On Tuesday, the European Parliament and officials announced that the bloc had reached an agreement on the law that aims to protect women in the 27-nation European Union from gender-based violence. 

The legislation will also criminalise cyberstalking, cyberharassment and cyber incitement to hatred or violence across the European Union.

The agreement comes almost two years after The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, first proposed the law to mark International Women’s Day 2022. 

EU lawmaker Frances Fitzgerald told reporters in Strasbourg after the announcement that the agreement sends “a clear message across the union that we take violence against women seriously.”

Posting images from her meetings in the northeastern city of France, the former Irish senator wrote on Instagram: “It takes a great team, hours of hard work and determination to get any deal over the line.”

“Thank you to all those who played their part in securing agreement on a new landmark Directive to combat Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. This is a good day for the women and men of Europe.”

Swedish socialist MEP and fellow EU lawmaker, Evin Incir said the agreement is “a directive that the women and girls all across the European Union have asked for for over 30 years.”

Fitzgerald and Incir have been the key players in leading the process to introduce EU-wide laws to tackle violence against women. Last October, Fitzgerald expressed her dismay at the lack of urgency from governments to tackle gendered violence across Europe.

“The seriousness of the crime is still internationally not being matched by the intensity of the approaches needed, and this is a symptom of that,” she said at the time. 

“A city the size of Marseilles, Amsterdam or Zagreb disappears every 10 years as 858,000 women are murdered globally. So I can’t help but think it is part of misogyny, and it’s part of a patriarchal society that we live in, that we’ve had such a job getting (crimes against women) to the top of the agenda.”

Earlier this morning, the Vice-President for Values and Transparency at the European Commission, Vera Jourova, wrote on X, “For the first time ever, we criminalise widespread forms of cyberviolence, such as non-consensual sharing of intimate images.” 

“Way too many #women still suffer domestic violence or violence online in the EU.” 

She also posted a video, saying “Today is a very important day because just a few minutes ago we finalised the trilogue on the violence against women directive.”

“Why we needed a legally binding rules against violence against women. Because simply, as I sometimes say, Europe is a good address for women, but not for all.”

“Many women are suffering from violence and we need to stop this horrible practise and the perpetrators have to be punished and the society also have to take a stronger stance against the violence.”

“So that’s why this directive, which is historically the first one which covers and which seeks to combat violence against women, should cause the big difference we have for the first time addressing addressed cyber violence, we have addressed also the non consensual distribution of in images, all these horrible things which see lately, together with the technological development. So now we have the directive, we will have to finalise the process and after some time when the directive will be implemented into the national laws, we will, I hope, see the difference.”

“The European women and girls need and deserve much stronger and better protection.”

Under the agreement made this week, the commission will report every five years on any potential changes to the rule that need to be made. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Frances Fitzgerald MEP (@frances_fitzgerald_mep)

Defining ‘rape’ disagreement 

EU member states and lawmakers have not included a common definition of rape in the law, as countries remain divided on how to define the crime. 

In a statement, the parliament said member states will seek to improve awareness that non-consensual sex is considered a criminal offence. 

Countries including Belgium, Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden sought to include a definition of rape in the law, but faced knock back from countries including France, Germany and Hungary — who argued that the EU was not equip to do so and that rape lacks the cross-border dimension for it to be assessed as a crime with common penalties in the bloc.

This argument was strongly refuted by the parliament and the commission who challenged that rape could fall within the definition of “sexual exploitation of women” for which a joint set of penalties already exists. 

“We could not get consent-based definition of rape into this directive. So that is a very big disappointment,” Fitzgerald said on Tuesday.

Last month, various international rights organisations criticised the countries who refused to define rape in the law. 

“It is utterly unacceptable that some member states are stubbornly unresponsive to the need to combat rape across the EU,” an open letter from eleven organisations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Center for Reproductive Rights expressed. 

“Consent-based definitions have proven to guarantee greater protection and access to justice for women and other victims of rape, including increased reporting and prosecution rates.” 

“We urge governments to act in accordance with their international and regional human rights obligations, particularly under the Istanbul Convention, and agree on the most robust Directive possible to prevent, prosecute and redress violence against women.”

Last October, Fitzgerald said the hesitation towards introducing an EU-wide consent-based definition of rape was “not acceptable”.

“There isn’t enough political motivation at the moment from some member states to include rape,” Fitzgerald said at the time. 

