate partner violence in Australia, “despite significant investment by government in new methods of preventing domestic violence reoffending, levels of violence experienced by victims remain unacceptably high.” (Morgan, Boxall, Dowling & Brown, 2020). There are more than 320,000 victims of domestic violence each year (ABS, 2017), and police attend an incident of domestic violence approximately every two minutes (Blumer, 2016). Police response can reduce domestic violence reoffending, but this is not universal, and the detailed evidence for this within Australia is lacking (Dowling et al. 2018b) Nationally, a disproportionate number of domestic violence offenders are responsible for many incidents (Hulme, Morgan & Boxall 2019). Repeat offending is concentrated in certain localities marked with disadvantage, based on both official records and self-reported violence (Di Bartolo 2001; Fitzgerald & Graham 2016). Voce and Boxall (2018) suggest that this may reflect broader structures of disadvantage and insufficient resources and support. The interactions with police in many incidents do not reflect how “police contact provides an important opportunity to intervene and improve access to vital support services” (Morgan, Boxall, Dowling & Brown, 2020, p. 7). For effective engagement with the criminal justice system there must be a promotion of trust across varied communities, but negative perceptions of the police are common for domestic violence survivors (ABS, 2017; Dowling, Morgan, Boyd, & Voce, 2018).11

2.6.3 Trends in Interpersonal Violence The decade 2008-09 to 2017-18, saw a general decline or stagnation of interpersonal violent crime in Australia. Total assaults reduced from 6.3% to 4.8% of the general population, and physical assault fell from 3.1% to 2.4 %; however, sexual assault

11 For specific male experiences and barriers to engagement with the criminal justice system, see Bricknell, Boxall, & Andrevski (2014).

remained steady at 0.3%. There were apparent declines in threats of assault (from 4.2% of people to 2.8%), even across direct face-to-face threats (3.9% to 2.6%) and non-face-to- face threats (1.2% to 0.8%) (ABS, 2019a).

There had been substantial increases in recorded assaults since the mid-1990s, although victim surveys indicate that this trend partly reflected changes in reporting (Bricknell, 2008). Police-recorded instances of sexual assault have increased markedly since the early 1990s, although victimization survey results indicate more stable trends (Stubbs, 2016). There have been increases in recorded assaults of child victims (0-14 years) that are more substantial than other ages and which may also reflect increased reporting (Bricknell, 2008), and changes in protection practices (Stubbs, 2016).

2.6.4 Partner Violence Stability The yearly experience of partner violence remained relatively stable over the decade the Personal Safety Survey has been in operation (2005–2016), with approximately 1.5% of women aged 18 years and over in 2005 experiencing violence by a partner within the previous twelve months, compared to 1.7% in 2016 (ABS, 2017). In contrast, rates of assault have stagnated or declined within the last decade (ABS, 2019c). Approximately, 16% of women experienced physical violence by a cohabitating partner compared to 5.9% of men. Women were 8 times more likely than men to experience sexual violence by a partner (5.1%; 480,200) compared to men (0.6%; 53,000) (ABS, 2017). When accounting for non-cohabitating partners, approximately 23% of Australian women and 7.8% of Australian men experienced violence by an intimate partner (which included threats of violence, physical and sexual violence) (ABS, 2017).

2.6.5 Prevalence of Violence by Relationship to Perpetrator Almost two in five Australians (39%) aged 18 years and over have experienced an incident of physical or sexual violence, since the age of 15, including 42% of men and 37% of women. Since the age of 15, approximately 36% of Australians surveyed have experienced violence by a male perpetrator, comparatively only 11% surveyed experienced violence by a female perpetrator (ABS, 2017). Men are at a higher risk of ever experiencing violence by a stranger than women, with figures of 27% compared to 9.4% respectively (ABS, 2017). Men are more likely to have experienced physical violence compared to

women, 41% compared to 31%, respectively; however, women are significantly more likely to ever experience sexual violence than men, 18% compared to 4.7%.

The male experience of partner violence from previous and/or current cohabitating partners within the 12 months previous to the Personal Safety Survey increased from 2005 to 2016; however, between the 2012 and 2016 surveys there was no significant change in the proportion of men who experienced violence (ABS, 2017). As a result, it is difficult to determine if this indicates a trend in perpetration. It is obviously the case that the bulk of Australian partner violence continues to be directed at women.

2.6.6 Australian Homicide The majority of intimate partner homicide is perpetrated by men against women (Cussen & Bryant, 2015; 2015b; Mouzos & Rushforth, 2003). Bryant and Cussen (2015) note that Australian domestic homicide is on a downward trend, but that it is premature to determine if the trend is stable. Male killing of women is typically characterized by an escalation of long-term abuse and controlling behaviour by the male partner. The risk of homicide is heightened at times of instability, such as unemployment, or the partner leaving or threatening to leave the relationship (see Dobash & Dobash, 2015). This is representative of a larger societal trend, where men are the primary instigators of homicide, regardless of relationship to different victims. However, female killers act far more often as a measure of self-defence.

Australian female intimate partner homicide perpetrators are generally aged 35–49 and in long term relationships, and are cohabiting with their partner (Voce & Bricknell, 2020). Voce and Bricknell (2020) found that approximately half of the female perpetrators were suffering violence from the male, and a notable proportion “spontaneously” killed their partner in a single act of violence following a conflict. Both members of the relationship tended to be unemployed and have substance misuse issues (Voce & Bricknell, 2020). Indigenous perpetrators were subject to higher levels of complex disadvantage and adversity, such as unemployment and unstable accommodation, with more interactions with police services and perpetrators of other violent crime (Voce & Bricknell, 2020). Globally, intimate partner homicide accounts for approximately 40% of

all women killed, but only 6% of men (WHO, 2013), and this asymmetry is generally consistent across the world (Dobash & Dobash, 2015).

2.6.7 The Impact of Violence Against Women Violence against women occurs in a multitude of contexts and relationships, and has been termed a primary threat to women’s and girl’s health and wellbeing worldwide (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2015; AIHW, 2018; 2019). Though this violence occurs across all social strata, the severity of the violence differs significantly across intersections of socio- economic disadvantage (see Cattaneo & DeLoveh, 2008; AIHW, 2018; Vives-Cases et al., 2011). For instance, in Australia, Indigenous women are 32 times more likely to be hospitalized from intimate partner violence than non-Indigenous women, and refugee and immigrant women also suffer greater threats and impacts of violence by intimate partners and men (AIHW, 2018). These issues are perpetuated by limited access to material resources and, for Indigenous women particularly, a wariness about interactions with the criminal justice system due to historic and contemporary acts of oppression. This vulnerability is further extended as family violence increases the risk of being homeless, either through destabilized safety in the home or fleeing a violent home (Chamberlain & Johnson, 2013). These circumstances may bring on severe social and personal disruption, ongoing poor housing, and economic disadvantage (Spinney & Blandy, 2011).

Regarding the significant impact of violence on Indigenous violence, the NCV stressed the necessity to examine and comprehend the complex causes that contribute to the incidence of violence in victims’ communities (1989, p. 165). Violence-induced trauma also has a major impact on women and help-seeking (Salter, 2012). Women adopt various defensive strategies each day against a continuum of violence, from catcalling and discrimination to sexual assault (Lake, 2013). The continued sustainment and threat of violence is highly influenced by intersections of disadvantage, which make problematic any attempts to minimize all violence, when considering social class, race, geography, and the limited attention to structural influences of violence against women by primary violence prevention agencies.

2.6.8 Rural Violence

Geography and social hierarchies significantly impact perpetration and victim support practices in relation to violence against women. Traditional criminology has viewed rural agrarian society as “vestigial, naturally cohesive,” and in contrast to the crime- riddled inner cities and urban centres (Bottoms, 1994: 668; cited in Hogg, Carrington, & Sozzo, 2018). However, rurality, and rural Australia, have been at the locus of great social upheaval and violent crime (Hogg & Carrington, 2006). Australian rates of violence are, on average, considerably higher in rural and regional communities rather than in the cities (Hogg & Carrington, 2006).

The contestation of rural communal cohesion and fluctuating or diminishing social capital and opportunity significantly impact the instigation and continuation of violence. Within rural communities, patriarchal and coercive social control is employed to maintain the cohesive, hierarchal social relations, that are overlooked in criminology (Carrington & Scott, 2008). The distinct, high level of violence has, in part, been falsely attributed to just the Indigenous population, where the rural community is a continued site of historic colonial displacement, and contemporary racism and disenfranchisement (Cunneen & Rowe, 2016). This masks the disproportionately high level of violence in white rural communities (Hogg & Carrington, 2006).

The capitalization of natural and agricultural resources has exacerbated levels of crime in rural and regional locales (Hogg and Carrington 2006; Barclay et al. 2007; Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy 2013; Harkness et al. 2015). This leads to increased levels of disadvantage through the economic practice of fly-in-fly-out work forces for mining in Australia, which heightened masculine public violence in rural communities (Carrington & Hogg, 2016). The mix of masculine stoicism and adversity faced in rural communities has also increased the rate of male suicide, compared to that of rural women, due to higher levels of isolation, socio-economic stress and easy access to firearms (Alston, 2012).

2.7 Conclusion In global comparisons, Australia is well situated among a wealthier cluster of lower violence nations. Furthermore, Australia reaps some advantage from a much less pronounced gun culture than other wealthy countries such as the United States of America, and it has benefited from the historic and contested action to reduce gun ownership and

possession after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre and other prominent gun-related tragedies (see Finnane, 2016). Nevertheless, this does not justify any dismissiveness about the field, and the extent of different levels of physical violence against both men and women has been confirmed by research in a growing range of topics with men as perpetrators in the majority of these (see Stubbs & Tomsen, 2016). The structure of violence against women in Australia must be understood within the global incidence of violence, and it has been well established that the histories of violence, and continual gendered and racialized lives have impacted on the spread and persistence of violence. Furthermore, the reliance on theoretical perspectives from the Global North, has continued an understanding of violence and violence prevention methods that are situated within these seats of power, and may have barriers to transferring to other nation states, and into effective grassroots prevention programmes. Given this, contemporary Australia has seemed ripe for the expansion and activity of a range of anti-violence concerns regarding men’s violence against women, and also for a critical assessment of those measures which White Ribbon has come to reflect and promote.

Chapter Three: The Origins and Rise of White Ribbon— Globally and in Australia Social movements often go unnoticed or have a limited effect on political discourse and awareness (for reviews, see Meyer, 2007; Meyer, 2012). In contrast, White Ribbon has been an influential voice for the elimination of violence against women for almost 30 years. The rise of White Ribbon has promoted the central method for engaging men in violence prevention, and it has spread across the globe as a transnational organization, utilizing a big tent approach (Kaufman, 2012a) to loosely link grass roots organizations under the White Ribbon banner.

White Ribbon has become the international male social movement organization striving for the elimination of violence against women through mobilizing men to wear a white ribbon as a pledge to “not condone, commit, or remain silent about violence against women” (White Ribbon Canada, cited in Goldrick-Jones, 2002, p. 132). Since the establishment of White Ribbon in Canada in 1991, the organization has disseminated globally through the adoption by similar wealthy Global North countries, first in Norway and Sweden (Kaufman, 2012a). Bob Pease, founder of the pro-feminist group Men Against Sexual Assault (MASA), brought the White Ribbon organization to Australia in 1992, after attending a talk by one of White Ribbon founders, Michael Kaufman, at the National Organization of Men Against Sexism conference, and integrated it into MASA’s campaigns. The formation of this transnational organization from the early 1990s was facilitated through the coalition of pro-feminist men’s groups, and improved telecommunications technology and globalization, which developed a new political landscape for organizations to interact.

The White Ribbon organization had its roots firmly planted within the men’s movement of the 1980s and 1990s, with an ideology in response to the changes in the status of women brought on by the Second Wave Feminism that gripped Western countries like Canada, the United States, Britain, and Australia, during the 1960s and 1970s. This mobilization within a space created by feminism reflects how the advancements of the movements are relevant to the understanding of the political opportunity structures (Meyer & Minkoff, 2004; Meyer, 2004; Koopmans, 2007) that shaped White Ribbon’s emergence.

Social movements, particularly open protests, require that a grievance be identified and responsibility for its remediation be placed upon some social elite. However, grievances are ubiquitous and the process proposed by resource mobilization theorists cannot solely account for what produces political action (McCarthy & Zald, 1976). Political opportunity assumes that the agenda for a social movement will emerge, dependent on the political landscape, which will dictate the form and ability for the social movement, whereby restrictive channels for representation will form more radical and violent protestations (Koopmans, 2007). Goodwin and Jasper (2001) have criticized the political opportunities model, and similar political process models, for providing explanations that rely too much on structure, and not identifying that individuals may produce their own opportunities within the structure with the right cultural framing and a powerful emotional response to key issues and events (see Goodwin & Jasper, 2001).12

3.1 The Legacy of Feminist Movements Just as the current state of violence is a result of historic geo-political power struggles, so is the development of violence prevention methods. The political discourse that shaped feminist appeals to the state reflected ideals from the Global North. This centralized rhetoric also shaped the mobilization of the men’s movement and White Ribbon.

3.1.1 First Wave Feminism The history of organized resistance to female disenfranchisement and oppression under the prevailing patriarchy is centuries old. In 1848, the world’s first women’s rights conference was held in Seneca Falls, New York, with a “Declaration of Sentiments” which paralleled parts of the American Declaration of Independence by insisting: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal” (Cited in Goldrick- Jones, 2002, p. 14).

19th Century liberal feminist mobilization and ideology had a significant relationship to the anti-slavery movement in both Great Britain and the United States. The

12 See also McAdam, Tarrow, & Tilly (2001).

female middle-class reformers involved in these movements drew parallels with their own deprivation of rights and liberty, particularly the inability to vote or own property, the lack of legal rights to their own children, and an inability or limited ability to seek redress for abuse or violence (see Kimmel, 1997). However, the liberal philosophy of feminism only extended so far. The mobilization for the vote, for example, did not extend toward racially marginalized people, as can be seen particularly in the Australian suffrage movement. Australian women won the right to vote first in South Australia in 1894, and this continued through the other states, culminating in Victoria in 1908. However, the rights of the Indigenous population were not on the agenda during the suffrage movement (Grimshaw & Ellinghaus, 1999; Lake, 1999).

3.1.2 Second Wave Feminism In the late-twentieth century, the political landscape was again ripe for a social movement around issues of gender and inequality (Flood, 2005). The experience and protest regarding sexual deprivation would continue into feminism’s second wave, with the rejection of patriarchal domination and constrictive societal pressure in the personal sphere (as seen by the works of Friedan, 1963; Greer, 1971/2008; Hanisch, 1972). Like their forebears of the women’s suffrage movement, the second wave feminist movement of the 1960s to the 1980s saw the formation of grassroots organizations, which followed suit from the civil rights activism of the 1950s for the abolishment of racial segregation in the United States, or the Freedom Rides in Australia for the rights of Aboriginals. Mass mobilization had demonstrated the ability to put pressure on the State regarding the disenfranchisement of an oppressed community. The mobilization of women’s liberation occurred in response to what Friedan described as the “problem that has no name”: the specific disenfranchisement of women in 1950s America, as they faced a return to domesticity and conformity to the ideals of the nuclear family despite their significant contribution during World War II (1963). Ideas about the subordination of women in society within the second wave movement established a distinction between sex and gender, which then shaped discussions of patriarchal violence against women.

