Women are not responsible for violent crimes against them


Jill Meagher

Bashings, beatings, rapes and murders of women are daily occurrences in every country throughout the world. When details of these heinous crimes are made known there is often an outpouring of public outrage and grief.

There is often also a lot of soul-searching about why this violence has occurred, and answers can include various degrees of blaming the victims.

The proposition that any woman, in any circumstances, is responsible for the violent crimes that some men perpetrate against them is totally unacceptable and yet in a variety of ways it repeatedly raises its ugly head.

In an interview with one of the men convicted of the gang rape and murder of a woman on a bus in India, the man reportedly said that women would not be killed if they didn’t struggle and attempt to fight off their rapists.

A defence used in our own courts, by legal representatives for men accused of rape, is that the women did not struggle, and thereby consented to the act. Women everywhere are invariably in a no-win situation and the victims, not only of their attackers, but also of a range of values held in the society in which they live.

A woman’s character, attitudes, way of dressing, lifestyle, and habits are all potentially cited as contributing to the violent crimes perpetrated against them. Recently a senior police officer, investigating the murder of a 17-year-old Melbourne schoolgirl, said that females shouldn’t be alone in parks. The girl was walking in the early evening less than a kilometre from her home.

Suggestions that women are ‘asking’ for violence to be meted out against them permeates in the most subtle ways in societies that are predominately patriarchal. A crass example of this occurred recently when a priest, speaking to a congregation where the majority were primary-school-aged children, held up a newspaper with a photo of convicted rapist and murderer Adrian Bayley. Reportedly, he then said that if Bayley’s victim, Jill Meagher, was more ‘faith-filled’ she would have been home instead of out late on the night when she was raped and murdered.  

Not surprisingly a spokesman for the Melbourne Archdiocese responded with an immediate apology for the priest’s ‘totally inappropriate’ and ‘offensive’ comments. Later the priest himself issued an apology citing his ignorance of the circumstances of the crime which occurred three years ago, a year before he took up his position in Melbourne. Undoubtably he was unaware of the community response at the time symbolised by 30,000 people marching along Sydney Road in Brunswick, where the crime occurred.

Arguably, this lack of knowledge on his part is a weak excuse for his remarks. Jill Meagher’s husband, Tom, has described Olickal’s comments as symptomatic of ‘dangerous and misogynistic views’ adding that this was ‘a truly abhorrent message to teach to children’. Other family members, both here and in Ireland, have defended Jill as ‘if not particularly religious, certainly a very spiritual person’ who shared with her husband ‘a strong code of ethics’. The burning question is why Jill’s family have been subjected to more pain and placed in the position of having to defend their wife, daughter and relative who was the victim of a previously convicted opportunistic rapist out on bail.

Judgmental attitudes towards women who are victims of male violence are never far from the surface. Perhaps this is why there is greater, certainly more widespread, ‘moral outrage’ when women whom a society considers are ‘virtuous’ are beaten, bashed, raped and murdered. By contrast women who, for example, work in the sex industry often elicit less sympathy when they are victims of male violence.

The contradiction in attitudes here is at the heart of what is faulty, even rotten, in the way people blame victims. For as long as we focus on ‘reasons’, such as lifestyle, and believe they justify violence, we remain incapable of true compassion. Fortunately there are from time to time notable examples of compassion untainted by judgements.

Maureen O'Brien headshotMaureen O'Brien is a Melbourne writer with articles published in The Swag, Limelight Magazine and The Melbourne Anglican.


Topic tags: Maureen O'Brien, Jill Meagher, Adrian Bayley, sexual violence, rape, crime



submit a comment

Existing comments

Well said, Maureen, and a very thoughtful comment on male violence against women. Unfortunately, Victim blaming has been all too prevalent, and our society needs to be challenged on that. Many thanks for the article.
Patricia Murray | 31 March 2015

Thank you for this well written article. The Priest's defence was abhorrent! No matter who the victims is there is never an excuse.
Anne | 01 April 2015

Thank you for this article, Maureen. Victims of family violence are also frequently blamed for the abuse inflicted by intimate others. How often do we hear the question, 'Why didn't she leave him?' There are many reasons. Perhaps she was afraid of escalating the violence. Or perhaps she had nowhere to go and no way to support herself (and the children she would take with her). Perhaps after suffering the emotional abuse that is always inflicted in family violence she did not have the confidence to walk away. The list goes on.
Maureen Helen | 01 April 2015