“You can get somebody moved from Ireland to Germany for murder, but when it comes to rape, they’re saying ‘No, let the member states deal with that’. They don’t say ‘it’s because we don’t like the definition’.”

“They don’t say ‘it’s because what are you talking about with consent?’ which is the belief of certain member states, they really find it hard to get their heads around the idea of consent.”

The post EU agrees on inaugural law to criminalise gender-based violence appeared first on Women's Agenda.

This makes Hoskins the 63rd woman in Australia to be killed by an alleged violent assault in 2023, according to Destroy the Joint statistics. 

The 32-year-old mother of two died after paramedics rushed her to hospital with serious injuries on Saturday night. 

Her husband, 33-year-old former professional cyclist Dennis, was charged with causing her death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life. He was released on bail to appear in the Adelaide Magistrates Court again in March.

Known for her many achievements in track cycling, Hoskins leaves behind a remarkable legacy.

She was a member of the Australian track cycling team pursuit that finished in fourth place at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Hoskins also won gold in the women’s team pursuit at the 2015 world championships and retired from professional cycling in 2017. 

Tributes have been flowing in for the beloved Hoskins, as loved ones and those in the cycling community grieve her life. 

In a statement released on New Year’s Day, AusCycling CEO Marne Fechner described the “shock and sorrow” felt by Hoskins’ “tragic death”, as the cycling force had been an inspiration to many. 

“Melissa, a mother, daughter, and wife, was also a champion cyclist who thrilled and inspired us with her exquisite skills on the track and road,” Fechner said.

“Melissa began her competitive cycling career at just 16, and by the time she retired at the age of 25 she had shown the world that she was an athlete of rare prowess.”

“Melissa described her team Pursuit Gold Medal at the 2015 UCI Track Cycling World Championships as the highlight of her career, but for the rest of us, the highlight was just having her around.”

Media coverage of women killed in Australia

As more information is released on Hoskins’ alleged murder by her husband, many advocates have begun calling out the media’s reporting of her death. 

“Even though she was a world champion, her accomplishments are repeatedly being ignored while those of the man who allegedly killed her are featured in the headlines,” writes Director of the American Medical Women’s Association, Dr. Arghavan Salles on the platform X (formerly Twitter). 

Many of the media headlines have referred to Hoskins’ as “Rohan Dennis’ wife” rather than stating her full name. Dennis’ cycling career has also been placed front and centre despite Hoskins’ own towering list of accomplishments. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kaleidoscope News (@kaleidoscopenews)

Pointing out the disparity and need for better media coverage surrounding the death of women in Australia, Non Executive Director of Full Stop Australia, Fay Calderone has written on LinkedIn that “we must do better”. 

“Heartbroken for her children, family and those who loved her,” Calderone writes about Hoskins’ death.

“I truly hope 2024 is a better year.”

If you or someone you know is experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, domestic, family or sexual violence call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732, chat online via 1800RESPECT.org.au or text 0458 737 732. 

If you are concerned about your behaviour or use of violence, you can contact the Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491 or visit www.ntv.org.au.

Feeling worried or no good? No shame, no judgement, safe place to yarn. Speak to a 13YARN Crisis Supporter, call 13 92 76. This service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

In an emergency, call 000.

The post Olympic cyclist Melissa Hoskins becomes 63rd woman killed in Australia in 2023 appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Finlay-Jones also joined the growing list of women who have lost their lives at the hands of someone they had met via a dating app.

The alleged perpetrator – 33-year-old Ashley Gaddie, had a documented history of domestic violence against six previous partners over the preceding decade, and was out on bail for sexual assault charges at the time of Danielle’s murder.

Her case prompted Government concern unseen in the wake of prior tragedies in Australia or abroad. This culminated in a roundtable discussion convened by the Ministers for Communications and Social Services to examine what could be done to improve safety for Australians using online dating platforms.

On Monday this week, the Albanese Government affirmed their position, issuing the dating app industry an ultimatum: improve safety for Australian users by developing a voluntary code of practice, or face legislative action.  

This is a welcome – if overdue – federal push, holding the dating app industry to account for their role in perpetuating violence against women and other marginalised populations. Users are subjected to a spectrum of abuse in digital dating contexts, which ranges from online sexual harassment, stalking and image-based-sexual abuse, to in-person violence such as sexual assault and coercion and reproductive and sexual health related abuse, for example, stealthing. Recent data from the Australian Institute of Criminology suggests that this violence is experienced by three in four users. 