Just as Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) had formed the basis of liberal feminism in the 1800s, one of the most enduring ideas of womanhood

31 and gender that guided the second wave of feminism came from de Beauvoir’s seminal text, The Second Sex (1949). The foundation of de Beauvoir’s treatise of sex and gender was the notion that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” (1949/2011, p. 301). De Beauvoir argued that gender is an aspect of individual identity that is acquired overtime, and is distinguished from one’s physical sex. Furthermore, de Beauvoir argued that the patriarchal dominance and structure of female identity was in relation to humanity as a historic species, rather than an “animal reality,” where humans do not passively submit to nature but “rather appropriate it” (p. 62). The self-identity of any woman was shaped within the masculine script of history, whereby she was constructed as an inferior relative to men, making her an Other, which, from a historic perspective, is organized by reflection to the dependent situation of the society’s economic structure (de Beauvoir, p. 64). Such claims were representative of the socialist women’s movement, which established that women’s experiences of violence were influenced by the socio-political and economic environment that they resided in (see True, 2012).

The formulation of gender as a historic social construction and separate from sex provided a new political agenda for feminist activism. For if gender was born from the enculturation of dominant ideology, and reconstituted and developed through practice (Butler, 1986; 1988), patriarchy was not pre-determined through biology, and, thus, allowed political avenues for change. As Butler (1986) argued, the body, in cultural language, is never a natural phenomenon. Gender is constantly in the process of iteration and rebirth (Butler, 1988). It is the repeated citation of norms and meaning placed upon them by groups and individuals that solidify the perception of the natural when pertaining to categories of identity (Butler, 1988). To borrow from Connell (2005), the internalization of gender identity by individual men and women is in support of a hegemonic project, which enacts an ideal that constrains behaviour and expression toward potentially unattainable gender archetypes. The formulation of the body as a locus of political construction and oppression generated new elements of the feminist movement, as championed by Hanisch’s insistence that “The personal is political” (1972).

3.2 Feminist Perspectives on Violence Against Women Radical feminist theorists located the power structures of society within the domestic sphere and personal life, and suggested that the overarching cause of violence against women was due the male oppression of patriarchy in the enactment of interpersonal violence and coercion (Johnson, 2010). Furthermore, the operation and tolerance of such violence was an act of intimidation to control women, and make them indebted for their uneven protection to men in general, within and beyond the scope of intimate relationships:

From prehistoric times to the present …. rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. (Brownmiller, 1975, p. 15)

This use of male violence as a tool of oppression was not new, but traced back through history (Maynard & Winn, 1997). The conceptualization of violence as a tool of oppression relied on three key notions in the critical understanding of gender: gender is a social pattern; males monopolize violence against women and others, in large part due to expressions of masculinity; and male dominance in the gender hierarchy imposes a collective male responsibility.

Along these lines, Connell (2005) suggests patterns of violence follow the structural inequality produced by patriarchal hierarchies. The privileged group utilizes violence to maintain their social dominance, such as with acts of intimidation across a spectrum of behaviour “from wolf-whistling in the street, to ofﬁce harassment, to rape and domestic assault, to murder by a woman’s patriarchal ‘owner’, such as a separated husband” (p. 83). Though the majority do not exercise behaviours of abuse and intimidation, those that do feel “authorized by an ideology of supremacy” (p. 83).

A product of feminist understandings of violence has been the integration of gender into criminology, and the increased interest in gender studies, as researchers attempted to rectify the man question in conventional criminology (Allen, 1988, cited in Stubbs & Tomsen, 2016). From within a broader sociology of gender, Connell reflects upon the importance of the centring of gender: “To understand violence as a way of enacting or achieving masculinity is not the whole story of the link between men, masculinity and

violence, but it’s an important advance. It points to underlying links between dominance challenges, homophobic violence, patriarchal domestic violence, and the interpersonal violences of corporate operations” (2016a, p. viii). These various understandings place responsibility for violence on all men as a collective, highlighting the privileges afforded to them, and the complicity of their inaction toward violence perpetration.

3.3 Masculinity Crisis The destabilization of traditional gender roles by second wave feminism inevitably saw the formation of resistance. This is understandable, for the challenge to the patriarchal hierarchy is to challenge men’s patriarchal dividend, as Connell (2005) describes it, and increases level of competition through the mobilization of women and their growing participation within the workforce. Furthermore, the challenge of domesticity is disruptive to the model of the nuclear family.

This destabilization of historic gender roles has been called the crisis of masculinity (Kimmel, 1997). This supposed crisis has grown out of the emergence of post-Fordism in the economic workforce within the late 20th century. Connell (2005) extends the discussion of crisis tendencies by Habermas and applies this to gender, to inquire whether there is a legitimation crisis within the gender order brought on by dissatisfaction of subordinates in the hierarchy. Where women are rightly identified as subordinate in the patriarchy, men are situated within a complex network of hegemonies: which are arenas of power relations and struggle. Dependent on social relations, men are not all part of an oppressed class, and ostensibly have limited claim to similar experiences of oppression faced by women and gender/sexual minorities. Patriarchal masculinity is more than a net benefit, rather it is the identification of the self and group membership.

The threat of destabilizing the gender order produced three key forms of men’s movement mobilization: men’s liberation, pro-feminism, and anti-feminism. The construction of these will not be canvassed here in their entirety, but only in their relation to pro-feminist activism and White Ribbon. Furthermore, there is a large cohort of men who are likely ambivalent to male activism, whether it be for or against feminist advancement, but their views are relevant to White Ribbon’s challenges to motivate and mobilize disengaged men.

3.3.1 Men’s Liberation and Pro-Feminist Men In response to the power of feminist action, men began to reconcile with the power and responsibility invested in them, primarily through consciousness-raising activities. For heterosexual men, consciousness-raising did not necessarily lead to mobilization and group solidarity, as it often did for marginalized groups like women and gay men. In many cases “after initial gains in insight, it led to marginalization and disintegration” (Connell, 2005, p. 235).

The men’s liberation movement identified that men themselves were constrained by rigid gender roles, and sought to identify positive options for men (see Flood, 2005). It was reasoned that the “potential gains for men might draw more interest than one that positioned men as oppressors whose only morally correct action was guilty self-flagellation” (Messner, 2016, p. 8). The movement in wealthy countries was an imitation of the Women’s Liberation movement, with a smaller influence from Gay Liberation (Connell, 2005). After its early years, the liberationist wing began to fall subject to alternative campaigns which asserted a false symmetry, viewing men and women as equally oppressed by gender roles (Farrell, 1975; Goldberg, 1976). Some supporters would go on to see men as not having social privilege and power due to the onus of male responsibility (see Farrell, 1993). These contestations of locating and dealing with privilege resulted in a schism between groups, as alternate practices were employed to liberate men or dismantle the implications of patriarchy by the pro-feminist and mythopoetic wings of the men’s movement.

Pro-feminists would hold that patriarchy is the dehumanization of men, but it also benefits them. As Messner (2016) aptly asserted: “patriarchy may dehumanize men, pro-feminists continued to insist, but the costs that men pay for adherence to narrow conceptions of masculinity are linked to the promise of patriarchal power and privilege” (p. 8). The majority of men involved and mobilized in political activism did so through exposure and relatedness to women’s experiences (Casey et al. 2013; Kaufman, 2000), and:

have been exposed to feminist and related ideals through their political involvements, their workplaces, or their higher education. Others become involved through dealing with their own experience of sexual violence or sexual abuse from other men and

sometimes women, perhaps as children or teenagers. (Flood, 2005, p. 462, referring to Stoltenberg, 1990)

From the 1990s, pro-feminist men mobilized in grass-roots and more professionalized social movement organizations, such as White Ribbon.

While some pro-feminist men participated in political activism, attempting to produce gender equality or violence reduction across multiple fields, others attempted to rectify their own masculinity. The mythopoetic movement was formed by US poet Robert Bly, and then popularized in Australia by Biddulph’s book Manhood (1994). The mythopoetic movement proposed that there is an essential man, or inner wild man who is corrupted through harm from contemporary life. Relying on a Jungian analysis of narratives and archetypes, this movement wing attempted to produce a transcendent wisdom to guide modern men and along with reconciling the spiritual darkness (shadow) within themselves (see Clatterbaugh, 1997).

These groups, though purportedly not anti-feminist, relied upon disengagement with the feminine and discovering a real masculinity through ritual and male engagement, through wilderness retreats or other variations of ceremony. Such constructions have fundamental problems. Claiming that there is a real or singular innate masculinity is erroneous, and ignores the role of gender in the production of history, particularly in the creation of the narratives that are used for analysis. Furthermore, this perspective has been in part utilized incorrectly by pro-feminists and general commentators on gender discussing father hunger (popularized by Biddulph, 1994) and spiritually corrupted toxic masculinity.

3.3.2 Anti-Feminist Men There are numerous constructions of masculinity that anti-feminist men subscribe to, that cannot all be discussed here. Among the most pertinent forms are the conservative perspective, men’s rights, and (often) the mythopoetic movement. The conservative perspective mixes moral and biological conservatism.13 This ideology clings to the belief

13 Some feminists have also employed similar morally conservative language and essential characteristics for political currency. For example, early suffrage movements suggested that women should be given the vote, as their nature as mothers would contribute to the moral underpinning of society.

that masculine traits and political domination by man, as protectors and fathers, are the manifestations of man’s innate nature. Pierce aptly critiques the vagueness and universalism of male ‘nature’ in these accounts:

“Nature” and “human nature” must be among the most enigmatic concepts ever used. Often, when the “natural” is invoked, we are left in the dark as to whether it is meant as an explanation, a recommendation, a claim for determinism, or simply a desperate appeal, as if the “natural” were some sort of metaphysical glue that could hold our claims and values together. (Pierce, 1971, p. 242, cited in Clatterbaugh, 1997, p. 33).

The conservative legacy is still strong today. Modern examples are most apparent in the work of psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose highly popular book 12 Rules for Life and lecture series, YouTube channel (which has 2.59 million subscribers)14 draws on sociobiology and Jungian analysis to criticize the constructionist and feminist view of gender. The conservative approach is often to anthropomorphize animal behaviour, and the extension of this to human behavioural universalism is fundamentally fraught: “If [Sociobiologists] were to offer reasonably rigorous definitions of terms like rape and war, they would lose many if not all of the ‘universals’ between humans and animals—but these universals are the very objects whose explanation is the proud accomplishment of sociobiology” (Clatterbaugh, 1997, p. 35).

Also following Peterson, Australian men’s rights activists have republished international articles, and utilized his academic authority and critiques of feminist rhetoric to support their stance (see, www.menrights.com.au). Venker’s opinion article reflects: “The sheer number of males who cling to Peterson’s words of hope is staggering. He has become a lifeline to a lost generation of men” (Venker, 2019). Men’s rights groups typically misconstrue and co-opt the language of social justice and civil rights to portray themselves as a movement for positive change, and for the recognition of men as an oppressed class (Friedman, 2013, cited in Flood, 2019). However, these are frequently anti-

14 As of 18/3/2020

feminist and misogynistic, conflating feminism with women, and man-bashing (Clatterbaugh, 1997) and contending that there is a second sexism against men.

Though there may be some forms of discrimination in play, in a purely theoretical sense, discrimination does not constitute disadvantage (Clatterbaugh, 2003). The key issue here is that women are disadvantaged through classification as inferior to men, and this has a systemic impact. It is through the patriarchal dividend that men are placed into high risk positions (eg. dangerous work, policing, soldiering), and they are there for they construct women as inferior to compete. Yet this men’s movement wing has insisted on the basis significance of male disadvantage and discrimination, and the alleged favour that family law has given women in relationship breakdowns and custody disputes:

In today’s world, no matter where one lives, men and boys face increasing hostility just because they are male. Fairness and equal treatment for both genders, the original aim of the women’s movement has been lost as society is encouraged to view men as perpetrators of evil and women as only victims. Feminist jurisprudence, the perversion of legislation to provide advantages to one gender over the other, contrary to human rights considerations is creating a two tier society, with men and boys relegated to second class citizen status. (https://mensrights.com.au/about-us/)

The late 1980s and 1990s were characterized by the development of activist men’s organizations derived from the disparate ideologies of these decades (see Messner, Greenberg and Peretz, 2015; Pease, 1997; 2002). Over the course of its history around the globe and in Australia, White Ribbon has had to contend with rival pressure from pro- and anti-feminist men’s factions regarding its most appropriate aims, goals, strategies and public messaging.

3.4 White Ribbon Canada On December 6, 1989, a lone student gunman killed 14 female classmates at École Polytechnique de l’Université de Montréal, while espousing anti-feminist sentiments (Kaufman, 2012a; Messner, Greenberg & Peretz, 2015). This event became known as the Montreal Massacre. The resulting moral shock was a source of “national trauma” for

Canada, and became a symbol that allowed people to “mourn the murders in Montreal in the context of other violent acts, this move to make the act of mourning the link between many disparate violent events, enabled many women to respond to the Montreal Massacre” (Chun, 1999, 134). This event framed Canadian women’s anti-violence activism (Goldrick-Jones, 2004), and was used as an eventual rallying cry for White Ribbon. White Ribbon was conceived of and established in 1991, by Michael Kaufman, Ron Sluser, and Jack Layton, and after only six weeks of preparation, approximately 100,000 Canadian men wore a White Ribbon on December 6 to remember the women victims of male violence (Goldrick-Jones, 2002; Flood, 2019).

3.4.1 The Story of Three Men Among Thousands Before founding White Ribbon, Ron Sluser and Jack Layton were appealed to by their partners for what they could be doing about the violence women were facing in Canada (Kaufman, 2012a). The appeal by female partners and pro-feminist networks is a common mechanism for inciting men’s engagement (Casey & Smith, 2010). This inspired Sluser and Layton to contact their associate Michael Kaufman, who was an established activist in Canada and the United States.

Kaufman was 38 years old at the time of the massacre, with roots in left-wing and student movements of the 1970s, and he became involved with the emerging pro-feminist men’s groups within Canada and the United States (Messner, Greenberg, Peretz, 2015) Kaufman’s standing as a political scientist was also instrumental in the development of feminist study of men and masculinity in Canada.

Before the Montreal Massacre, Kaufman was a prominent figure and academic. In 1987 he edited one of the first scholarly collections of feminist essays on men and masculinities,15 and introduced his own view on violence and the construction of masculinity (Kaufman, 1987).16 This conceptualization of masculinity and violence

15 Notably, Raewyn Connell, Tim Carrigan and John Lee proposed a new sociology of masculinity (pp. 139–192) that was a precursor to later seminal papers. 16 Kaufman proposed that the construction of masculinity was produced and fortified through a triad of male violence. That is: violence against women, violence against themselves, and violence against each other. These behaviours operate to produce and protect power, within the gender order.

39 became integral to White Ribbon’s understanding and proposed solutions to violence against women. In the public arena, Kaufman was involved in the Men’s Network for Change and the organization of the Men for Women’s Choice, which campaigned for the reform of anti-abortion legislation. Due to his prominence, Kaufman was invited to speak on national television in the aftermath of the Massacre (Messner, Greenberg & Peretz, 2015). Kaufman utilized his experience from the successful Men for Women’s Choice campaign, and employed a similar strategy, he wrote a founding statement, and circulated among high profile Canadians (Kaufman, 2012a).

Jack Layton had followed in the footsteps of his grandfather and father, and became a Canadian politician. He was a member of the New Democratic Party, and became a city councillor of Toronto while simultaneously holding university teaching positions. Layton primarily held a left leaning agenda and, in 1991, he made an unsuccessful bid for Mayor of Toronto. Evidently, Layton was able to mobilize resources and have access to politicians within his own party. Due to the increased attention to violence against women, there was political merit for other politicians in aligning with the movement. Layton was able to mobilize resources, office space and second-hand computers (Kaufman, 2012a) to a greater extent than could many grass-roots movements.