The violence of male brutality is confronting when it slashes out to violate and then morphs into the voice of a coward that pours its own responsibility onto the sometimes lifeless victim. As a man, I feel the tinge of shame that is in fact the genesis of this horrible scenario. Thank you for this article Maureen. Voices of reason need to be amplified to unknot twisted ideas that emanate from the dark places.
Vic O'Callaghan | 01 April 2015

Thanks Maureen. A very thoughtful reflection. We need to stand up against this judgemental attitude. Lack of knowledge is certainly no excuse. The attitude is the problem.
Mary Connell | 01 April 2015

There is no doubt, Maureen O'Brien, that the woman attacked , raped or murdered is an innocent victim of a predatory male who possesses no respect for womanhood. He is the culprit, the woman is the victim. However, there is a need to recognise the fundamental cause of the generation of this misplaced male attitude towards women. Might I suggest to you that as a result of the introduction of the contraceptive pill in the early 1960's the liberation of women from the fear of unwanted pregnancy generated the sexual revolution characterised by and championed by the aggressive sexual indulgence of the radical women's liberation movement which trashed the role of women and motherhood and abandoned the Christian society's morality in the matter of sexual relationships, according women an active role which often made the frequently tentative role of the male in seeking sexual gratification look comparatively tame and removed the consequences for their actions from profligate women through the promotion of the right to abortion which socialist governments supported through legislation. Is it any surprise that women have come to be seen as willing sexual targets and have loss a lot of respect from men in their fall from the pedestal on which Marian Christianity had placed womanhood? I believe, therefore, that woman hood itself should bear some joint responsibility. Perhaps the world now needs a new Women's Liberation Movement, (the antithesis of the Greer-like disordered thinking) which promotes the respect of women and affords them a dignity beyond that of an instrument for sexual dominance and sexual gratification. Women have no doubt abandoned responsibility in our society and this requires urgent restoration. In today's Sydney Morning Herald there are two articles concerning children killed by their mother's boy-friends, not marriage partners. In NSW, something in excess of 80% of child murder is committed by de facto "partners" often with co-operation by the mother. A recent survey of schoolgirls found that 60% had claimed to have sexual relationships with boys before the age of sixteen. Violence towards and murder of women is committed most commonly by de facto boy-friends and some by jealous husbands. Women in our society are indeed tragic victims, victims of the Women's Liberation Movement which has not only liberated women but more damagingly liberated men from the coyness and moral sense that once attended and controlled the sexually aggressive male in Christian society. Crikey!! I am now in more trouble than Flash Gordon! Truth, however, particularly when difficult to face, has long gotten people into trouble. This week's Christian remembrances are certainly enduring evidence of that!
john frawley | 01 April 2015

I agree with the theme of this article and believe that the real issue in all countries and cultures, society is dominated by a masculine philosophy of life where men control the lives of women. Most societies around the world, including Australia, treat women as second class citizens and chattels. In my opinion we all should read or re-read classic books on feminist philosophy such as Simone de Beauvoir's 'The Second Sex' and Germaine Greer's 'The Female Eunuch' and then conduct a mature and robust debate on the role of women in all societies.
Mark Doyle | 01 April 2015

I certainly agree with the central points in Maureen's article, and as a male I detest and condemn the predatory violence of men who attack or abuse women. However, I differ on the apparent inference regarding the police officer's statement that women should not be alone in parks etc. The context of his remarks should have been clear when he was questioned about that: merely an attempt to warn women of the dangers. Yes, they should have a right to go where they please, but is it wise or in their interests to go in certain places at certain times? I should have a right to go to a place like Syria to indulge my interest in archaeology, but I am not likely to exercise that right in present circumstances because of the risks. In the context of say heart disease, we know that there are several risk factors, and no one of them guarantees the disease, but eliminating as many as we can reduces the overall risk. In my view the police officer was simply saying until we eliminate the presence of predators (not likely soon) it is not wise to exercise all of your rights.
Dennis | 01 April 2015

Many years ago I attended a Mass where the priest gave the same views out. I was not terribly sophisticated in my argument on the church verandah afterwards- it was that the solution to rape is not to lock up your daughters, it is to lock up your sons. (I have both, and I do understand that neither position is fruitful, but i was enraged at the time - it is the logical reply.).
Pauline Small | 01 April 2015

Well written Maureen, you engage strongly with the unwritten but very powerful attitudes in our society regarding violence towards women. I would concur that the social status of the female victim is invariably a contributing factor in comments regarding female culpability. I think we need to speak out much more vehemently on violence towards women whenever we can - hidden domestic violence, the treatment of rape victims, the plight of many girls in Aboriginal communities, sexual abuse in families and institutions. All of these suggest a twisted and dehumanising attitude toward human sexuality and relationships.
Caroline Thompson | 01 April 2015