Dating apps combat these harms with various strategies, primarily through their internal safety policies and features designed to enforce them. Bumble, for example, detects and blurs lewd imagery sent via their platform to reduce the likelihood their users will be subjected to ‘cyberflashing’ – the sending of a penis image without consent. However, while many apps like Bumble and industry leader Match Group employ these methods, there is no uniformity across the industry, nor a benchmark for safety that platforms must meet.  

A push from Government gives dating apps the opportunity to establish these standards voluntarily and collaboratively. However, the natural competition between platforms in an inherently profit driven industry could act as a barrier to effective cooperation. Hopefully, the looming burden of legislation is powerful enough to unite competitors over this shared problem.  

Irrespective of the development of industry codes, such an alliance is arguably necessary if the industry is to prevent the most salient forms of abuse and disrupt habitual or repeat perpetrators.  Dating app users tend to have profiles on multiple platforms simultaneously. Users who perpetrate harms are thus likely to be doing so across multiple apps.

However, data on harmful behaviour reported about particular users is not shared between platforms, making it easy for perpetrators to move from one app to another if they find themselves banned. Proactive, collaborative processes designed to reduce violence have been implemented with relative success by other industries.

For example, in America – rideshare industry competitors Lyft and Uber recently began to share information about drivers that have been banned for serious safety incidents, such as sexual and physical assault – in the interest of protecting their service users. A similar agreement developed for the dating app industry would safeguard users against those who use their products for ill, and likely improve the industry’s reputation for facilitating violence.  

Alongside these efforts, perceptions of dating apps as places where sexual violence is normal – or to be expected – need to be challenged.

Many users expose their experiences of misogyny and harassment on dating apps via submissions to Instagram accounts such as ‘Bye Felipe’, ‘Tinder Nightmares’ and ‘Tinder Translator’.

While humour is an effective and powerful way to respond to abuse in digital dating contexts, it can also trivialise violence, and ultimately contribute to a culture that supports abuse – at least in these contexts. This is not to say that these users should cease such behaviour.

This form of activism clearly provides a much needed avenue through which to resist dating-app-facilitated harm. However, in addition to sharing about the absurdity of their experiences via social media, users must be encouraged to report their victimisation to dating platforms with similar concern.

Recent research indicates that only 21.5% and 19.2% of those who experienced online and in-person violence respectively, reported the incident to the dating app on which it took place. Here, perhaps in addition to the development of industry codes, dating apps should look to develop clearer information about what constitutes digital dating violence, and the importance of reporting. 

More broadly, to proactively shield the next generation whose first foray into dating might very well be via dating apps, the government needs to embed technology-facilitated-sexual-violence into emerging consent education programs.

Historically, legislation has scrambled in the wake of technological development, so the challenge for the government will always be to stay on the front foot.

The post Is the government’s ultimatum to dating apps enough to make them safer? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The new National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-2032, released on Monday, sets out a vision to address social, cultural, political, and economic factors that drive gender-based violence in Australia.

Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth said the plan is a “blueprint” for the next decade to end violence against women and children.

“Current rates of family, domestic and sexual violence are unacceptable,” Rishworth said.

“We want to make these changes now so the next generation of women and children can live in a society free from violence.”

The national plan brings together federal, state and territory governments and offers a shared commitment across the areas of prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing.

The report does not include specific funding commitments, but it does commit to the release of two five-year “action” plans. The first of these will be released in 2023. A standalone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan is yet to be released.

The national plan comes after the previous decade’s national plan failed in its goal to reduce violence against women and children. Indeed, reported rates of sexual violence continued to rise, and currently, one woman is killed every 10 days by a current or former partner.

The new national plan includes an “outcomes framework” with provisions to track, monitor and report on the plan’s progress, and help governments respond to new or emerging needs.

It gives many suggestions as to how Australia can stem gendered violence. Among its key principles are “advancing gender equality”, “closing the gap”, “centering victim-survivors”, “accountability”, “intersectionality”, and “person-centred coordination and integration”.

Director of the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, Dr Kate Fitz-Gibbon, said the plan is “world-leading”.

“It sets the ambition to create whole of system responses that not only support victim-survivors to survive but to thrive beyond their experience of violence,” Dr Fitz-Gibbon said.