Ron Sluser has a smaller public profile than Kaufman and Layton, but co-organized the Men’s Network for Change to develop further. After a time of stagnation in the development of the campaign, and the strategic engagement with this network, Sluser produced a valuable foundation from which to launch the campaign.

3.4.2 Socio-Political Environment The socio-political environment was ripe for a social movement. The Montreal Massacre continued to send shockwaves in the Canadian public, violence against women was on the public agenda; news outlets produced more stories regarding violence against women (Goldrick-Jones, 2004), and the Canadian government in June 1991 declared December 6 as a National Day of Remembrance. Kaufman, reflecting upon the Massacre said:

The Massacre of Montreal was a galvanizing moment in Canada, and I’ve never seen a social discussion change overnight, I’ve never seen anything like this, it was

just like—if you watch water suddenly become ice, it was that profound … basically, twenty years of work by the women’s movement galvanized overnight. And literally by the next day, by Friday, the discussions all across the country, including in our Parliament, were about violence against women. Like literally in one day. The women’s movement had been sort of turning the soil, turning the soil, turning the soil, [so] that type of huge public impact on these issues was just ripe. (cited in Messner, Greenberg & Peretz, 2015, p. 63)

There were two more highly publicized sexual assaults and murders in Toronto in 1991, which caused further moral shock to the populace. This motivated Sluser’s and Layton’s partners to challenge them to take action (Kaufman, 2012a). Internationally, the Centre for Women’s Global Leadership, and participants of the first Women’s Global Institute on Women, Violence and Human Rights, called for a global campaign of 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence from 25 November to 10 December. This announcement in June 1991, used November 25th as it was previously established by the Feminist Encuentro for Latin America and the Caribbean in 1981 (WRA, 2019c).

The high publicity and national state of mourning provided an opportune moment for the establishment of White Ribbon. Some women’s groups were suspicious of men’s involvement and the risk of them taking control of the issue. In 1999, the United Nations formally acknowledged the International Day of Violence against Women, and adopted the symbol of the White Ribbon for it.

3.4.3 The Symbol of the Ribbon: A Ribbon for Your Cause For the inaugural campaign, the white ribbon symbolized “a call for all men to lay down their arms in the war against our sisters” (Kaufman 2012, p. 157). For Kaufman, this rhetoric retrospectively “implied (erroneously) that all men used violence and all men were part of this war. Furthermore, by using a language of group blame and collective guilt, we were violating the very approach that we were trying to pioneer” (p. 157). Within this rhetoric there was also a simplistic conflation of masculinity and militarism, whereby an act of peace was to go against the masculine code of honour. The following year, the

campaign broke from the militaristic rhetoric and created a slogan that has continued to the present by declaring, “wearing a white ribbon is a public pledge never to commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against women.”

Kaufman suggested white for the ribbon’s colour as it symbolized peace in the Western cultures, and death and mourning in Eastern cultures (Kaufman, 2012, p. 155). Furthermore, it was a colour “that men would feel comfortable wearing. And it was also very practical: most men wouldn’t have a clue where to buy ribbon, but I figured anyone could tear up an old T-shirt or sheet” (Kaufman, 2012, p. 155). The symbolic use of ribbons for social causes was not invented by White Ribbon. The suffrage movement had adopted the suffragette sash, and most notably the red AIDS ribbon was developed earlier in the year of White Ribbon’s creation, having the first public exposure and tie to celebrity when Jeremy Irons wore one while hosting the Tony Awards.17 The white ribbon was soon more consistently and willingly adopted among heterosexual men.

After the Montreal Massacre, feminist anti-violence organizations produced their own means of remembrance, and White Ribbon was sometimes criticized for their prominence in public discourse. Similarly, there was scepticism and distrust within men’s movements, and directly assisting the campaigns of women divided these groups. In 1994, White Ribbon Canada produced a joint campaign with the YWCA to promote violence prevention, joining their symbols of the ribbon and a rose (see Goldrick-Jones, 2004). These symbols appeared to act as a positive identifying marker and a source of pride, but also set off divisions among men regarding their apparent conceptions of morality and behaviour. It also appeared to make wearers of the White Ribbon accountable for wider patterns of male conduct and alternative practices of prevention.

3.4.4 The White Ribbon Performance At this time, protest rallies were usual for both the civil rights movement and second wave feminism, and collective acts of consciousness raising, such as Hands Across America, and actions about violence against women such as Walk Across America (Flood,

17 Kaufman (2012, p. 155) acknowledged “at the time, ribbon symbols were virtually unknown. The only use I knew of was in the Iraq hostage crisis between late 1979 and early 1981, where some in the United States were tying a large yellow ribbon around a tree in front of their house.”

2005, p. 461). The White Ribbon movement was a call to confront men’s violence (Kaufman, 2012a), though not necessarily providing the detailed tools or repertoire to achieve this. The founding statement insisted that “Confronting men’s violence requires nothing less than a commitment to full equality for women and a redefinition of what it means to be men, to discover a meaning to manhood that doesn’t require blood to be spilled” (see Kaufman 2012, pp. 153–154). The strive to promote gender equality meant a petition to the Canadian government to radically increase the funding for battered women’s service and education programmes, and to send donations to White Ribbon or women’s groups.

Public concerns were raised claiming that wearing a ribbon did not translate to attitude and behaviour change, and more money should be spent on women’s services (Bill, 1991; Vancouver Sun, 1992). These concerns may have been well founded. Despite White Ribbon’s claims, in practice there was a gap between the claims about White Ribbon’s gender equality and its governance, as there were no women on the board of directors until the late 1990s.

White Ribbon Canada was disproportionately favoured in the media, creating some concerns within the organization and from feminist groups in 1992, that began to question methods and accountability. White Ribbon was an unincorporated non-profit organization with office space in Toronto—it paid part-time staff, and a few full-time staff at certain points of the year (Goldrick-Jones, 2002, p. 69), and held their January meeting in the Toronto SkyDome’s board room (Kaufman, 2012a). The resources available to White Ribbon were concerning, for their promotion of White Ribbon Week involved the mailing and production of 1.5 million ribbons (cited in Goldrick-Jones, 2002).

The women’s group WAVAW (Women against Violence against Women) were angered by the approximate $400,000 cost of this campaign, and one staff member even stated “That is comparable or exceeding [sic] our costs for one year of providing critical frontline services to women” (cited in Goldrick-Jones, 2002, p. 70). Goldrick-Jones (2002) suggests that the feminist suspicions of White Ribbon Canada’s potential misuse of power was partially caused by poor communication between White Ribbon Canada, and feminist and women’s groups regarding the goals of its fundraising. This suspicion was exacerbated

by ambitious targets to financially support women’s groups in 1992 and the failure of this due to budgetary reasons.

3.5 International Movement of Feminism International organizations provide a political arena for the contestation of rights. For example, first-wave feminism gave birth to international women’s organizations that worked with “intergovernmental bodies such as the League of Nations and the International Labour Organization” (Moghadam, 2012, p. 415).

International collaboration among feminist organizations was extended by advances in technology and strategic use of international communication structures over what were previously the informal organizational structures of the 1970s (Mendoza, 2002, p. 296). Feminist pursuit of gender-equality extensively utilized transnational links, using the support of powerful international organizations and other nation states to pressure their local government, in what is known as the boomerang effect (see Keck and Sikkink, 1998). The transnational activism by organizations, utilizing the pressures of international treaties, propelled the political efforts of women (Squire, 2012). The transnational networking of feminist actors through the United Nations Women’s Conferences brought thousands of women from around the world (True, 2003) which enabled the fostering of relationships to form international non-government organizations, thus improving the political capital of these organizations.

The evolution of feminist networks into transnational relationships enabled cross-border mobilization, with grievances pertaining to the effects of economic restructuring, patriarchal values and violence against women (Moghadam, 2005). This would expand the method of engagement, whereby the local activists may pressure the nation state through the mobilization of international attention “By figuratively throwing claims beyond their ostensible target, activists can (a) exert pressure on their target and (b) mobilize resources, including activists, to work on their behalf” (Meyer, 2012, p. 404).

3.6 White Ribbon Under MASA

Figure 4 MASA’s 1992 advertisement for their anti-rape campaign, retrieved from https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20140217021025/http://www.printsandprintmaking.gov.au/impressions/ 44707/

A year before the inaugural White Ribbon Day, Men Against Sexual Assault (MASA) were mobilizing to organize the first ever march against rape and sexual violence in Melbourne, Australia, under the banner “Men Can Stop Rape” (Goldrick-Jones, 2002). This march was a small step in the overall men’s movement against sexual violence, and a precursor to the local White Ribbon campaign a year later. MASA employed a range of

community education and social action activities intended to challenge men’s individual attitudes and behaviour, and expand the broader community response to sexual violence (Carmody & Carrington, 2000). This foreshadowed the future structure of White Ribbon Australia’s school, ambassador and workplace accreditation campaigns. Men’s anti- violence groups formed in Australia in the late 1980s—primarily influenced by the pressure of feminism—and overlapped with many anti-sexist groups, such as Men Opposing Patriarchy (MOP), Men Against Patriarchy (MAP), Men’s Anti-Gender Injustice Group. (Flood, 2010). Consciousness raising campaigns were not created solely by these grass roots organizations. Governments sponsored numerous campaigns to raise awareness of domestic violence, and sexual violence on a local and national scale (Carmody & Carrington, 2000).

Bob Pease established MASA in 1989 (Pease, 1997) and, in so doing, performed similar work to that of White Ribbon’s Michael Kaufman. Pease was a junior academic and social activist (but lacked the political connections of figures like Jack Layton). In 1977 he co-founded a small Tasmanian men’s consciousness raising group, with the aims of addressing how members were stunted by their own masculinity. These eleven men were primarily partners of feminist women, middle class and Australian born in their late- twenties to early-thirties, all but two were heterosexual, and some were socialist (Pease, 2017b). The homogeneity of this group is unremarkable and had some resemblance to the primarily white, Jewish men that formed the men’s movements in the US and Canada (see Messner, Greenberg & Peretz, 2015). The purpose of Pease’s group was to increase men’s awareness of their sexist attitudes and practices toward women, and to develop new ways to relate to other men without “traditional male bonding” (Pease, 2017b, p. 200). This self- reflective nature of this debate was reminiscent of the mythopoetic movement, though each movement used a different lens, and reflected what Connell has described as masculinity therapy (Connell, 2005). A clear omission here was any developed engagement of men with their own privilege (Pease, 2012).

Compared to this, MASA was a significantly more radical organization. MASA proposed that it was men’s responsibility—as men were the primary perpetrators of rape— to “challenge the attitudes and behaviours that support men’s violence” and to be guided

through three key principles that were adapted from the National Organization of Men Against Sexism in the US. These principles were to be pro-feminist, gay affirmative, and male positive, and were intended to destabilize the patriarchal privilege affirmed through hegemonic masculinity, drawing from insights gleaned by Kaufman (see Pease, 1997). MASA adopted strategies including consciousness-raising and education, organizing public workshops and forums on sexual violence, and organizing patriarchy awareness workshops and boy’s anti-sexist education classes for schools (Pease 1997). MASA also engaged in public forums and media on more radical pro-feminist concepts, such as protesting pornographic advertisements, which inevitably made the campaign less palatable than White Ribbon. As Pease sees it, “if we are going to end violence against women it will require a major transformation in consciousness raising among men. MASA endeavours to be one small step in that direction” (Pease, 1997, p. 267).18 However, for Pease, White Ribbon became the answer to his method of engaging men for violence prevention, focussing on patriarchal violence (Pease, 2017b).

The adoption of the White Ribbon campaign into MASA’s praxis seemed like a logical extension of most work MASA was doing, and shared similar men’s pro-feminist and liberationist perspectives. As Pease explained “I believe that men’s violence is socially constructed and individually willed” (1997, p. 76). A significant advancement from White Ribbon Canada’s campaign was that MASA circulated their local plans for White Ribbon campaigns and events to feminist groups and services (Pease, 1997). This was consistent with MASA’s ideology, as they believed that accountability should be cultivated with feedback from feminists (Goldrick-Jones, 2002; Pease, 2017b). Men’s groups should be accountable to ensure that they do not dominate the discourse, silencing women’s voices—which were hard fought for—and transforming the pro-feminist movement into re-enforcing gendered hierarchies of power.

3.6.1 Reception to White Ribbon It was likely that the White Ribbon Campaign would also develop well in Australia, for Canada and Australian hold remarkable similarity. These post-colonial Commonwealth

18 See Pease, 1997, pp.65-76; and Pease, 2017, pp. 198-216, for his reflections on MASA.

nations secured early public citizenship for women, and had a well-developed level of gender research in academia, and resistance to mass gun ownership. In that respect, the moral outrage over the public shooting of women also struck a strong chord in Australia. This issue set off public indignation rather than the divided public and political reactions that are more typical of how people view domestic violence in the home. However, in the 1990s, Australia did not have the same type of galvanizing moment as the Montreal Massacre, at least not regarding violence against women. Australia did have mass shootings, but none by a single gunman with the same anti-feminist stance as the Montreal Massacre. It was not until the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996 that Australia saw lightning- quick gun reform by the Howard government (for a review of Australian gun legislation, see Finnane, 2016).

The Australian MASA-run campaign was unable to garner the same support as the Canadian campaign, as it was unable to get support from prominent men (Canberra Times, 1 Dec 1992). It had limited public awareness and advertisement capabilities, a radical approach without broad appeal, and it was a grass-roots endeavour rather than the type of a professional production one might expect from a large organization.

The inaugural campaign did not meet the expectations of the organizers who “expected thousands” but were almost outnumbered the bystanders, and were unable to garner the same support of prominent figures or organizations as the Canadian campaign had (see Canberra Times, 1 Dec, 1992). The media reception to the event was mixed. The campaign was questioned over its symbolic connectedness to the Montreal Massacre, was described “as an import, virtually unknown here,” suffering a lack of saliency in Australia, and was eventually lost due to poor publicity and competition with the trade unions’ Action Day (Canberra Times, 3 December 1992). The Times (1992) praised the action for “raising the issue from within the male viewpoint rather than as a result of feminist agitation”, but similarly noted “a continuing campaign, but with more relevant symbolism, would allow men to create a climate of opinion by declaring a public abhorrence of such [violent] activity.” Although it had the benefit of demonstrating a male led support regarding violence against women, sentiments that the movement was anti-male were beginning to surface: “Some men would have been unwilling to risk the scorn of their fellows in aligning

themselves with a movement that some regard as being overtly anti-male and therefore threatening” (Canberra Times, 3 December 1992).

Over the course of its life, the Australian MASA White Ribbon campaign enjoyed moderate success, but was a shadow of the Canadian campaign. In this period, the absence of a galvanizing signal crime, moral shock, or event to rally people meant the movement would always struggle, as men were not the primary stakeholders and were invested in hegemonic masculinity and their patriarchal dividend from this. To capitalize on key moments, an effective organizer must persuade a significant number of people to engage and care about a topic that may be politically contentious, and that the grievance is urgent, the alternatives are possible, and that the constituencies they seek to mobilize can in fact be invested with agency (Gamson and Meyer, 1996 cited in Meyer, 2012). White Ribbon under MASA simply did not have the financial means or resources to produce enough advertisement and publicity to create this, and the distance from the Montreal Massacre did not instil a major sense of urgency in Australia. As is common with grass-roots, volunteer-based activist groups, MASA declined and then disbanded in 1997, leaving the White Ribbon campaign in Australia dormant until its resurrection six years later.

3.7 The Intermittent Years The instability of feminist grass roots organizations, and a lack of representative structures, led to the establishment of state feminism and so-called femocrats from the 1970s, so labelled in Australia as a derogatory term for feminists within patriarchal structures of government (see Lake, 1999).