Being faith-filled and at home tucked up in bed is no guarantee of safety. Just ask all the poor innocents who were raped and abused by clergy and professed religious in boarding schools and children's homes. We also need to ask the maker of that crass remark, if we're expected to excuse him because he didn't know the circumstances of Jill Meagher's rape and murder, under what circumstances does he think the sort of remark he made is fair comment?
Margaret | 01 April 2015

John Frawley if you really believe that violence against women has accelerated because of the introduction of the COCP and the rise of the women' s movement then you must have been too young or too sheltered to know that sexual and physical violence in and out of holy dreadlock has been around for far longer than the 60s. In respectable circles it was not so much not discussed as ignored or hidden; regarding the godless and less genteel it was tut-tutted about in the afternoon papers and from the pulpits. Violence against women is fuelled by rage and impotence against " uppity "women " ( be they uppity or not) in the same way as violence against "uppity niggers" accelerated ( or became public knowledge outside of good ole Dixie) in the dying days of segregation. As for children being injured or killed by their mothers' de facto partners; surely you are old enough ( as am I) to recall that 40 years ago it was quite socially OK to beat the bejesus out of one's offspring to "control" them and the adolescent girls who were banged up in and out of the family would be packed off by the courts to the Good Sams, the Good Shepherds or (worst of all) Parramatta Girls' Home for being " uncontrollable". Have you ever heard the saying that a woman has not been loved if she hadn't been slapped? I have, and furthermore the received wisdom of those days was " now girls, play nicely" ...or else. Finally I do wonder how many girls chose religious life over marriage because it was a better alternative to being shackled to a brute, a bully or a bore, with the prospect of many pregnancies as the price for "protection" and the avoidance of the stigma of spinsterhood.
JR | 01 April 2015

Thanks Maureen for a good article. I also concur with all commentary so far excluding John Frawley's perspective. Getting to specifics through that perspective ... How on earth could a 17 year old girl going for a walk near her home (who was nearly a black belt in self-defence) bear joint responsibility for such a heinous violation by a predator of such evil intent? I too, have a son and two daughters. I've told them all that wearing headphones in public spaces may currently be a dangerous thing to do ... there is no time to respond to the environment around you if you can't hear or sense any nearby danger. I too have been the victim of violence ... I deeply appreciate any male who is willing to step up to challenge violence AND practice the discipline of restraint with regard to women and power.
mary tehan | 01 April 2015

Did John Frawley just compare himself to Jesus? Maybe his comment was an April Fools joke.
Charles Boy | 01 April 2015

Thanks John Frawley for your comments. However, I am surprised that you think violence towards women was not prevalent before the 1960s. It's been with us since the beginning of history. Perhaps we just hear about it more often now because of greater awareness and advances in communication.
Maureen O'Brien | 01 April 2015

Well written Maureen. Just the tip of the iceberg. Will it ever end. I am interested in the priest and the comments attributed to him. I can scarcely credit that a priest would discuss rape and murder with a group of children, apparently in church.
Ken Bradley | 01 April 2015

Bravo, Maureen! Most normal men out there - who may very well be the silent majority - would not, I think, condone sexual or any other violence against women. There may well be a gutter element, some of who may be literally off their rockers, who do. I would hope they are a tiny minority. No woman, whether someone similar to Jill Meagher, or a street walker, should be the victim of such a heinous crime. No one "asked for it". I think the whole preaching rant about Women's Liberation which sadly featured in this discussion is a very ignorant red herring. John Frawley should hang his head in shame. Modern feminists are not the sad caricatures he presents them as. He is very similar in tone to the censured priest.
Edward Fido | 01 April 2015

I'd like to suggest to John Frawley that women never wanted to be on the pedestal and should be respected because like men, they have been created by God in his image and likeness. This issue is nothing new and if anything women are more respected by thinking men than they were before their so called liberation.
Margaret McDonald | 01 April 2015