“This National Plan represents a much-needed decade-long commitment to eliminate the national crisis of domestic, family and sexual violence. The voices of victim-survivors have been embedded into the Plan’s development. It is essential that the commitment to valuing the expertise of lived experience continues over the life of the Plan.”

The plan puts an emphasis on engaging boys and men, and building community awareness about the role “harmful expressions of masculinity” can play in driving men’s violence against women, children and LGBTIQ+ people.

It also emphasises that housing is critical to ending violence against women and children within a generation.

“Domestic and family violence is the main reason women and children leave their homes in Australia and is the leading cause of homelessness for children,” the report states.

“While improving pathways to long-term affordable and appropriate housing is central to supporting the long-term recovery of victim-survivors, it is critical to implement and expand programs that support women and children to remain safely in their own homes if that is their wish.”

Minister for Women, Senator Katy Gallagher said the plan looks at how to address the structural barriers and inequalities that are a major driver behind gender-based violence.

“No amount of violence is acceptable and it is crucial that we talk honestly about some of the factors that contribute to violence against women and children, and what we will do to address some of the underlying causes,” Gallagher said.

Hayley Foster, CEO of Full Stop Australia, said it is an ambitious plan and a comprehensive statement of the state of gender-based violence in Australia. Foster warned that funding commitments and specific, measurable targets would be needed in the upcoming 5-year plans.

“The aim of the Plan to end gender-based violence in one generation is an ambitious one, but we should not tolerate any less,” Ms Foster said.

“Just one person being subjected to violence and abuse is too many. Nevertheless, if we want to ensure we have a chance of achieving this, we need to put numbers to specific, measurable targets in our 5-year Action Plans, and we need to commit to the funding needed to address this crisis, once and for all.”

“A life free from violence is possible.”

If you or someone you know is impacted by family and domestic violence or sexual assault, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au.

The Men’s Referral Service can be contacted on 1300 766 491.

In an emergency, call 000.

The post New national plan released to end violence against women and children within a generation appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Johnny Depp has won his defamation suit against his ex-wife Amber Heard for her Washington Post op-ed article published in 2018, which stated she was a “public figure representing domestic abuse”.

The facts in every case are unique, and the jury is always in a better position to judge these facts than commentators relying on media reports.

Nevertheless in such a high profile case as this, the verdict has a ripple effect that can go beyond the facts. The unfortunate reality is the Depp Heard case is likely to reinforce the fear that women who come forward with claims of sexual and domestic abuse will encounter a system in which they are unlikely to be believed.

Reform is needed to better balance the protection of men’s individual reputations with the rights of women to speak about their experiences.

Defamation a tool of elite men

Depp was awarded more than US$10 million in damages after convincing the jury Heard was a malicious liar.

This is despite the fact a UK judge determined in 2020 that it was “substantially true” Depp had assaulted Heard repeatedly during their relationship.

After the verdict, Heard commented she was “heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway” of her famous ex-husband.

Historically, the common law of defamation was built to protect public men in their professions and trades. It worked to both defend their reputations individually and shut down speech about them as a group.

Data from the United States in the late 20th century shows women comprise only 11% of plaintiffs bringing defamation suits.

As legal scholar Diane Borden has noted, the majority of libel plaintiffs are “men engaged in corporate or public life who boast relatively elite standing in their communities”.

Defamation trials – which run according to complex and idiosyncratic rules – are often lengthy and expensive, thus favouring those with the resources to instigate and pursue them.

Various defences exist, including arguing that the comments are factually true, or that they were made on occasions of “qualified privilege”, where a person has a duty to communicate information and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it.

But in one way or another, disputes concerning allegations of sexual and domestic abuse usually come down to matters of credibility and believability that play on gendered stereotypes.

It becomes another version of “he said, she said”, and as we’ve seen from the social media response to Amber Heard, women making these types of allegations are often positioned as vengeful or malicious liars before their cases even reach the courts. This is despite the fact sexual assault and intimate partner violence are common, and false reporting is rare.

In fact, most victims don’t tell the police, their employer or others what happened to them due to fears of not being believed, facing professional consequences, or being subject to shaming and further abuse.

Heard has received thousands of death threats and suffered relentless mockery on social media.

Time for reform

The global #MeToo movement and recent Australian campaigns, such as those instigated by Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins, encourage survivors to speak out and push collectively for change.