Messner (2016, p. 9) rightly identified that a shift occurred to professionalized feminism characterized by the rise of a postfeminist cultural sensibility and changes in the political economy shaped by neo-liberalism and deindustrialization, and this shift led to new forms of engagement. Australia witnessed the rise of the conservative Howard government in the 1990s, where the consciousness raising and street activism of the previous decades were characterized as unnecessary in a supposedly post-feminist world (see Andrew & Maddison, 2010). The production of neo-liberal values devalued concepts of collective responsibility (see Maddison & Martin, 2010), which required new strategies to frame violence against women as an issue culturally.

Activism and public policy responses shifted from a gendered model of violence to a human rights issue (Walby, 2005), and a public health model that invited and encouraged the spread of prevention methods (Carmody, 2009). The strategic shift to mobilizing against violence as a human rights violation—for violence is a coercive tool that impedes women’s rights to safety and autonomy—promoted adoption by the United Nations, its agencies, and most countries engaged in human rights treaties (Libal & Parekh, 2009). This new cultural framing was no longer couched as part of a feminist activist agenda, but rather a universal right that placed greater pressure upon the nation state through its institutionalization. At the same time, transnational professionalization and human rights discourse were key factors for violence prevention around the globe (True, 2003).

3.8 White Ribbon Foundation and UniFem It was the work of bureaucratic feminists that resurrected White Ribbon Australia, and oversaw its rise to become the largest White Ribbon campaign globally. Rosemary Calder OA, while head of the Office for the Status of Women from 2000–2002, organized White Ribbon events with prominent Australian men. The White Ribbon endorsement spread through the Australian parliament. Politicians such as Senator Amanda Vanstone garnered support for White Ribbon Day and performed White Ribbon ceremonies, and presented musician Alex Lloyd and Rugby League player Ricky Walford with a white ribbon (Vanstone, 2001).

In response, Libby Lloyd and Rosalind Strong, president and vice-president, respectively, of the United Nations Development Fund for women (UNIFEM), re-established the White Ribbon campaign, providing the systems of financial support and social capital to revitalize it in a new form. UNIFEM introduced White Ribbon Ambassadors, with television personality Andrew O’Keefe named as the first ambassador. The ambassador programme displayed widely the support of prominent men for ending violence against women, raising awareness, and being representative of the actions of good men. This demonstrated a clear shift in White Ribbon’s engagement. No longer were men wearing a ribbon just as a sign of support for ending violence against women, rather it was a mark of status, and awarded as if a medal for an act of valour. These men were now

utilizing their male privilege to raise awareness, and increasing their social capital as ambassadors, whether intentional19 or not.20

In this period, UNIFEM promoted the White Ribbon campaign through government channels, calling for men to wear a white ribbon as a “personal pledge to never commit or to remain silent about violence against women.” (Lloyd, 2003). Government bodies and politicians from major parties released declarations of support for White Ribbon (Patterson, 2004; Despoja, 2004; Stephens, 2004). A partnership of men and women within UNIFEM began coordinated national campaigns that included print and television advertisements (Flood, 2010) utilizing pro bono advertising from Saatchi & Saatchi for their 2006 campaign (Donovan, Jalleh, Fielder, & Ouschan, 2008; Flood, 2019), and coordinated with men’s organizations (Pease, 2008).

In 2007 the White Ribbon Foundation was formed. The foundation provided diverse funding opportunities (as a charitable organization) and promoted growth, and was eventually renamed White Ribbon Australia in 2013. It was now firmly cemented as the pre-eminent national primary prevention campaign for men to prevent violence against women, with enthusiastic participation from Australian Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. Consequently, it became firmly entrenched in the development of Australia’s national prevention campaign and critical to policy development.

3.9 A National Plan and a National Ribbon White Ribbon’s co-founder, Libby Lloyd, became chair for the National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children, and developed Australia’s current national plan and greatest coordinated effort to end violence against women. Lloyd was a

19 Bell’s (2018, p. 46-49) survey of 296 White Ribbon Australia ambassadors found motivations for involvement with the organization cited: “to use the White Ribbon name recognition as resource” (12.2%) “profile building at work and within my profession” (11.5%), “professional directive, expectation, or request” (10.8%), and “networking opportunities” (7.8%). The survey allowed multiple responses, and it was found that it was more likely male professionals in healthcare, social work, or charity were to respond to this. 20 As an international example of this, Michael Kaufman has continued a career from creating White Ribbon, becoming a well-known anti-violence advocate and motivational speaker. He has spoken at events for White Ribbon Australia (see WRA, 2016), and producing the violence prevention AIM framework for the United Nations in 2003 (Kaufman, 2003).

member of the National Plan Implementation Panel (2011–2014) and under the National Plan’s first action plan (2010–2013). White Ribbon Australia was acknowledged for promoting “positive male attitudes and behaviours” (COAG, 2011, p. 18). White Ribbon received additional funding to increase its engagement to rural areas (COAG, 2011, p. 20), and their federally funded workplace accreditation programme was formally recognized as a key method for “building primary prevention capacity” (COAG, 2012, p. 15). The twelve-year national plan aimed to achieve six national outcomes:

1. Communities are safe and free from violence; 2. Relationships are respectful; 3. Indigenous communities are strengthened; 4. Services meet the needs of women and their children experiencing violence; 5. Justice responses are effective; 6. Perpetrators stop their violence and are held to account (COAG, 2011, pp. 14–32).

From this time, White Ribbon operated within the national strategy as a party of primary prevention, in accordance with strategy 2 of the National Plan (COAG, 2011, p. 18) which aimed to promote respectful relationships through “changing and shaping attitudes and behaviours of young people.” Remarkably, the “number of men engaged in White Ribbon campaigns” (Health Outcomes International, 2014, p. 14) was a data measurement for evaluating the national plan; even though this does not necessarily indicate meaningful engagement. The prominence in Australia of White Ribbon meant that the organization became a “key national partner” in the implementation of the third action plan (COAG, 2016, p. 41), which increased focus on primary prevention policies and attitude change. Consequently, the organization was a key invited consultant for the fourth action plan (2019-2022). However, despite the remarkable rise of White Ribbon in the early 2000s, and the embedding of the organization in the Australian national plan to combat violence, it’s high levels of symbolism, and actual structure and practice, raised significant criticism and backlash from numerous commentators and community sector groups, all of which contributed to its eventual stagnation and apparent demise in the last few years.

Chapter Four: Australia’s White Ribbon—Development, Stagnation and Demise White Ribbon Australia evolved from its failed grass-roots organization to a more robust professionalized, indeed corporate, structure that diversified its engagement and mobilization. The professionalization of White Ribbon Australia enabled new networks and funding opportunities (including government grants, corporate partnerships and community fundraising), to support their programmes and corporate structure as they promoted primary prevention. The White Ribbon strategic vision was to produce “a nation that respects women, in which every woman lives in safety, free from all forms of men’s abuse” and to achieve this by “engaging men to make women’s safety a man’s issue too” (WRA, 2017a, p. 2). The Australian campaign became the largest in the world, but possessed a less defined focus on men’s role in prevention than the other campaigns (Flood, 2019, p. 125).

White Ribbon Australia engaged in diverse prevention activities, under five key pillars:

• Community engagement and activism through organizing events to spread awareness and promote attitude change. Like the original campaign, White Ribbon Day was the most prominent act of community engagement, where people would wear a white ribbon on and around the IDEVAW to show their opposition to violence against women. This was often accompanied by swearing ceremonies, where men were requested to swear an oath to “stand up, speak out and act to prevent men’s violence against women.” This included community events such as Cheese for Change and white tie dinners, as well as White Ribbon Day. • Advocacy and policy research. This involved the development and distribution of position statements, submissions to inquiries, responses to proposed legislation and membership on councils, roundtables and advisory boards. The advocacy of White Ribbon was done via direct engagement through professional channels, and no longer truly embodied the grassroots lobbying that was found in many early anti- violence organizations. The policy research series provided contemporary developments, and investigated and reported on contemporary and future

prevention strategies. This research series influenced the formation of the organization’s rhetoric and understandings of violence prevention. • Breaking the Silence school’s programme. School faculty were trained to provide programmes promoting respectful relationships to students. Since the programme’s inception in 2009, 509 schools had taken part (WRA, 2019a).21 These education programmes shared similarities with those of MASA in the 1990s, but lost the radical stance of patriarchy awareness and were made more palatable for commercial school programmes. A review revealed that the programme was flexible enough for implementation in schools, reached a diverse cohort, particularly in regional and remote schools, and provided networking with other schools and WRA, but these networking opportunities were not known to 30% of respondents (Simoes dos Santos et al., 2019). • White Ribbon Workplace Accreditation Programme. The programme was designed to equip businesses with the ability to help and respond to domestic violence. The programme was designed to ensure that workplaces had procedures in place to prevent and respond to VAW and, upon completion, these workplaces became accredited White Ribbon Workplaces. A 2014 evaluation of the programme found among employees increases in belief in the prevalence of VAW, in what constitutes this violence, in willingness to take preventative action against sexist acts, and in awareness of support services and access (Teicke & Sitek, 2014). In June 2018, there were 65 accredited workplaces with 90 accreditations underway (WRA, 2019a). • White Ribbon Ambassador Programme. This scheme trained men and boys with “knowledge and resources to act as positive agents of social change and proactively engage their community in the prevention of men’s violence against women” (WRA, 2019a). The White Ribbon ambassador programme underwent a restructure and recommitment in 2017, reducing the number of ambassadors from approximately 2100 in 2015–16 to 1090 in 2017–18. Of the ambassadors, 54 were

21 Due to the cessation of White Ribbon Australia in 2019, no publicly available figures were found at the time of its closure.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, and 217 were culturally and linguistically diverse men.

The Australian campaign adopted a diverse range of engagements that accommodated and reinforced the shift to a focus on public health prevention models, and a degendering of the discourse from the more radical roots of MASA. Although White Ribbon was primarily described as a male-led campaign, only 36% of the community events organized in 2013 were organized by men (Flood, 2015) and all CEOs of the organization have been women.

4.1 Stages of Prevention As previously discussed in chapter three, violence prevention has progressively been framed as a public health problem, and, as a result, public health models of prevention are increasingly applied to phenomena impacting women (Walker, Flood & Webster, 2008). These approaches have valuably informed violence prevention, for they assume a human ecological model of behaviour and violence that identifies sites for prevention (see Heise, 2011; Powell & Henry, 2014; WHO, 2014). However, the translation of health approaches to violence programmes may not be as seamless as purported. Health promotion models rely on changing behaviour that is detrimental to the individual, such as highlighting the impacts of smoking on the body. These health concerns appeal to one’s self interest/preservation. Violence against women is beneficial to men—whether on an individual or societal level—for it fortifies their position in the gender hierarchy. This suggests that there is a required disengagement from these sources of power, which will not benefit all men, as many activists claim this to be (Kaufman, 2003; 2012a). Yet, for a reduction of violence this change needs to occur, so the question arises as to what forms of engagement should take place.

Public health prevention models, originally used for mitigating disease, have been adapted to violence campaigns. White Ribbon Australia was a primary prevention organization. These models are commonly seen by their advocates through the metaphor of working both upstream and downstream, with separate prevention in three distinct categories:

• Primary prevention: is to stop the violence before it occurs. White Ribbon’s method is to challenge attitudes and norms; • Secondary prevention: is to prevent the continuation of violence, by interacting soon after the violence occurs; • Tertiary prevention: is long after the violence has occurred, to provide support services.

Primary prevention has been an emerging feature of policy and research addressing violence against women, internationally advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2010; 2014) and domestically in state and federal policy (COAG, 2012; 2016; 2019). The effectiveness of primary prevention is vague and difficult to determine, and within Australia this is judged through measurements of community attitudes (Politoff et al., 2019), and for White Ribbon Australia by media and community engagement numbers. The focus on primary prevention, although helpful, should not be given absolute primacy, but prevention systems should be considered as an interconnected whole for the efficacy of support and intervention at the secondary and tertiary level that may prevent or reduce the extent of women’s re-victimization.

The operation of these prevention mechanisms would require an acknowledgement of the complete systems to engage violence, and the adaptability to change by the community. Flood (2011) proposes a spectrum of prevention, which highlights and informs the engagement of multiple sectors and levels of power in society (see figure below).

Level of Spectrum Definition of Level Strengthening individual knowledge and Enhancing an individual’s capability of skills preventing violence and promoting safety Promoting community education Reaching groups of people with information and resources to prevent violence and promote safety Educating providers Informing providers who will transmit skills and knowledge to others and model positive norms Engaging, strengthening, and mobilizing Bringing together groups and individuals for communities broader goals and greater impact Changing norms Adopting regulations and shaping norms to prevent violence and improve safety Influencing policies and legislation Enacting laws and policies that support healthy community norms and a violence-free society Figure 5 Flood (2011) systems of prevention

4.2 White Ribbon’s Explanation of Violence and Gender White Ribbon’s rhetoric insisted on the link between gender inequality and the abuse of women (WRA, 2017a), and this underpinned their work and public commitments to challenging gender inequality. However, the White Ribbon explanation of gender and inequality was opaque. Seymour (2017) describes its use as suggesting “their meaning is both self-evident and their use uncontested” (p. 296). White Ribbon had a confused differentiation between violence against women and domestic violence, sharing fact sheets on their website about both topics with no clear differentiation or appreciation of the scope.

White Ribbon Australia did not significantly engage with the extent and factors that produce violence against women, as they explained that “men’s violence against women is the result of gender norms and inequality. Sometimes men feel pressure to be dominant and in control. Some people believe men must be strong and powerful. These

characteristics are called gender norms” (WRA, 2020). To combat this, White Ribbon focused on attitudes and behaviours, asserting that “abuse and disrespect of women … manifests in gender inequality” and aims to “change attitudes and behaviours that result in disrespect, abuse and violence against women” (WRA, 2016a). Seymour (2017), rightly noted that White Ribbon fundamentally misrepresented the interplay of structure and individual agency, “thereby erasing the structural nature of inequality and power relations,” a tension that was never resolved. This omitted the significant criminological research that links patterns of aggression with hegemonic masculinity, not as a structural determinant, but through the pursuit of hegemony (Bufkin, 1999; Messerschmidt, 1997), and the intersections between power, and disadvantage that shape VAW (True, 2012). This over- reliance on attitude and behaviour was a likely cheaper approach to engagement than systemic change, but this focus has resulted in “prevention addressing structural issues of women’s political, economic and participation inequalities is arguably less developed” (Powell, 2014, p. 10).

Equally, the focus on attitudes and behaviour, though useful in providing individualistic goals for men, applied a limited understanding of the impact of violence. These models problematically asserted that attitudes and belief precede and predict behaviour, rather than as part of a multi-directional causation (Pease & Flood, 2008). While perpetration of VAW is closely linked to attitudes and endorsement of hegemonic masculine ideals (Pease & Flood, 2008; Jewkes et al. 2015b), the strength of attitude and behaviour relationship is highly debated in social psychology. This is not to disregard the impact of hegemonic masculinity as a focus for violence prevention, as it has been shown to be a key determinant to inform research and understand behaviour (Jewkes et al. 2015b). The reliance on a unilateral relationship of violence also assumed that human behaviour is mostly rational. Attitude formation is not a direct relationship, but may form after the behaviour is completed to legitimate the behaviour or to prevent internal dissonance of the individual’s concept of self.