Dennis’s point casts doubt on feminist claims that women are always passive victims of male violence and rape. While having nothing but contempt for men who so abuse women the feminist notion that women are always the helpless victim seems questionable to me. It certainly contradicts the long-standing and valid feminist position that women must reject the victimhood mentality, take responsibility for themselves and use their power to combat male oppression in all its forms, including violence, sexual or otherwise. And it is true that women often have the power to do this but choose not to on occasion. I’m sure many here know of intelligent educated women (not merely uneducated working class women and who have no where else to go) who have stayed in abusive relationships for years which they could have left. Clinical psychologists often treat women who have had abusive fathers and so are drawn to men like their dads. Maybe their daddy surrogate will treat them nicely this time. But such disturbed men rarely do. Their aim is to find damaged women they can abuse. There are also some women who seem to “get off” being abused by men. How else can one explain the female masochistic impulse so grossly depicted in that 50 Shades of Grey. That this crock of crap has sold about 50 million copies should deeply disturb die-hard feminists. After nearly 50 years of feminism millions of women rush to buy and read a book which depicts them as willing and simpering victims of male sadism. Feminists need to address such questions if they are to properly understand the dynamics of male violence against and general mistreatment of women. Mere strident claims that women never have any responsibility for this awful problem avoids the issue, notwithstanding the fact that women such as Jill Meagher are truly helpless victims of murderous males. .
Dennis | 02 April 2015

John Frawley's comments here would be laughable if we weren't dealing with a serious subject. John, the Pill doesn't cause rape, which was invented a while back. Arguing that women, in trying to improve their situation in society, are somehow jointly responsible for rape is bizarre. And the idea that women or girls should monitor their behaviour all the time is repellent, Dennis. If you can't exercise rights, they don't exist.
Penelope | 02 April 2015

any remarks about violence must be seen in the context of the changed status of women in society at large both inside marriage and outside it. It was not so long ago that clergy of many denominations advised wives who suffering abuse in the home to accept it as part of marriage and obey their husbands. We must accept the fact that modern society generally will not accept either domestic violence or sexual abuse.
john ozanne | 02 April 2015

I was brought up as a good brain-washed Catholic girl in the 1950s. The attitude of that Melbourne priest was what we had to contend with daily. The Good Sisters also did their bit or informing us that it was "the girl" who was responsible for how a man acted. Thankfully, I have finally thrown that thinking in the rubbish where it belongs. Male and female are created equal!
Geradline | 02 April 2015

I'll never understand why defenceless women are attacked by men, and why women are often blamed. I'm a girl, brought up in a violent parental home, in which an alcoholic father would come home drunk, and smash the place up, and repeatedly hit my mother, a bloody good wife, and mother. He was an utter bastard. Then, sexual abuse of me at nine, and then my little brother at eight. My mother was always blamed, because she didn't leave him. How could she with three young children?! All much younger than I. Nowhere to go. No "safe houses". then When is brutal treatment of women by men going to cease!!!!???? Talk about terrorism!!! I'm nearly 72, and it seems to be getting worse!!!! Thank you Maureen, for your terrific article.
Louw | 02 April 2015

Thank you, Maureen, for taking the time to respond to my little harangue!!! It is true that individual women are not responsible for violence perpetrated against them, which I think I concede in my comment. My point is that it is not the victim who is responsible, rather the radical women's liberation movement which has created an environment that has made women more vulnerable through its trashing of the traditional values that placed women on a higher pedestal than they now occupy. Violence against women, including murder, has indeed been around for a long time but I would suggest not in the same proportion as in today's world. The women's movement is the great champion of destroying unwanted or inconvenient human life by abortion which the law allows. It is no wonder that unwanted and inconvenient childhood human life which interferes with the boyfriend's sex life and causes tension with the girlfriend/mother has lead to increased violence including murder towards defenceless children and the women in such alliances. Maybe I am just an old fogey who wouldn't know, but i
john frawley | 02 April 2015

Maureen this is a thoughtful article and timely not only for the incidents you have raised but also the wider context of male violence. Our cricketers say they have to hate the opposition in order to play a robust game. Our surgeons and medical specialists bully their junior staff including sexual harrassing women trainees.
Angela Rutherford | 02 April 2015

Well I certainly did get into trouble!!! However, I do live in the real world and was there in the upheaval of the sixties. It is clear to me from some of the comments that some are blind to the real world. What it is that seemingly upsets them when the radical women's movement is criticised for what it is and what it has done to women, escapes me completely. And surprisingly, I happen to believe women are the jewel of human creation, since without them the very cradle of humanity ceases to exist. The women's movement that I refer to strives to remove women from that privileged role and it is that aspect which to me has cheapened the approach of some men to womanhood. If that is laughable, then the humour escapes me. If what I have said is shameful, I fail to feel the shame. If people don't understand that I have not said anywhere that a 17 year old tragically murdered should bear part of the blame or that any abused woman or child is not a victim, then my understanding of the English language is vastly different from that of some others. I do live in the real world and was very much alive and involved with the human estate during the 1960's revolution, and believe me, the profligacy of the drug induced euphoria of those days gave birth to the radical feminist movement which was mainly to do with female sexual equality with the profligate male. What we now see as equality is more than reasonable and remote from the feminist movement creators of the sixties. Flash Gordon usually managed to get out of trouble but now, unlike him, I suspect I'm in more trouble than Flash Gordon ever was!
john frawley | 02 April 2015