But now, ruinous and humiliating defamation suits could further coerce and convince women to keeping their experiences quiet and private. Measures must be taken to better protect public speech on such matters.

One potential way forward is for defamation trials involving imputations of gendered abuse to incorporate expert evidence about the nature of sexual and domestic violence in our society.

For decades, feminist legal scholars fought for the inclusion of such evidence in criminal trials, especially those relating to matters of self-defence in domestic homicides and issues of consent in rape proceedings.

Expert sociological and psychological evidence can combat and discredit ingrained patriarchal assumptions and myths – comments and questions such as “what was she wearing?”; “why didn’t she fight back?”; “why didn’t she just leave him?”; “why was she nice to him afterwards?” or “why didn’t she tell people at the time?”

Otherwise, pervasive gender bias – often held by both men and women, judge and jury – can undermine the voices and accounts of women before they even set foot in court, before they even open their mouths.

Defamation trials have not traditionally included such expert evidence. But now that they have become a powerful forum for silencing speech about gendered harm, perhaps it’s time they did so.

Jessica Lake, Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Could the Depp v. Heard case make other abuse survivors too scared to speak up? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The Lost Petition is now located in the Authorised Assembly Area at the front of Parliament House in Canberra, with the 30 metre long fabric artwork listing all of the names of women and children who have lost their lives to gendered violence since 2008.

Created by Melbourne-based artist Dans Bain, there are 978 women and children listed on the artwork, all of whom have lost their lives to violence.

Bains said in a statement that the artwork is in Canberra to raise awareness of the issues concerning women’s health and safety.

“We need to see all levels of government improve policies, funding, education and introduce initiatives in an effort to prevent violence against women and children,” said Bains. 

“I have taken The Lost Petition to Parliament House the day before Budget Day because I want to see an adequate response to the issue of gendered violence in Australia not only reflected in this budget, but for all parties to signal their commitment and responsive policies to this issue in the upcoming election.

“As we are in an election year, I have invited MPs from all sides of politics to attend because I want MPs to take up the call to end gendered violence, review sexual assault laws and introduce a national gender equality act,” said Bain. 

“The budget must reflect adequate funding for prevention services and more funding for women and children in domestic abuse and family violence crisis, platforms for organisations and people most affected by domestic abuse, family violence and gendered violence to be heard.”

For support for domestic and sexual violence, please call:

·       1800 Respect National Helpline: 1800 737 732

·       Women’s Crisis Line: 1800 811 811

·       Men’s Referral Service: 1300 766 491

·       Mensline: 1300 789 978

·       Lifeline (24-hour Crisis Line): 131 114

The post The Lost Petition travels to Canberra one day before Budget Day appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Reading together the appeal decision regarding Geoffrey Rush, AMP Board’s decision to ignore its own zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment just days after Dyson Heydon was struck of the NSW Bar, I am reminded just how unsafe it remains for many victims to speak up. While there are glimmers of real hope of change on the horizon following the release of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Respect@Work report, and employee activism such as that by AMP staff, with gender imbalance in leadership in a majority of our workplaces, it is concerning that an individual’s right to be believed, let alone afforded justice too often remains insurmountable.

Read more: The noise this AMP promotion is getting should be a warning to all boards.

What is perhaps most concerning – and exemplified in each of the recent examples – is that even when victims’ experiences are believed, the behaviour is too often explained or excused, with the perpetrator ‘counselled’ but nonetheless invited to continue their climb up the career ladder. Meanwhile, the victim is silenced – sometimes with an inadequate settlement – and ultimately pushed out. Why? Because the case for ‘rainmaker’ contributions to the bottom line are valued more than corporate culture, despite a banking royal commission finding precisely the opposite. And secondly, a majority of perpetrators can leverage their relative position of power – more powerful connections & more money with which to wield their power – for personal gain.

Sexual harassment is not about sex. It’s about power. It’s a form of gendered violence and that our judiciary and directors behave in ways that constitute wilful blindness towards the known indicators of violence towards women and children established in our national framework for the prevention reveals attitudes towards women in this country are not just outdated, but are dangerous.

The results of the fourth national survey on sexual harassment in Australian workplaces revealed that sexual harassment is widespread: 33% of people who had been in the workforce in the previous 5 years said they had experienced workplace sexual harassment, often with devastating impacts. In response, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has conducted a comprehensive review of sexual harassment and I welcome the changes recommended by Kate Jenkins in the Respect@Work report, all of which must be adopted urgently.