To promote attitude change, White Ribbon proposed a new masculinity that was violence free (Seymour, 2017). The difficulty of this task is evident in men’s behaviour change programmes. Men’s behaviour change programmes are a therapy session for

violent men, designed to facilitate these men taking accountability and responsibility for their violence, and changing their behaviour as a result. Men’s behaviour change programmes in Australia run for approximately 10–14 one-hour sessions and are conducted by a trained facilitator.22 Yet, serious doubt has been cast on the overall success of these programmes. The men attending these programmes are on the lower to moderate level of violent, and despite this level of engagement there is a high level of recidivism among them (Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004; Arias, Acre, & Vilarino, 2013). Within Australia programme effectiveness and the pathways of men after completion is under researched (AIHW, 2018).23 If behaviour change programmes, conducted over prolonged periods, have moderate to low success shifting the behaviour of violent men, the extent to which the swearing of an oath and the wearing of a ribbon will shift behaviour is questionable at best. Given this, it seems doubtful that White Ribbon and primary prevention programmes have truly engaged violent men.

One other way White Ribbon attempted to engage with violent men was by prompting its members and the broader community to be active bystanders. Active bystanders are men who will intervene in a violent situation or speak out against sexist behaviour, as epitomized in the White Ribbon oath. These models were popularized in Canada and the US, and primarily engaged with institutions such as universities and the military, which have clear hierarchies and avenues for complaint and support (see Powell 2014). Built on the work of Latané and Darley (1970), bystander intervention has a situational model, whereby individuals identify the act of violence, assume responsibility to act, and know how to provide help, leading to positive action. However, as Katz (2011) notes, systems of inequality typically get “lost in translation” in bystander work, and the effectiveness for bystander approaches in general circumstances is limited (cited in Powell, 2014, p. 204).

22 The practice of these facilitators and their training is not necessarily standardized across state jurisdictions. 23 This is due to myriad reasons that cannot be detailed here (for reviews see Day, 2009; Day, Kozar & Davey, 2013; Gondolf, 2007; 2011; 2012).

4.3 Community Engagement and Awareness Raising White Ribbon implicitly operated on the assumption of male peer support theory,24 which asserts that violence is an act of conformity by men: “We argue that in subcultures of extensive victimization, it is men who do not engage in woman abuse who are the deviants and whose bond to the dominant patriarchal social order is weak or broken” (Dekeseredy and Schwartz, 2013). The use of active bystander programmes, and ambassadors are activities that aim to produce an environment that resists idealizations of violence. Early feminist writers acknowledged the necessity of engaging men in violence prevention, as they are the primary perpetrators of violence (Flood, 2005). Thus, White Ribbon attempted to engage men through numerous awareness raising events, and to partake in the White Ribbon performance of wearing a ribbon to demonstrate commitment.25

However, purchasing a ribbon and attending related community events did not challenge surface understandings of gender and inequality. White Ribbon community engagements appealed to affluent groups, attending fund-raising dinners as well as the Cheese for Change campaign, where communities would gather around a cheese platter to discuss violence against women. It appeared that these campaigns made the issue consumerist without significant engagement. White Ribbon also created other activities, such as Walk a Mile in Her Shoes, which involved men wearing high heels and going on a march to show their solidarity with women, but where traditionally feminine clothing was worn as a joke. Purchasing a ribbon or a cheese platter to represent social change did not, in practice, engage with systems of violence or oppression. White Ribbon had done valuable work connecting communities with violence support services and providing a repository of information regarding violence prevention. However, these rather shallow performances were the larger community actions that dominated publicity and undermined the other progressive work that happened.

24 See DeKeseredy, W. S. & Schwartz, M. D. (2013). Male Peer Support and violence against women. The history and verification of a theory. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. 25 Both men and women wore a ribbon to represent their shared support.

4.4 Media Engagement In contrast to the awareness-raising and public information campaigns of community engagement, social marketing is the use of marketing principles to sell social norms, attitudes and behaviours in order to achieve social change (Powell, 2011, p. 23). Primarily drawing on the tools and practice of commercial marketing (Castelino et al., 2013, cited in Flood, 2019), White Ribbon attempted to sell the message that ending violence was a public health concern that true men and responsible fathers ought to champion. Flood surmises that effective interventions are generally: “(1) informed; (2) comprehensive; (3) engaging; and (4) relevant” (Flood, 2019, p. 233).

There are two major concerns regarding media engagement. Firstly, the campaign may bring awareness but not shift behaviour. For instance, regarding the campaign “Violence Against Women: It’s Against All the Rules” (2000–2003), 59% of respondents could recall the slogan, but 91% were not swayed to change their behaviour (Huber, 2003, cited in Flood, 2019). Secondly, gatekeepers may stymie instigations into campaigns. Flood (2019) identifies the ‘No Respect No Relationship’ campaign, which was prevented by John Howard’s conservative government, only weeks before its planned released. This was due to the campaign being described as anti-male, despite the in-depth pre-testing and research-based analysis of the issue. Social movement organizations are often constrained by a need to convince the public, as well as sponsors and politicians, of the need for their activity. Any failure of persuasion limits significant lobbying of systems of power and places them in precarious financial situations.

Through its corporate partnerships White Ribbon Australia received pro bono advertising from Saatchi and Saatchi, but it never did enough to engage local violence prevention and this attracted negative publicity (Donovan, Jalleh, Fielder, & Ouschan, 2008). It also traded heavily on the imagery of masculine protection and self-sacrifice, and even self-harm, in relation to violence against women (see fig 6). As Pease (2008) strongly argues, if men’s involvement in sexual violence prevention is as a protector of female friends and family, it leaves masculine identities and greater structures of gender inequality unchallenged.

Figure 6 Self-harm images from White Ribbon 2006 campaign. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcCeLxGe8UE

White Ribbon improved its media communication over the years, by progressing from depictions of dangerous masculinity to focus on the ability to stop violence through 63 bystander intervention as in the “Hey Mate” campaign. However, in this final pattern, there was still a risk of situating men as the real protectors of women. The “Fatherhood” campaign of 2019 showed a more progressive innovation. By involving fathers and their children, the campaign discussed what it is to be a man and the value of family relationships. The most beneficial element of these stories exemplified the ability to change from violence and seek help, rather than just implying a dichotomy between good men and bad men.

4.5 The Call to Action and the Appeal to Gender Movements It is logical for women to employ social movement tactics to combat violence against women, as they are the primary stakeholders, but men present a greater issue in mobilization and group identity. For a form of social movement progress to take place, there is the required formation of group identities (Huddy, 2013). Social identities based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and other characteristics either can or cannot generate political cohesion through a shared outlook and conformity to norms of political activity (Miller, Gurin, Gurin, & Malanchuk, 1981).

A social identity involves an individual’s “knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to the membership” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). In the current case this is good men who are non-violent and members of the White Ribbon campaign. This drive appeases men and reassures them of their collective good—a move cognizant of the connection between a person’s need for positive identity and membership of prestigious social groups that increase self-esteem and permit self-differentiation from other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). It is imperative for a social movement or any collective action to produce a group identity, but the limits and barriers to that identity are refortified or eroded by the contact of its members, and the underlying premises privilege certain powers.

White Ribbon Australia redeveloped the rhetoric of masculinity over its lifetime. Seymour (2017) suggests that the good men discourse of White Ribbon Australia produces a chivalrous masculinity that: firstly, diffuses the responsibility of men in greater systems of patriarchal dominance; and, secondly, entrenches this patriarchal dominance by producing a hegemonic masculinity characterized by good men provide the bulwark to

helpless women who are beset by violence. Similar concerns have been identified in alternative popular campaigns where real men act out against violence, which omits the historic development and construction of real men as a source of violence (Salter, 2016). These constructions of masculinity are not easily removed, and have been redeveloped throughout White Ribbon’s lifetime. As White Ribbon men have said: The time is overdue for “real” men to take a stand against this violence … I encourage all “real” men to wear a white ribbon and show these individuals, some of whom you may even call friend or brother or father, that it is NOT ok. (emphasis in Original) (Vanstone, 2001) Sentiments of traditional masculinity were echoed by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the organization’s White Tie Dinner event, when he declared in his speech “Any man who hits a woman is a coward, any man who threatens a woman is a coward. Violence by a man towards a woman is nothing, but the absolute abuse of power” (Rudd, 2009).26 This was subsequently distributed over White Ribbon’s social media, and acknowledged in their annual report (White Ribbon Foundation, 2010). The reliance on male honour, and the distancing from femininities or subordinate masculinities is evident through the White Ribbon engagements. The appeals to men require sites of continued reinforcement, especially when targeting offenders. Gadd and colleagues (2014) identified in anti-domestic violence advertising campaign, This is Abuse, that a form of negotiation happens within and between men as they are presented with scenarios that may impact upon them. This diffusion of responsibility is in response to their cognitive dissonance, as they preserve their identity while confronted with the implications of their violence. A political cohesion (Simon & Klandermans, 2001) and call to men’s responsibility is necessary for change, but the terms of this are still in development.

4.6 Ambassadors for Whom? The White Ribbon Ambassador programme ostensibly championed the leadership and actions of good men in awareness raising and speaking out against all forms of violence

26 Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgVnPICNoZc 65

against women. The men recruited to be ambassadors were primarily high-profile, beginning with television presenter Andrew O’Keefe in 2003. These men came from many sectors, including masculine institutions such as the National Rugby League and Australian Defence Force. Engagement with these men and organizations was a logical move for they came from sites of hegemonic masculine ideals and relations (Messner & Sabo; 1990; Messner, 1992). Furthermore, targeting these institutions and their representatives would potentially challenge gender relations, while also projecting the White Ribbon name into the public sphere with joint ventures like the “White Ribbon Cup” (White Ribbon Foundation, 2013) and White Ribbon advertising on military aircraft (Stark, 2016). However, these strategies and activities were also examples of the reification of hegemonic masculinities and the privileging of certain types of men.

White Ribbon Ambassadors acted in similar capacities to their corporate cousins, as the frontline and media representatives of the organization. These men embodied what it was to be a good man in the White Ribbon cause, which was mainly white, wealthy and middle-aged (Bell & Seamen, 2016; Bell, 2018).27 Ambassadors were primarily already aware or invested in ending violence against women well before engaging with the organization, and the extent of their own prevention probably did not progress beyond awareness raising. This was a reinvestment of power and prestige in some men who already fitted the hegemonic idealized form of masculinity—such as celebrities and footballers— without a more diverse representation of men.

These good men acted as symbols of the White Ribbon ideal, an important role, as effective social movements require such symbols to develop a cohesive group identity. Yet the narrow homogeneity of the group suggested a middle class and corporate/sporting masculine identity that did not speak to the margins. Furthermore, White Ribbon Australia aimed to promote gender equality, but established an arbitrary hierarchy within the ambassador programme that differentiated by gender. White Ribbon Ambassadors could only be men, and were supported by White Ribbon advocates and community supporters

27 Surveyed ambassadors were “older (mean age 50.6 years), wealthy (57.1 percent make $2000 + per week), are more likely than males in Australia to be married and have children.” How the ambassadors used their resources and promoting their use was not examined in Bell’s (2018) analysis. This could be expanded upon in future research.

that could include women. This, with the ceremonial title of ambassador and award of a ribbon (or even “ambassador of the year” award) seemed like an example of curtailing feminist ideology to appease men. This appeasement is a common issue across the men’s movement (Messner, Greenberg & Peretz, 2015) and identifies key dangers of engaging men as they may dominate the discourse and reassert gender inequality.

The ambassadors of White Ribbon Australia represented a great potential resource, but also a potential danger, for they showed the risk of their behaviour and actions undermining the campaign. Multiple White Ribbon ambassadors were charged with domestic violence during their time with the organization, or made statements that excused violence against women.28 The case of ambassador Tanveer Ahmed provides a valuable example of these difficulties. Ahmed was influential in White Ribbon Australia, he was featured in their campaigns and was flown to Pakistan by AusAid to expand the local campaign. Ahmed wrote an opinion piece in The Australian (8th Feb 2015), proposing that men’s violence against women may be due to a historic decline of men’s power, as they are becoming increasingly feminized, and the diminishment of secure employment, as “increasingly the driver of family-based violence.” Within this article Ahmed misrepresented the work of academic and influential White Ribbon member, Michael Flood, as “confirming male disempowerment as a growing factor driving violence against women” (Ahmed, 2015a). Ahmed’s article received widespread criticism, and due to his links with White Ribbon Australia, the organization was pressured to take action. White Ribbon’s CEO released a statement condemning the comments and distancing them from their once prominent ambassador (Davies, 2015). Ahmed was asked to stand down as a White Ribbon ambassador and undergo a fresh process to the re-join organization, to ensure alignment in ideology and commitment.

The conflict grew, Ahmed turned to the conservative paper The Spectator, writing on his dismissal from White Ribbon, accompanied with a cartoon of him being hanged by a white ribbon: “I have been considerably disempowered after writing about male

28 This behaviour was not solely located within the ambassador programme. White Ribbon Chair Nicholas Cowdery was required to step down after making critical comments regarding a woman convicted for infanticide in NSW (ABC, 2018).

disempowerment. Wading into the treacherous, virulent, oestrogen laden waters of modern feminism I have learnt that the gender wars are seen by many as a zero-sum game, much like poker or derivatives trading” (Ahmed, 2015b). Ahmed had since become an outspoken critic of left and feminist politics (Ahmed 2020), and further embarrassed White Ribbon.

The high profile case highlighted a divide within the ideology of men’s social movements that needed to be addressed. A dichotomy was drawn between men’s movements and feminist actions to end violence. Ahmed reflected on the petitioning of White Ribbon Australia: “despite the group being about men, the hundreds of angry posts were entirely from women” (Ahmed, 2015b). This was a sharp example of how this issue needed a greater partnership across genders to destabilize this sort of gender schism in the sector (Flood, 2020), though the method of praxis and accountability is still very much in its infancy.

Possibly the greatest flaw in the ambassador programme was that its many members were not mobilized in a meaningful way to challenge systemic issues of power and inequality. There were over a thousand ambassadors at the closure of White Ribbon Australia, with some near 7,000 advocates and supporters, who could have mobilized their networks of power to organize lobbying and mobilization in support of women’s services. This omission contributed to the stereotype of men being awarded a ribbon for doing nothing, instead of meaningfully engaging in the violence problem. This situation may be interpreted as indicating the need for a bridge between the feminist movement and men’s movement.

4.7 The Economics of Violence Prevention The initial Canadian and Australian White Ribbon campaigns were disinclined to receive funding from government sources (Pease, 1997; Goldrick-Jones, 2002; Kaufman, 2012a). For MASA, this was a broader concern of not seeking funding in a climate where women’s services were being cut, and their responsibility was not to compete with these services. Though admirable, this was not a sustainable form of engagement and economic strategies shifted with the growth of professional activism (see chapter 3, and Messner, Greenberg & Peretz, 2015). White Ribbon Australia aimed to receive minimal funding from government—approximately 10% of their annual budget—in an attempt not to take

too large a slice of the funding pie. As a result, they diversified funding, pulling in support from community donations and the developed sale of services and merchandise.29

The public grants and funding awarded to White Ribbon Australia were significantly lower than the other partners in the anti-violence field: $4.1 million in government grants from 2009–2018, compared to $30.6 million for the fellow prevention programme Our Watch (Department of Social Services, 2019).30 Despite this comparatively modest amount of public funding, and an organizational size of approximately 28 employees (Le Grand, 2019), White Ribbon may have expanded too fast and been unable to reach its full potential. The eventual fall of White Ribbon Australia was the culmination of internal funding mismanagement, and an external loss of faith by key funding stakeholders and the greater Australian public (see figures 7–10 for White Ribbon’s financials).31

Though significantly more profitable than its many counterparts, White Ribbon’s financial status became precarious throughout its time of operation. The profits of White Ribbon Australia fluctuated broadly, with profits being consumed by high employee expenses. White Ribbon had numerous revenue streams but the majority of this did not come from the sale of merchandise or services, but through donations. Some of these donations were made as an apology by celebrity people to save face after making sexist or violence-supportive comments. This sort of gesture also extended to corporate sponsorship by industries that have probable links with VAW, such as the gambling industry, as White Ribbon partnered with the betting organization TAB. Such contributions of charitable donations seemed like morally positive signalling by people or corporations in power, and the ethical implications of accepting these donations were unresolved.