John Frawley, being a bloke, you would have NO idea of what it's like to live in fear - of MEN; what it's like to be of much less physical capacity then aggressive men; to have been attacked, raped, beaten, and / or repeatedly hit by MEN.
Louw | 03 April 2015

Thank you Maureen for such a clear concise response to this constant blame the woman issue.You speak for all of us.
Carolyn Carey | 04 April 2015

Good food for thought, thanks.

The trouble with "women on pedestal" thinking is that it creates the either-or. A woman you want to take home to your parents is not the one you have a casual affair with; a woman safely at home at night is not the woman at risk of violence. Hmmm. REALLY?! In this day and age? We are taken aback when other people in other cultures talk about 'honour killings' ... Women being responsible for the lust of men. And we think, no, we are secular, developed, rational ... More evolved, perhaps. Then we hear comments from religious leaders and an earlier poster. What about men? Are they 'asking for it' when they walk around in short shorts or snug jeans? And what are they doing in the pub half-drunk?! Surely they are asking to be punched? Eva Cox & Geraldine Brooks have both discussed this issue far more eloquently than I have here ...
Kath | 05 April 2015

No Penelope, it’s not “repellent” to have to monitor one’s behaviour, merely a sad recognition that we, both men and women, often live in a violent nasty world where we should all take care. Men too are wise to avoid walking through high-crime areas late at night alone where they run a high risk of being bashed and mugged or to frequent bars where fights regularly erupt and they might get attacked. Many years ago a mild-mannered friend of mine rather recklessly entered a tough New York bar, got caught up in a brawl and ended up in hospital. In a perfect world all people should be able to go where they like any time with any threat of violence. While some precious souls indignantly insist that they should be able to go wherever they want, whenever they like the more realistic accept they can’t. Mere practical restraints on the exercise of rights doesn’t negate their existence.
What is far more repellent are those who abuse freedom of expression in irresponsible ways. Such is the case with “slut walks” where groups of scantily dressed young women arrogantly exercise their “right’ to walk through the streets at night without threat of rape etc. In an ideal world where young men were always perfectly behaved, even when drunk and horny and out with their mates at night, there would be no problem. But to act in a manner which seeks to sexually taunt such men while demanding they exercise gentlemanly restraint is the height of conceit. The rather obvious fact too that slut walks in which women dress in a sexually alluring way, so “objectifying” them as sex objects in male eyes, is something that most “feminists” seem to have trouble appreciating. Slut walks also directly contradict strident feminist demands that men treat women with respect. It’s a bit hard for men to do that when women insist on walking around the streets at night dressed like prostitutes.

Dennis | 07 April 2015

Putting into writing the abhorrent 'blame' cycle against women is very heartening for me to read Maureen. Raising consciousness is a process that really takes time and each little step opens the 'gap' for the light to get through! Adapted from a Leonard Cohen song. Thankyou
Margie Abbott | 07 April 2015

Well put Maureen.
Christine Ferrari | 07 April 2015

I would have thought the time was well behind us when women were said to be responsible for atrocities committed against them, and that is what domestic violence and rape are. All sorts of excuses and rationales can be brought out to explain or justify the behaviour of some men but the bottom line is that each of us is responsible for our own actions. There are no excuses. Drawing on a couple of comments above we could just as well say Martin Luther King was responsible for his assassination because he actively sought to improve the lot of Black Americans against the political and racial oppression of his day. It's not on. Violence against women has to be called out. There simply are no excuses. In response to Dennis, I think you have justified Maureen’s final paragraphs.
Brett | 07 April 2015