However there was one area of focus from the Survey that requires specific attention: Bystanders. The Survey revealed a massive 40% of sexual harassment experiences were witnessed by a bystander – a massive THREEFOLD increase since 2012 – yet 69% of bystanders did nothing.

That there has been such an increase in public displays of sexual harassment indicates workplaces have become more tolerant, not less, of sexual harassment. I’ve long worried that well-intended workplace initiatives focusing on everyday sexism have conflated employees – and leaders’ – understanding of sexual harassment.

It is for this reason we emphatically support the recommendations from the Respect@Work report to support bystanders and victims by:

Firstly, amending the Sex Discrimination Act to include:

• a positive duty to prevent sexual harassment under the Sex Discrimination Act and
• liability for sexual harassment for those who aid or permit another person to sexually harass a person (as recommended in Respect@Work), requires specific attention: bystanders.

Secondly, amending Fair Work laws to specifically prohibit sexual harassment.

Thirdly, amending Workplace Health & Safety regulations to specifically deal with psychological health including sexual harassment.

Ahead of implementation of such changes into workplaces, Boards have an opportunity to shift culture now. This ought to include:

• Training & education at Board and Executive level to understand the National Prevention Framework;
• Review of their gender equality policy to ensure it includes a vision that inspires change;
• Review of risk frameworks and policies, and where required, development of gender based measures, to mitigate against gender based violence, including sexual harassment and discrimination; and, critically,
• Imposing a positive duty on statutory Officers – mandatory reporting – to report sexual harassment where they witness or know of such conduct, thus transcending the need for victim reporting and strengthening the system for prevention of gender based violence.

Boards must not ignore the Survey insights that 79% of respondents said their harasser was a male, and 54% indicated that the harasser was aged 40 or older. The power imbalance being blatantly obvious when contrasted against the increasing evidence that workers who are more likely to experience sexual harassment in the workplace are aged under than 30, female, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or culturally or linguistically diverse, identify as LGBTQI, have a disability, or in more precarious and less secure work.

So while mandatory reporting is controversial, it is necessary in order to stamp out perpetrator protection by those who know about sexual harassment and are in positions of power to properly act on it. And, as the recent public discourse around Dyson Heydon, AMP and Geoffrey Rush has revealed, even when leaders find sexual harassment abhorrent, they are still far too willing – and conflicted – to protect rainmakers, thereby failing their duty of care to victims. 

Boards and Statutory Officers are best placed to drive cultural changes through risk and governance measures because as the bystander statistics show, sexual harassment isn’t just about power in workplaces – it’s about corporate greed too. Yet good governance balances ethical responsibilities with economic accountability & growth. And just as we saw with the introduction of D&O liability for workplace health & safety breaches, the combination of improved corporate governance, good policy that prioritises care and increased accountability for all forms of gender based violence that enshrines our international human rights obligations, we can address human rights exploitation, create safe workplaces and afford all people the right to realise their full potential free from harassment and discrimination.

The post When ‘rainmakers’ get promoted despite their record of sexual harassment appeared first on Women's Agenda.

She is sitting at a table in her kitchen. She has no expression on her face. Her 4-week-old daughter was laying asleep in a bassinet on the opposite side of the room. There were no toys in the crib. The house was pristine.

“Your baby is very sweet, how is she going?”

Her eyes dart around the room, and her voice lowers. “It’s not my baby”

“Oh? She’s not?”

“No, everybody is saying it is, but I know it’s not”

“Tell me how you know?”

“Lucifer’s angels have told me, and it’s not my baby….…”

Within 24 hours the infant was moved into emergency care whilst the nurse who had referred the mother and had been monitoring her mental health arranged her immediate transfer to the hospital.

With treatment the mother recovered and no further episodes in subsequent pregnancies.  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Postpartum Psychosis is a recognised psychiatric emergency and it’s onset can be sudden and have devastating results if not treated.

Within 12 weeks of delivering a baby, there is a rapid decline in the mother’s mental state, she develops psychosis, cognitive impairment, and disorganised behaviour. This behaviour is a complete change from previous functioning.

Even though the rates of harm to the baby are low, many women feel stigmatised by the diagnosis. But Postpartum Psychosis is a relatively rare phenomenon.