29 White Ribbon Australia did not charge for school programmes, in order to keep its message accessible to all demographics. 30 The five national partners received the following funding for the period 2009–18: Medibank Health Solutions (1800RESPECT), $95.2 million; ANROWS, $27.9 million; Lifeline (DV-Alert), $44.9 million; Our Watch Ltd $30.6 million; White Ribbon Australia, $4.1 million. 31 Financial data was collected from White Ribbon Australia’s annual reports. Furthermore, no report for the 2018-2019 financial year is publicly available, and is omitted from the dataset. 69

White Ribbon Australia was criticized for profiteering from violence against women in this way, while not providing anti-violence services to women. Inevitably, White Ribbon Australia was selling a message about male responsibility that was not always easily accepted by the public, and its size and profitability invited criticism. As a result, the reliance on public funds for the implementation of specific programmes, and the inability to self-fund through business support showed the financial precariousness of White Ribbon Australia and other similar NGOs. This indicated a need to re-evaluate the expectations of profitability necessary to sustain a professionalized social movement organization, when engaging with a subject matter (violence against women) and strategy (men’s own declaration of responsibility) that for different reasons invited scepticism and criticism from both conservative patriarchal and pro-feminist voices.

Financial Year 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 Profit for Financial Year 312372 433706 261527 -116848 -441787 -317583 62385 307634 298481 -840826 Figure 7. White Ribbon Australia net-profit per financial year (2009–2018)

Profit for Financial Year 600000 433706 400000 312372 307634 261527 298481 200000 62385 0

-200000 -116848

-400000 -317583 -441787 -600000

-800000 -840826 -1000000

Figure 8 White Ribbon net-profit (2009-2018)

White Ribbon Australia 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- Finances 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue 1044520 1319671 1658444 1574456 2046724 2697261 3602358 4114176 6033716 6072334 Employee Benefit Expense 365470 411506 675000 879802 1130402 1579538 1895145 2115646 2906193 3983007 Purchases 44758 85192 96183 84796 67319 207849 87099 65503 478042 415389 Depreciation 9554 2645 12506 38993 60018 61093 63458 85749 171550 242872 Lease Expense 82687 25231 35330 39376 131242 121487 87583 103460 257068 382858 Other Expenses32 229679 361391 577898 648337 1099530 1044877 1406688 1436184 1922383 1889034 Total Expenses 732148 885965 1396917 1691304 2488511 3014844 3539973 3806542 5735235 6913160 Figure 10 White Ribbon Finances by financial year in AUD

32 Other expenses include IT, marketing, travel, staff recruitment and other expenses, to be consistent with the 2017/2018 financial reports.

4.8 The Fall of the National Ribbon The thinly veiled sexism and masculinist aspects of the structure and the campaigns of White Ribbon Australia, as well as its apparent financial wastefulness, invited criticisms that chipped away at its stability. White Ribbon had developed through its engagement with high profile institutions and powerful men, but misjudged its community engagement (eg. Cheese for Change, Walk a Mile in Her Shoes) and became a distorted version of its pro-feminist and early activist roots. White Ribbon Australia certainly did good work to publicize the seriousness of violence against women, but its own activity had become deradicalized and set to appease those in power. No development represented this as much as the controversy of White Ribbon’s removal of their pro-choice stance on women’s reproductive rights.

White Ribbon Australia initially produced a policy statement in support of women’s reproduction rights and freedom of choice. This political and moral issue was avoided by the original campaign, due to the diverse stances on the topic, and in order to provide a unified front. White Ribbon Australia likely caused some division with the introduction of this statement. However, once the statement was controversially removed in 2018 by then CEO, Tracy McLeod-Howe, it inevitably came to emblematize political expedience designed to assuage conservative institutions (Price, 2018). McLeod-Howe’s removal of the statement supporting reproductive rights was poorly timed, with the Queensland state government passing legislation decriminalizing abortion on the same day. The broader organization distanced themselves from the move, as McLeod-Howe made the change on her own accord, stating that the organization was “agnostic” on the issue until informed by their stakeholders (Rushton, 2018). This rightly invited opprobrium from feminist circles, White Ribbon ambassadors and media outlets, many of whom suggested that White Ribbon had lost its way and that women are the primary stakeholders in this issue. The organization quickly rescinded its change, and McLeod-Howe released a statement on Twitter apologizing, reinstating the original statement, and promising to consult widely about the issue.

Despite this statement, the damage had been done. White Ribbon Australia subsequently lost corporate sponsorship, ambassador and community support, and many outlets began questioning its necessity (Price, 2018; Le Grand, 2019). In its already precarious financial and social position, White Ribbon Australia would not recover and announced it would go into liquidation on October 3rd, 2019. The organization’s intellectual property and assets were acquired by social work organization, Communicare, and it is unclear at this stage what form the new organization will take.

The evolution of White Ribbon, though constructed as both a social movement and corporatized prevention service, in the end resembled a political organization. The organization worked as a lobbying and branding enterprise that required the advancement and mobilization of community and stakeholders. But, unlike traditional political parties which are fairly robust, White Ribbon was beholden to the people invested in it. Social movement organizations are pressured by the people to enact desired outcomes and share in a political rhetoric. White Ribbon sold this social movement successfully with privileged groups, but had middling success with other demographics as their identity became more entwined with the ordinate class whom are historically petitioned for social change.

White Ribbon’s founder and advocate, Bob Pease, noted the break from radical engagement and lack of a critical appreciation of gender difference as the organization sought ways for to disinvest in patriarchy (Pease, 2017b;2019), yet still ignored the structural foundation of this that limited prevention methods. The identification of violent toxic masculinity did not produce a collective change in male behaviour. There was awareness of social inequality, but not a simultaneous “awareness of how one’s own privilege may be complicit in the marginalization of others” (Casey & Smith, 2010, p. 955).

In looking back at the closure of the organization, there was potential for a national, community lead organization that did not come to be. As aptly put by the White Ribbon Australia founder, Libby Lloyd:

We are our own worst enemies if we dance on the graves of those who fail … we should weep. And I weep for this moment in our White Ribbon movement. There’s a million steps in this space that we need to make it work. We need an organization like this. Yes it wasn’t perfect, but we are learning. (cited in Garvey, 2019)

Chapter Five: Conclusion—The Origins and Rise of White Ribbon—Globally and in Australia

This thesis has built on an original study of the need for, years of development of, and eventual demise of the key national organization for men’s action against men’s violence in Australia. The fall of White Ribbon Australia has left a vacuum in men’s politics in Australia, questioning the feasibility of these sorts of anti-violence prevention NGOs. With the recent purchase of the organization’s intellectual property by social services provider, Communicare, it may be resurrected for a second time, and will hopefully endure.

Most understandings of violence and prevention are situated within a Global North perspective and privilege less-radical models that focus on individual solutions to violence, rather than any deeper challenges to structural inequality. As a wealthy country, Australia has the ability to securely establish systems of prevention for violence against women, but there is a continuation of limited effort and a restricted individualized model of violent male behaviour. Nevertheless, there is a substantial and evident need for measures and interventions that may counter gendered violence where it is most entrenched. Australia is well situated amongst similar wealthy countries, but there are multiple intersections of disadvantage and oppression that impose barriers on violence prevention. A singular focus on the application of attitudes in producing violence against women will omit consideration of the structural systems that support and produce violence, and the politics of violence prevention.

It was the acknowledgement of these very deep structures of power that promoted the strategies of early feminist and men’s movements; although, like modern violence prevention strategies, these were primarily a continuation of the knowledge and research production in the Global North. It was evident from the early stages of MASA’s social campaigning that there are cultural barriers to the transplanting of campaigns internationally which must be accounted for. Though White Ribbon provided a broad grass-roots organization, with international appeal and weight, it rightly faced criticisms

77 for its vague and performative violence prevention efforts, and the privileging of men’s voices in this.

This is a continuation of the masculine gendering of discourse and power in the construction of men’s mobilization that needs to be accounted for, and examined. For in the fight for gender equality and the reduction of violence, there has been ongoing privileging of the resources and social capital of men, which in primary prevention has not necessarily translated to improved support services for women, such as women’s shelters. This divide has invited criticism about the engagement of men, which has not been truly rectified to date, and needs to be addressed as an area of collective action and recruitment.

The Australian socio-political context has seen the development of professionalized organizations for violence prevention, and contention and engagement with the structures of masculine power, both of the state and in fellow NGOs. This included reforms of policy and law, with a greater focus on the issue of men’s violence against women. This alone did not entail change where the divide of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention missed the networks of support that reconstitute differences of power. Violence may be understood across human ecological systems of power, but despite the coordination and impact of the spheres of influence within them, there has been diminishing pressure on the macro- systems of this power. In part, this is due to the very entanglement with state politics and corporatization that has provided new avenues of engagement within the system, while simultaneously reconstituting the systems of power and de-gendering the discourse of violence to appease men, and meet them where they are (Pease, 2019).

White Ribbon Australia emerged optimistically as an organization that saw itself ready to meet much of this need. It harnessed and built on the goodwill and many thousands of hours of volunteer work that reflected a high level of public consciousness about its activity. Nevertheless, in recent years it assumed a more bureaucratic or corporate form that relied heavily on what could be attained by symbolic and highly public statements and gestures, especially those involving a range of celebrity members and supporters.

In many respects, WRA’s views on violence referred to complex or structural models of explanation, but its language and rhetoric suggested a view of violence connected to problematic and dated sexist attitudes, dated sex roles, or rigid stereotypes of

78 aggressive masculinity for both individuals and the collective. The discussion of violence that it promoted oscillated from borrowing elements of radical and liberal (rather than any truly socialist or intersectional) feminisms, with the liberal elements more pronounced in the ultimate stress on the value of public and dramatic individual statements and stances on violence.33

The appeal of this approach to more middle class, educated, white and heterosexual men was obvious, and it has been reflected in the social composition of the membership and support base of White Ribbon Australia. Furthermore, the original notion of a mass mobilization by men against men’s violence that White Ribbon grew from also set off criticism of its potential sidelining of women and exclusion of many of their views. The wisdom of a very male-centric approach had often been questioned.

White Ribbon faced a crisis of organizational identity in relation to its ability to initiate actual anti-violence practice and the necessity of this in relation to links with actual perpetrators of violence and effective programmes and measures that change them. A series of scandals, departures, and criticisms from feminist and other commentators reinforced this sense of crisis. Social movements act as political parties, petitioning support from the citizenry and donors to achieve proposed political or social aims. However, unlike traditional political parties, there is often an even greater accountability for the conduct of social movements due to their precarious financial situation and reliance on the goodwill of people. The rift within White Ribbon Australia, and the growing body of criticism directed at the organization, attributed to a loss of faith in the organization that contributed fatally to its downfall.

It would be too cynical and divisive for observers and critics to dismiss all of White Ribbon Australia’s activities, educational campaigns, members and supporters, as just part of a white, middle class consciousness raising initiative, that did not include a broader range of men, or directly address actual violence against women. Yet the results of this research study suggest there is some accuracy in these views on the limits of White Ribbon. White

33 This mix of views also appears to have resemblance to both the pro-feminist and liberationist wings of the men’s movement as these have been described by scholars and other observers. 79

Ribbon was an important and valuable historical development, and any successor organization must focus itself on overcoming these limits in how it addresses the issue of violence.

References

Abbott, T. (2015, April 21). Exemplary Anzac spirit guides successive generations. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/exemplary-anzac-spirit-guides-successive- generations-tony-abbott-20150421-1mpmps.html ABC News. (2015, September 22). NT Attorney-General John Elferink dumped as White Ribbon anti-violence ambassador in wake of ‘slap’ comment furore. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-18/elferink-dumped-as- anti-violence-white-ribbon-ambassador/6787332 Abramsky, T., Watts, C. H., Garcia-Moreno, C., Devries, K., Kiss, L., Ellsberg, M., . . . Heise, L. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence?: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11, 109. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-109 Ahmed, T. (2015, February 8). Men forgotten in violence debate. The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/opinion/men-forgotten-in- violence-debate/news-story/810557843546c3645f3d67e5d85fe277 Ahmed, T. (2015, March 14). Lynched by the feminist mob. The Spectator Australia. Retrieved from https://www.spectator.com.au/2015/03/lynched-by-the-feminist- mob/ Ahmed, T. (2020, February 7). Gendered prejudice and the wrath of the Left. The Spectator Australia. Retrieved from https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/02/gendered-predjudice-and-the-wrath-of-the- left/ Alston, M. (2012). Rural male suicide in Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 74(4), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.036 Andrew, M., & Maddison, S. (2010). Damaged but determined: The Australian women's movement, 1996–2007. Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 171–185. doi:10.1080/14742831003603315

Arias, E., Arce, R., & Vilarino, R. A. M. (2013). Batterer intervention programmes: A metanalytic review of effectiveness. Psychological Intervention 22, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2013a18Ac Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Personal safety survey 2016 [no. 4906.0]. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/4906.0~2016~ Main%20Features~Key%20Findings~1 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019a). Crime victimisation, Australia, 2017-2018 [no. 4530.0]. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/4530.0~2017- 18~Main%20Features~Who%20experienced%20personal%20and%20household %20crimes%3f~13 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019b). Recorded crime – Offenders, 2017-2018 [no. 4519.0]. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/4519.0~2017- 18~Main%20Features~Key%20Findings~1 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019c). Recorded crime – Victims, Australia, 2018 [No. 4510.0]. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4510.0# Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2018). Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/d1a8d479- a39a-48c1-bbe2-4b27c7a321e0/aihw-fdv-02.pdf.aspx?inline=true Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2019). Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia: Continuing the national story [No. FDV 3]. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/b0037b2d-a651-4abf-9f7b- 00a85e3de528/aihw-fdv3-FDSV-in-Australia-2019.pdf.aspx?inline=true Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterer’s treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001 Barclay, E., Donnermeyer, J. F., Scott, J., & Hogg, R. (Eds.). (2007). Crime in rural Australia. Sydney, NSW: Federation Press.

Beckert, S. (2014). Empire of cotton: A new history of global capitalism. London, UK: Penguin Random House. Bell, K., & Seaman, C. E. (2016). Case study of White Ribbon Australia’s ambassador program: Men as allies to prevent men’s violence again women. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/Public_Report_- _Case_Study_of_White_Ribbon_Australias_Ambassador_Program.pdf Bell, K. (2018). Men as agents of change: A case study of the ambassadors of White Ribbon Australia (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Wollongong, NSW. Biddulph, S. (1994). Manhood. Sydney, NSW: Finch. Bill, D. (1991, December 4). More than ribbons needed to end violence Eng says. Toronto Star. Blumer, C. (2016, April 21). Australian police deal with domestic violence every two minutes. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04- 21/domestic-violence/7341716?nw=0 Bolan, K. (1992, December 2). Women angry over money spent on men’s white ribbon campaign. Vancouver Sun. Bricknell, S. (2008). Trends in violent crime (Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 359). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359 Bricknell, S., Boxall, H., & Andrevski, H. (2014). Male victims of non-sexual and non- domestic violence: Service needs and experiences in court (Research and Public Policy Series no. 126). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp126 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513. Brown, M. (2016). Risk, dangerousness and violence. In J. Stubbs, & S. Tomsen, (Eds.), Australian violence: Crime, criminal justice and beyond (pp. 159–175). NSW: The Federation Press.