Yes Brett, as you say, “the bottom line is that each of us is responsible for our actions”. Does this mean that if people act in ways that are reckless or irresponsible, they are then presumably,,at least partly, responsible for what happens to them? That logically follows from your statement. Thus if women knowingly put themselves in such a situation where there is a high chance of them being bashed or raped then they must accept some responsibility for that. This of course in no way absolves the actions of bashers and rapists but the victim must share some blame for what happens to them. Law courts deal with these cases every day, constantly seeking to ascertain the degree of guilt by the accused and the culpability of the victim. In many rape cases such questions must constantly be addressed. . At one end you have a woman walking along on street in broad daylight when dragged into a car by a bunch of hoons and pack-raped. She is a complete victim, the men are 100% responsible. At the other end you have a woman who after getting drunk with a man at a party or in a bar willingly goes home with him, has apparently consensual sex with him. But next morning, after sobering up decides (perhaps because of something insensitive he said) she has been raped and lodges a police report accusing him of rape. The rape claims made against Jullian Assange by those two Swedish women seem to fall into that category. They only decided several days later, after chatting with each other, to lodge rape reports against him. It seems though they were merely pissed off that he had two-timed them though he had also removed a condom with one during intercourse. Yes, thoughtless selfish male behaviour but rape? Maureen’s simplistic argument that women are never responsible for rape avoids the many shades of grey in male-female sexual encounters. I suspect that the more mature worldly people on this forum, would agree.

Dennis | 08 April 2015

Dennis, I don’t know the details of the claims against Julian Assange so I can’t comment on them specifically. Your scenario at the extreme end of the spectrum is just that – an extreme case and a court would have to decide the matter weighing up all the evidence, not just a one sided description as outlined here. The fact is that responsibility for abuse always lies with the abuser. If the more mature worldy people on this forum think differently then perhaps worldy and mature are just euphemisms for excusing abuse.
Brett | 08 April 2015

Brett: A Four Corners program in July 2012 provided a detailed account of the questionable nature of the rape allegations against Assange. Google “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange” if you are interested. Even if found guilty he would be at the low end of the rape offences spectrum and there is significant doubt about that, as the program shows. Many rape cases fall into this category where there is significant doubt whether a woman was actually raped or merely engaged in consensual sex that she later regretted and decided to then lodge a rape claim the man. The recognition of such cases in no way excuses men who have obviously forced women to have sex with them, especially through threats of, or actual violence, or even blackmail. Such men should experience the full force of the law.
Dennis | 09 April 2015

I was about to let you have the final word Dennis until I re-read your comments “even if found guilty he would be at the low end of the rape offences spectrum” and “many rape cases fall into this category”. This attitude that there is a “low end” where women bring it on themselves through their dress or behaviour or whatever and the attacker/abuser/bully/rapist is not fully responsible for his actions, is at the heart of Maureen’s essay. Levels of force or intimidation or blackmail may vary but it is still violence against a woman and there is no justification for assuming a rapist has reduced responsibility for his actions in some circumstances. None at all. This is just nitpicking to find exceptions to undermine something that is and should be one of the basic principles of our society.
Brett | 09 April 2015

Shades of grey are central to the human condition, Brett. Degrees of guilt, culpability and responsibility must all be considered when assessing people’s sins and crimes. Those with a dogmatic, black/white mindsets find it hard to understand this. Just couldn’t let you have the last word! Have a good weekend.

Dennis | 10 April 2015

I do understand your point Dennis and I don’t mean any disrespect, but I’m not sure you get mine. The level of an attack can vary from murder to manslaughter to physical assault to physical or psychological bullying to intimidation to some other form of abuse. It may happen just once or be part of ongoing abusive behaviour and the legal outcomes will vary based on the circumstances. But each case indicates an absence of respect or a betrayal of the victim by the perpetrator. When an attack takes place the perpetrator always has a choice; the victim usually does not. It may seem like a double standard but the victim should not be judged and the attacker must be held to account and hopefully this message is getting through. I think this leads to the point Maureen is making. “Victim” is probably not the best term to use, nobody wants to be called a victim, but I can’t think of a more suitable word at the moment. Hope your weekend is also good Dennis.
Brett | 10 April 2015

thank mareen o brien for written this lovely article this should be help to be change our mentality so thanks a lot
satyam kurmi | 02 August 2015

I am sick to my soul of crimes against females being the Special Event! Why are brutal crimes against females so entertaining? If females are so violence attracting then arm them as soon as they are born! Males have to be taught that the 'weaker' sex is not automatic prey.
Glenda Ketchuck | 15 February 2016

The mentality of male towards females are partial and old. Ours is a patriarchal society. Needless to say, women regarded as a source of sexual enjoyment. This is why they are attacked whenever they are alone. Laws of many countries support gender equality but man is not ready to accept her as at par with him. Very surprising it that man does not respect a woman's desire to be counted as person in the society.


Subscribe for more stories like this.

Free sign-up