Postnatal depression is a far more common, and it too comes with recognised risks to both the mother and the child. The most serious adverse consequence of mental disturbance in the postpartum period is the killing of the infant  –  infanticide or filicide.

Every year, in Australia approximately 20 children are killed by a custodial or non-custodial parent. The National Homicide Monitoring program showed that fathers are responsible for approximately 63% of all filicides in Australia.

This statistic is unusual when compared to all other homicides where males are the perpetrators in over 80% of incidents.

In the case of filicide, when the victim is less than 10 years old, the mother is responsible for 47.4 % of the deaths.

Approximately 50% of females found guilty of murdering their young child are mentally ill, compared to 13% of male offenders. Much like females who murder their partner, the female who murders her child is very different from the father who murders his child.

In February this year in Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, researchers examined the characteristics of the perpetrators of filicide using data from Monash Filicide Research Project.

Their data showed a number of characteristics that are different between male and female perpetrators of filicide. It showed that male offenders are more likely to use methods such as beating and stabbing in order to kill their child, whereas females are more likely to use strangulation or suffocation.

Male offenders are more than twice as likely to have a history of criminal offences than female offenders.

Of male offenders 43% had a recorded history of domestic violence compared to 16% of female offenders. Males are also more likely to have been recorded consuming alcohol 23% compared to 6% of female offenders.

Another study, ‘Vulnerable victims: child homicide by parents’, showed that for male offenders, the motivation for killing their child/children frequently involved relationship breakdowns (punishing the mother for leaving) and pathological jealousy, and they are also more likely to kill their child as a consequence of child abuse.

Criminologists study these factors in order to establish what factors contribute to offending, in much the same way doctors review risk factors for other causes of morbidity and mortality.

The recent media coverage of the gendered nature of violent behaviour has been controversial.

Prominent and influential Australians have stated that the very act of articulating that the majority of violent crimes are committed by men is innately offensive, sexist and divisive.

As a clinician it is both difficult and frustrating because looking at risk factors is frequently how treatment modalities are developed and form a major component of preventative health.

Understanding the role of cholesterol build up in the arteries of the body including the heart, has lead to the development of cholesterol lowering medications in the ‘at risk’ population.

Recognising the role of hypertension in stroke and other cardiovascular conditions has led to the development of a range of medications that reduce blood pressure.

Likewise, recognising that Perinatal and Postnatal mental illness can have serious health consequences for the infant has led to nationwide screening and early intervention, throughout pregnancy and in the months to years post delivery.

The NSW Maternal and Child Primary Health Care policy was developed as part of the Families NSW  initiative which is ‘an overarching strategy to enhance the health and wellbeing of children up to 8 years and their families’.

The policy outlines an expectation that women will be assessed for mental health issues and other factors early in the pregnancy and for at least 8 months after this time.

All women are assessed for social isolation, stress, anxiety, low self-esteem, previous history of mental health, personal history of child abuse, involvement with child protection and current or recent domestic violence.

There is an expectation for universal home visiting and at each of the assessments during the antenatal and postnatal period, women are assessed for difficulties with mood, ability to cope, self care, relationship with partner, fatigue, energy and resuming of social activities.

All children, healthy or otherwise are expected to have regular check ups throughout the early years of life, during which time the mother’s mental health is concurrently assessed.

This involves a level of intrusion on the privacy of individual women, however, there has not been a reactionary response from women who are asked and expected to participate.

Most women accept that even though they may not have a history of mental illness, even if they have no history of hurting their child, even if they do not have anything ‘dark in their hearts’, the safety and wellbeing of children depends on co-operation of all women.

Dr. Charlotte Paull is an Obstetrician and Gynaecologist in South Australia who has worked in public obstetrics for over a decade.

“Screening for mental health issues is required as per Medicare to bill for pregnancy management,” Dr Paull explains. “I haven’t actually had anyone refuse before, women seem to want to engage fully.”

Recognising gender as a risk factor is not, and has never been, about attacking a particular gender to incite hatred. Rather, it is about starting to examine the ways in which our society insidiously encourages violence in men as a response to anger or other forms of internal distress as well as developing strategies to reduce violent behaviours in men as a whole, and in doing so will result in better outcomes for all members of society, men included.

The post #NotAllWomen harm their babies but all mums get screened for mental illness appeared first on Women's Agenda.