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, NY: The Random House Publishing Group. Bryant, W., & Cussen, T. (2015). Homicide in Australia: 2010–11 to 2011–12: National homicide monitoring program report (Monitoring report no. 23). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://aic.gov.au/publications/mr/mr23 Bufkin, J. L. (1999). Bias crime as gendered behavior. Social Justice, 26(1), 155–176. www.jstor.org/stable/29767117 Butler, J. (1986). Sex and gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s second sex. Yale French Studies, 72, 35–49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2930225 Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–531. doi: 10.2307/3207893 Carmody, M., & Carrington, K. (2000). Preventing sexual violence? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33(3), 341–361. doi:10.1177/000486580003300306 Carrington, K., & Hogg, R. (2016). Violence in rural Australia. In J. Stubbs, & S. Tomsen, (Eds.). Australian violence: Crime, criminal justice and beyond (pp. 49– 66). NSW: The Federation Press. Carrington, K., & Scott, J. (2008). Masculinity, rurality and violence. British Journal of Criminology, 48(5), 641–666. https://doi-org. 10.1093/bjc/azn031 Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2018). Southern criminology. In W. S. Dekeseredy & M Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical criminology: 2nd edition (pp. 57-73). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Casey, E., & Smith, T. (2010). “How can I not?”: Men’s pathways to involvement in anti- violence against women work. Violence Against Women, 16(8), 953–973. doi:10.1177/1077801210376749 Casey, E., Carlson, J., Fraguela-Rios, C., Kimball, E., Neugut, T. B., Tolman, R. M., et al. (2013). Context, challenges, and tensions in global efforts to engage men in the prevention of violence against women: An ecological analysis. Men and Masculinities, 16(2), 228–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X12472336

Cattaneo, L. B., & DeLoveh, H. L. M. (2008). The role of socioeconomic status in helpseeking from hotlines, shelters, and police among a national sample of women experiencing intimate partner violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(4), 413–422. doi: 10.1037/a0014558 Chamberlain, C., & Johnson, G. (2013). Pathways to adult homelessness. Journal of sociology, 49(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783311422458 Chappell, D. (1989). Violence, crime and Australian society. (Violence Today no. 1) Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://aic.gov.au/publications/vt/vt01 Chappell, D. (2016). Shooting, spanking, punching and other matters: Reflections on the work and impact of the National Committee on Violence. In J. Stubbs & S. Tomsen (Eds.), Australian violence: Crime, criminal justice and beyond (pp. 14– 30). NSW: The Federation Press. Chinkin, C. (2014). Gender and armed conflict. In A. Clapham & P. Gaeta (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international law in armed conflict [Oxford Handbooks Online] Retrieved from doi:10.1093/law/9780199559695.003.0027. Chun, W. H. K. (1999). Unbearable witness: Towards a politics of listening. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 11(1), 112–149. muse.jhu.edu/article/9589 Clatterbaugh, K. (1997). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: Men, Women, and Politics in Modern Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Clatterbaugh, K. (2003). Benatar’s alleged second sexism. Social Theory and Practice, 29(2), 211–218. www.jstor.org/stable/23559073. Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in the social science. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Connell, R. (2014a). Rethinking gender from the South, Feminist Studies, 40(3), 518– 539. www.jstor.org/stable/10.15767/feministstudies.40.3.518 Connell, R. (2016a). Foreword. In J. Stubbs & S. Tomsen (Eds.), Australian violence: Crime, criminal justice and beyond (pp.v–ix). NSW: The Federation Press.

Connell, R. (2016b). Masculinities in global perspective: hegemony, contestation, and changing structures of power. Theory and Society, 45(4), 303–318. doi:10.1007/s11186-016-9275-x Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. [ProQuest Ebook Version] Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/detail.action?docID=5510021. Council of Australian Governments. (2011). National Plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010-2022. Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/08_2014/national_plan1.pdf Council of Australian Governments. (2012). First action plan 2010-2013: Building a strong foundation (National Implementation Plan). Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/07_2014/first_action_plan_1 .pdf Council of Australian Governments. (2014). Second action plan 2013-2016: Moving ahead. Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/09_2014/dss012_14_book_t agged_reduced.pdf Council of Australian Governments. (2016). Third action plan 2016-2019 of the national plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010-2022. Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/10_2016/third_action_plan.p df Council of Australian Governments. (2019). Fourth action plan 2019-2022 – National plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010-2022. Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/08_2019/fourth_action- plan.pdf Cunneen, C. (2011). Postcolonial perspectives for criminology. In M. Bosworth & C Hoyle (Eds.), What is criminology? (pp. 249–264). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cunneen, C., & Rowe, S. (2016). Re-considering the relationship between Indigenous people and violence. In J. Stubbs & S. Tomsen (Eds.), Australian violence: Crime, criminal justice and beyond (pp. 106–124). NSW: The Federation Press. Cussen, T., & Bryant, W. (2015). Domestic/family homicide in Australia (Research in Practice no. 38). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rip/rip38 Davies, L. (2016, June 28). We stop violence at the source. And the source is men. Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/we- stop-violence-at-the-source-and-the-source-is-men/news- story/e2b95635d2f37fe6eebdde2ff91545d6 Day, A. (2009). Domestic violence: Working with men: Research, practice experiences and integrated responses. Sydney, NSW: Federation Press. Day, A., Kozar, C., & Davey, L. (2013). Treatment approaches and offending behavior programs: Some critical issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(6), 630–635. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.019 de Beauvoir, S. (2011). The second sex. (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier Trans.). London, UK: Vintage. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (2013). Male Peer Support and violence against women: The history and verification of a theory. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Department of Social Services. (2019). Auditor-General report 2018-2019: Coordination and targeting of domestic violence funding and actions (Publication No. 45). Retrieved from https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor- General_Report_2018-2019_45.pdf Despoja, N. S. (2004, November 25). Time to eliminate violence against women [Press release]. Di Bartolo, L. (2001). The geography of reported domestic violence in Brisbane: A social justice perspective. Australian Geographer, 32(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180120100059

Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 324– 349. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azh026 Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2015). When men murder women [Ebook]. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com Donnermeyer, J. and DeKeseredy, W. (2013). Rural criminology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Donnermeyer, J. F., Scott, J., & Barclay, E. (2013). How rural criminology informs critical thinking in criminology. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2(3), 69–91. doi: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v2i3.122. Donovan, R. J., Jalleh, G., Fielder, L., & Ouschan, R. (2009). Ethical issues in pro‐social advertising: The Australian 2006 White Ribbon Day campaign. Journal of Public Affairs, 9(1), 5–19. doi:10.1002/pa.308 Dowling, C., Morgan, A., Boyd, C., & Voce, I. (2018a). Policing domestic violence: A review of the evidence (Research Report no. 13). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rr/rr13 Dowling, C., Morgan, A., Hulme, S., Manning, M., & Wong, G. (2018b). Protection orders for domestic violence: A systematic review (Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 551). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi551 Engle, K. (2018). A genealogy of the centrality of sexual violence to gender and conflict. In F. Ní Aoláin, N. Cahn, D. F. Haynes, & N. Valji (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender and conflict [Oxford Handbooks Online]. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199300983.013.11 Farrell, W. (1974). The liberated man. New York, NY: Random House. Farrell, W. (1993). The myth of male power: Why men are the disposable sex. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Ferrales, G., & McElrath, S. M. (2014). Beyond rape: Reconceptualizing gender-based violence during warfare. In R. Gartner & B. McCarthy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender, sex, and crime [Oxford Handbooks Online]. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838707.013.0034

Finnane, M. (1994). Police and government: Histories of policing in Australia. Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press. Finnane, M. (2016). Guns and massacres: The politics of firearms control in Australia. In J. Stubbs & S. Tomsen (Eds.), Australian violence: Crime, criminal justice and beyond (pp. 31–48). NSW: The Federation Press. Fitzgerald, R., & Graham, T. (2016). Assessing the risk of domestic violence recidivism (Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 189). Retrieved from NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research website https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-Assessing-the-risk- of-domestic-violence-recidivism-cbj189.pdf Flood, M. (2005). Men’s collective struggles for gender justice: The case of antiviolence activism. In M. S. Kaufman, J. Hearn, & R. W. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 458–466) [Ebook]. doi: 10.4135/9781452233833. Flood, M. (2010). Where men stand: Men’s roles in ending violence against women (White Ribbon Prevention Research Series No. 2). Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/WR-PR-Series-Flood-Report-No-2-Nov-2010-full- report-final.pdf Flood, M. (2011). Men speak up: A toolkit for action in men's daily lives (White Ribbon Policy Research Series No. 4). Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/Men_speak_up_Flood_2011-1.pdf Flood, M. (2015). Work with men to end violence against women: A critical stocktake. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(2), 159–176. doi:10.1080/13691058.2015.1070435 Flood, M. (2019). Engaging men and boys in violence prevention: New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. Ford, C. (2015, March 12). It’s not enough for men to turn up. They have to do the work. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/its-not-enough-for-men-to-turn-up-they-have- to-do-the-work-20150312-142jlp.html Friedan, B. (1963). The Feminine Mystique. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Funnell, N. (2016a, June 23). Why you should never give a cent to White Ribbon. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/why-you-should-never-give-a- cent-to-white-ribbon/news-story/036feed14ddf8ef60691e7ba22494e77 Funnell, N. (2016b, November 25). 10 reasons why I will ignore White Ribbon day. Courier Mail. Retrieved from couriermail.com.au Gadd, D., Corr, M-L., Fox, C. L., & Butler, I. (2014). This is abuse… or is it? Domestic abuse perpetrators’ responses to anti-domestic violence publicity. Crime Media Culture, 10(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659013475462 Gamson, W. A., & Meyer, D. S. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspective on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 275–290). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Garcia-Moreno, C., Zimmerman, C., Morris-Gehring, A., Heise, L., Amin, A., Abrahams, N., … Watts, C. (2015). Addressing violence against women: A call to action. The Lancet, 385(9978), 1685–1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61830-4 Garvey, P. (2019, November 5). Failed charity White Ribbon tied in knots. The Australian. Retrieved from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/failed- charity-white-ribbon-tied-in-knots/news- story/6bf1fd8f66fa285e59895e5581f6e27a Goldberg, H. (1976). The hazards of being male: Surviving the myth of masculine privilege. New York, NY: Signet. Goldrick-Jones, A. (1996). Men in a feminist forum: A rhetorical analysis of the White Ribbon Campaign against male violence (Doctoral Dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Ann Arbor). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (No. 9708918). Goldrick-Jones, A. (2002). Men who believe in feminism. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Goldrick-Jones, A. (2004). The ribbon and the rose: Visual rhetorics against violence to women. Ethnologies, 26(1), pp. 95–123. https://doi.org/10.7202/013342ar Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2007.03.001 Gondolf, E. W. (2011). The weak evidence for batterer program alternatives. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.011 Gondolf, E. W. (2012). The future of batterer programs: Reassessing evidence-based practice. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Goodwin, J. & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural bias of political process theory. In J. Goodwin, & J. M. Jasper (eds.) Rethinking social movements: Structure, meaning and emotion (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Rowan & Littlefield. Grabosky, P. N. (1977). Sydney in ferment: Crime, dissent and official reaction 1788 to 1973. Canberra, ACT: Australian National University Press. Greer, G. (2008). The Female Eunuch. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Grimshaw, P., & Ellinghaus, K. (1999). White women, Aboriginal women and the vote in Western Australia. Studies in Western Australian History, 19, 1–19. Hanisch, C. (1972). The personal is political. Woman's World, 2(1), 14–15. Harkness, A., Baker, D. & Harris, B. (Eds.) (2015). Locating crime in context and place: Regional and rural perspectives. Sydney, NSW: Federation Press. Health Outcomes International. (2014). The national plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010-2022 (Evaluation Plan). Retrieved from Department of Social Services website https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2014/evaluation_plan.pd f Heise, L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290. doi:10.1177/1077801298004003002 Heise, L. (2011). What works to prevent partner violence? (An evidence overview). Retrieved from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. https://www.oecd.org/derec/49872444.pdf

Hogg, R. and Carrington, K. (2006). Policing the rural crisis. Sydney, NSW: Federation Press. Huddy, L. (2013). From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd edition, pp. 737–773). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hulme, S., Morgan, A., & Boxall, H. (2019). Domestic violence offenders, prior offending and reoffending in Australia (Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 580). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi580 Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015a). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580– 1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4 Jewkes, R., Fulu, E., Roselli, T., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2013). Prevalence of and factors associated with non-partner rape perpetration: Findings from the UN multi- country cross-sectional study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. The Lancet Global Health, 1(4), 208–218. doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(13)70069-x Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D., Lindegger, G., … Gottzén, L. (2015b). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(sup2), 96–111. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094 Johnson, H. (2013). The gendered nature of violence: An international focus. In C. Renzetti, S. Miller, & A. Glover (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Gender and Crime Studies (pp. 91–114). London, UK: Routledge. Johnson, M. P. (2010). Langhinrichsen-Rolling’s confirmation of the feminist analysis of intimate partner violence: Comment on “controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States.” Sex Roles, 62(3-4), 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9697-2 Kaufman, M. (1987). The construction of masculinity and the triad of men’s violence. In M. Kaufman (Ed.), Beyond patriarchy, essays by men on pleasure, power, and change (pp. 1-29). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kaufman, M. (2000). Working with men and boys to challenge sexism and end men’s violence. In I. Breines, R. Connell, & I. Eide (Eds.) Male roles, masculinities and violence: A culture of peace perspective (pp. 211-222). Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Kaufman, M. (2003). Addressing and involving men and boys to promote gender equality and end gender discrimination and violence (The AIM Framework). Retrieved from http://menengage.org/resources/aim-framework-addressing-involving-men- boys-promote-gender-equality-end-gender-discrimination-violence/ Kaufman, M. (2012a). The day the White Ribbon campaign changed the game: A new direction in working to engage men and boys. In C. J. Greig & W. Martino (Eds.), Canadian men and masculinities: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 139–158). Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Kaufman, M. (2012b). Why are some men still afraid of feminism? Voice Male, 16(56), 4. Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–499. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x Kimmel, M. S. (1997). From conscience and common sense to “feminism for men:” Pro- feminist men’s rhetorics of support for women’s equality. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 17(1/2), 8–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb013290 Koopmans, R. (2009). Social movements. In R. J. Dalton & H. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behaviour [Oxford Handbooks Online], (pp. 694– 705). doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.003.0037 KPMG. (2016). The cost of violence against women and their children in Australia (Final Report). Retrieved from Department of Social Services website https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/08_2016/the_cost_of_violen ce_against_women_and_their_children_in_australia_- _summary_report_may_2016.pdf

Lake, M. (1999). Getting equal: The history of Australian feminism. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Lake, M. (2013). Women’s and gender history in Australia: A transformative practice. Journal of Women's History, 25(4), 190–211. doi:10.1353/jowh.2013.0043. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Le Grand, C. (2019, October 4). Why White Ribbon raised the white flag. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-whiteribbon-raised-the-white-flag-20191004-p52xt0.html Libal, K., & Parekh, S. (2009). Reframing violence against women as a human rights violation: Evan Stark’s coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15(12), 1477– 1489. doi: 10.1177/1077801209346958 Lloyd, L. (2003, November 25). International day for the elimination of violence against women – November 25th [Press release]. Machado, C., Dias, A. R., & Coelho, C. (2010). Culture and wife abuse: An overview of theory, research, and practice. In S. G. Shoham, P. Kneper, and M. Kett (Eds.), International handbook of victimology (pp. 639–668). New York, NY: CRC Press. Maddison, S. & Martin, G. (2010). Introduction to ‘surviving neoliberalism: The persistence of Australian social movements.’ Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 101– 120. doi: 10.1080/14742831003603257 Madhani, F. I., Karmaliani, R., Patel, C., Bann, C. M., McClure, E. M., Pasha, O., & Goldenberg, R. L. (2017). Women’s perceptions and experiences of domestic violence: An observational study From Hyderabad, Pakistan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(1), 76–100. doi:10.1177/0886260515585533 Maynard, M., & Winn, J. (1997). Women, violence and male power. In D. Richardson & V. Robinson (Eds.), Introducing women’s studies: Feminist Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 175-197). London, UK: Macmillan. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). The dynamics of contention. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, J. D., and Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2777934 Mendoza, B. (2002). Transnational feminisms in question. Feminist Theory, 3(3), 295– 314. https://doi.org/10.1177/146470002762492015 Messerschmidt, J. (1997). Crime as structured action: Gender, race, class and crime in the making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Messner, M. (2016). Forks in the road of men’s gender politics: Men’s rights vs feminist allies. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(2), 6–20. doi:10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.301 Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon. Messner, M. A., & Sabo, D. (Eds.) (1990). Sport, men, and the gender order: Critical feminist perspectives. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books. Messner, M. A., Greenberg, M. A., & Peretz, T. (2015). Some men: Feminist allies and the movement to end violence against women. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Meyer, D. S. (2007). The politics of protest: Social movements in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Meyer, D. S. (2012). Protest and political process. In E. Amenta, K. Nash, & A. Scott (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to political sociology (pp. 397–407). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Meyer, D. S., & Minkoff, D. C. (2004). Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces, 82(4), 1457–1492. doi:10.1353/sof.2004.0082 Miller, A. H., Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Malanchuk, O. (1981). Group consciousness and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 494–511. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2110816 Mitra-Kahn, T., Newbigin, C., & Hardefeldt, S. (2016). Invisible women, invisible violence: Understanding and improving data on the experiences of domestic and family violence and sexual assault for diverse groups of women (State of Knowledge Paper). Retrieved from ANROWS website

https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/invisible-women-invisible-violence- understanding-and-improving-data-on-the-experiences-of-domestic-and-family- violence-and-sexual-assault-for-diverse-groups-of-women-state-of-knowledge- paper/ Moghadam, V. M. (2005). Globalizing women: Transnational feminist networks. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Moghadam, V. M. (2012). Global social movements and transnational advocacy. In E. Amenta, K. Nash, & A. Scott (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to political sociology (pp. 408–420). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Morgan, A., Boxall, H., Dowling, C., & Brown, R. (2020). Policing repeat domestic violence: Would focused deterrence work in Australia? (Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 593). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi593 Mouzos, J., & Rushforth, C. (2003). Family homicide in Australia (Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 255). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website http://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi255 Nakata, M. (2007). Disciplining the savages: Savaging the disciplines. Canberra, ACT: Aboriginal Studies Press. Owen, M. (2018, November 12). Sponsors abandon White Ribbon, sending it into the red. The Australian. Retrieved from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/sponsors-abandon-white-ribbon- sending-it-into-the-red/news-story/46ce119469a3fd5d91da3ab57bc720f1 Patterson, K. (2003, November 23). Prominent Australian men join White Ribbon campaign [Press release]. Pease, B. (1997). Men & sexual politics towards a profeminist practice. Adelaide, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications. Pease, B. (2008). Engaging men in men’s violence prevention: Exploring the tensions, dilemmas and possibilities. Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, 17, 1–20. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30017311

Pease, B. (2012). The politics of gendered emotions: Disrupting men’s emotional investment in privilege. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 47(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2012.tb00238.x Pease, B. (2017a). Men as allies in preventing violence against women: Principles and practices for promoting accountability (White Ribbon research series). Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/WhiteRibbonResearchPaper_LR.pdf Pease, B. (2017b). Why don’t we talk about the patriarchy anymore? Reflections on forty years of scholarship and activism against men’s sexism and violence. In C. Noble, B. Pease, & J. Ife (Eds.), Radicals in Australian social work: Stories of lifelong activism (pp. 198-216). Brisbane, QLD: Connorcourt Publishing. Pease, B. (2019). Facing patriarchy: From a violent gender order to a culture of peace. London, UK: Zed Books. Pease, B., & Flood, M. (2008). Rethinking the significance of attitudes in preventing men's violence against women. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 43(4), 547– 561. doi:10.1002/j.1839-4655.2008.tb00118.x Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York, NY: Springer. Politoff, V., Crabbe, M., Honey, N., Mannix, S., Mickle, J., Morgan, J., … Webster, K., (2019). Young Australians’ attitudes to violence against women and gender equality (Findings from the 2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey). Retrieved from ANROWS website https://ncas.anrows.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2017NCAS-Youth- SubReport.pdf Powell, A. (2011). Preventing violence against women by increasing participation in respectful relationship (Review of Bystander Approaches in Support of Preventing Violence Against Women). Retrieved from VicHealth website: https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/- /media/ResourceCentre/PublicationsandResources/PVAW/Review-of-bystander- approaches-3-May_FINAL_with- cover.pdf?la=en&hash=E56A43C815392E8CE911EF0C7D8BFEA31815FB64

Powell, A. (2014). Shifting upstream. In N. Henry & A. Powell (Eds.), Preventing sexual violence (pp. 189–207). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Powell, A. & Henry, N. (2014). Framing sexual violence prevention. In N. Henry & A. Powell (Eds.), Preventing sexual violence (pp. 1–21). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Price, J. (2018, October 22). It’s time to shut the White Ribbon campaign down. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/it-s-time-to- shut-the-white-ribbon-campaign-down-20181021- p50b33.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0pt7jPt F6g6lUdYIRFcHJxHIjBCroli_sylweW_LELR- ZWsoIsdpf2Dr8#Echobox=1540169167 Reynolds, H. (1989). Dispossession: Black Australians and white invaders. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Roberts, D. A. (2012). Beyond ‘the stain’: Rethinking the nature and impact of the anti- transportation movement. Journal of Australian Colonial History, 14, pp. 205– 279. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=724830823683329;res=IE LHSS Rushton, G. (2018, October 19). White Ribbon Australia has withdrawn its support for reproduction rights. Buzzfeed News. Retrieved from: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ginarushton/white-ribbon-australia-reproductive- rights- abortion?origin=shp&ref=hpsplash&fbclid=IwAR2GTYfJw8RkrVxpJMgkd8CjN bP80Hf8M2QmEvLG77HzLLgb_UTnOrNRhH8 Salter, M. (2012). Invalidation: A neglected dimension of gender-based violence and inequality. International Journal for Crime and Justice, 1(1), 3–13. https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/671/424 Salter, M. (2016). ‘Real men don't hit women’: Constructing masculinity in the prevention of violence against women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(4), 463–479. doi:10.1177/0004865815587031

Scheper-Hughes, N., & Bourgois, P. (2004). Introduction: Making sense of violence. In N. Scheper-Hughes & P. Bourgois (Eds.), Violence in war and peace: An anthology (pp. 1–21). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Scutt, J. (1994). Judicial vision: Rape, prostitution, and the ‘chaste woman’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 17(4), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277- 5395(05)80042-1 Scutt, J. A. (1977). Consent in rape: The problem of the marriage contract. Monash University Law Review, 3(4), 255–288. Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/1977/5.pdf Scutt, J. A. (1980). Rape law reform: A collection of conference papers. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology. Scutt, J. A. (1992). The incredible woman: A recurring character in criminal law. Women’s Studies International Forum, 15(4), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(92)90079-B Serisier, T. (2005). ‘Remembering Anita’: Rape and the politics of commemoration. Australian Feminist Law Journal, 23(1), 121–145. doi: 10.1080/13200968.2005.10854347 Seymour, K. (2017). “Stand up, speak out and act”: A critical reading of Australia’s White Ribbon campaign. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(2), 293–310. doi:10.1177/0004865817722187 Simoes dos Santos, P., Duxson, S., Burridge, N., Miller, K., Chodkiewicz, A., & Ellinson, A. (2019). Evaluation of ‘breaking the silence’ schools program (University of Technology Sydney Report). Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/2019-BtS-evaluation-by-UTS.pdf Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001) Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319 Spark, R. (1994). Gift-wrapping the men's movement: Canada's White Ribbon Foundation Campaign. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University Press.

Spinney, A., & Blandy, S. (2011). Homelessness prevention for women and children who have experienced domestic and family violence: Innovations in policy and practice (AHURI Positioning Paper No. 140). Retrieved from Australian Housing & Urban Research Institute website https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/2831/AHURI_Positioning_ Paper_No140_Homelessness-prevention-for-women-and-children-who-have- experienced-domestic-and-family-violence-innovations.pdf Squire, J. (2012). Feminism and democracy. In E. Amenta, K. Nash & A. Scott (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to political sociology (pp. 466-477). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Stark, J. (2016, November 19–25). Exclusive: White Ribbon splits on direction. The Saturday Paper. Retrieved from: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2016/11/19/exclusive-white-ribbon-splits- direction/14794740003994 Stephens, U. (2004, November 28). White Ribbon day – The international day for the elimination of violence against women [Press release]. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 41(1), 75–88. doi: 10.2307/351733 Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001 Stubbs, J. & Tomsen, S. (2016). Australian violence: Then and now. In J. Stubbs & S. Tomsen (Eds.), Australian violence: Crime, criminal justice and beyond (pp. 1– 13). NSW: The Federation Press. Stubbs, J. (2016). Women, girls and gendered violence. In J. Stubbs & S. Tomsen (Eds.), Australian violence: Crime, criminal justice and beyond (pp. 67–86). NSW: The Federation Press.

100

Summers, A. (2016). Hidden from history: Women victims of crime. In S. K. Mukherjee & J. A. Scutt (Eds.), Women and crime (2nd edn, pp. 22–30). North Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Teicke, J., & Sitek, T. (2014). Outcomes of the White Ribbon workplace accreditation pilot program 2014 (Summary of the Independent Evaluation Report). The Benevolent Society. The Canberra Times. (1992, December 1). MASA members miffed. The Canberra Times. Retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126959099?searchTerm=%22White%2 0Ribbon%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase%7C%7C%7CanyWords%7C%7C%7C notWords%7C%7C%7CrequestHandler%7C%7C%7CdateFrom%3D1990-06- 01%7C%7C%7CdateTo%3D1997-12-30%7C%7C%7Csortby The Canberra Times. (1992, December 3). Raising men’s consciousness. The Canberra Times. Retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126959555?searchTerm=%22White%2 0Ribbon%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase%7C%7C%7CanyWords%7C%7C%7C notWords%7C%7C%7CrequestHandler%7C%7C%7CdateFrom=1990-06- 01%7C%7C%7CdateTo=1997-12-30%7C%7C%7Csortby True, J. (2003). Mainstreaming gender in global public policy. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 5(3), 368–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461674032000122740 True, J. (2012). The political economy of violence against women. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Truu, M. (2020, February 21). Queensland Police apologise for ‘victim blaming’ comments after murder of Hannah Clarke and kids. The Guardian. Retrieved from

101

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/queensland-police-apologise-for-victim-blaming- comments-after-murder-of-hannah-clarke-and-kids. Tyson, D. (2011) Victoria's new homicide laws: Provocative reforms or more stories of women ‘asking for it’? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 23(2), 203–233, doi: 10.1080/10345329.2011.12035919 Tyson, D., Kirkwood, D., & McKenzie, M. (2017). Family violence in domestic homicides: A case study of women who kill intimate partners post-legislative reform in Victoria, Australia. Violence Against Women, 23(5), 559–583. doi: 10.1177/1077801216647796 United Nations General Assembly. (1993). Declaration on the elimination of violence against women. Retrieved from United Nations website https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/eliminationvaw.pdf Vanstone, A. (2001, November 23). White ribbons tie men in support for eliminating violence against women [Press release]. Retrieved from https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/WCI86/upload_bina ry/wci861.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22white%20ribbon%20200 0s%22 Venker, S. (2019, June 14). The future of men and marriage is bleak. The Washington Examiner. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the- future-of-men-and-marriage-is-bleak Vives-Cases, C., Torrubiano-DomÍnguez, J., Escribà-Agüir, V., Ruiz-Pérez, I., Montero- Piñar, M. I., & Gil-González, D. (2011). Social determinants and health effects of low and high severity intimate partner violence. Annals of Epidemiology, 21(12), 907–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.02.003 Voce, I., & Boxall, H. (2018). Who reports domestic violence to the police? A review of the evidence (Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 559). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi559 Voce, I., & Bricknell, S. (2020). Female perpetrated intimate partner homicide: Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders (Statistical Reports no. 20). Retrieved

102

from Australian Institute of Criminology website https://aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr20 Walby, S. (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 12(3), 321– 334. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi018 Walker, L., Flood, M., & Webster, K. (2008). Violence against women: A key determinant of health and wellbeing. In H. Keleher & C. MacDougall (Eds.) Understanding health: A social determinants approach (pp. 352–366). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press. Wangmann, J. M. (2011). Different types of intimate partner violence: An exploration of the literature (Issues Paper No. 22). Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2361189 White Ribbon Australia. (2014). White Ribbon Australia annual review 2012-2013. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Annual- Review_2012_13.pdf/ White Ribbon Australia. (2016a). White Ribbon: FAQs. Retrieved from: https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/WR_PrimaryPreventionFactSheetUpdateAUG.pdf White Ribbon Australia. (2016b). White Ribbon Australia annual report 2014-2015. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://issuu.com/whiteribbonaustralia/docs/wra_annual_report_2014- 2015_low_res White Ribbon Australia. (2017a). Strategic framework 2016-2019. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/WRA_Strategic_Framework.pdf White Ribbon Australia. (2017b). White Ribbon Australia annual report 2015-2016. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/WhiteRibbonAnnualReport2015-16_HR-V2-PROOF- V2.pdf

103

White Ribbon Australia. (2018). White Ribbon Australia annual report 2016-2017. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Annual-Report- 2016-2017-White-Ribbon-Australia-spreads.pdf White Ribbon Australia. (2019a). White Ribbon Australia annual report 2017-2018. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australian website March 2019, has since been removed. White Ribbon Australia. (2019b). White Ribbon history. Retrieved from https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/about/our-history/ White Ribbon Australia. (2020). Causes of violence against women. Retrieved from https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/what-is-violence- against-women/causes-domestic-violence/ White Ribbon Canada. (2019). White Ribbon annual report 2019. Retrieved from White Ribbon Canada website https://www.whiteribbon.ca/uploads/1/1/3/2/113222347/white_ribbon_annual_rep ort_2019.pdf White Ribbon Foundation (Australia). (2010). White Ribbon annual report 2008-2009. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/whiteribbonday_annual2008_09_v4.pdf White Ribbon Foundation (Australia). (2011). White Ribbon annual report 2009-2010. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/white-ribbon- annual-report-09-10.pdf White Ribbon Foundation (Australia). (2012). White Ribbon annual report 2010-2011. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/WR_ANNUAL- REPORT_FY11_FINAL-1.pdf White Ribbon Foundation (Australia). (2013). White Ribbon annual report 2011-2012. Retrieved from White Ribbon Australia website

104

https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Annual- Report_2011_12.pdf World Bank. (2011). World development report 2011: Conflict security, and development (Report No. 62255). Retrieved from World Bank website http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/806531468161369474/World- development-report-2011-conflict-security-and-development-overview World Health Organisation (2010). Preventing intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women: Taking action and generating evidence. Retrieved from WHO website https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/violence/97892415 64007_eng.pdf World Health Organisation. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non- partner sexual violence. Retrieved from WHO website https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/9789241564625/en / World Health Organisation. (2014). Global status report on violence prevention 2014. Retrieved from WHO website https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/status_report/2014/en/ World Health Organisation. (2017, November 29). Violence against women: Key facts. Retrieved from WHO website https://www.who.int/news-room/fact- sheets/detail/violence-against-women

105