Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Email

The park as a bogeyman, and other violence fallacies

The Drum
By Lauren Rosewarne

Posted March 20, 2015 08:18:45

Masa Vukotic, 17, was walking in a reserve in Doncaster when she was fatally attacked. Photo: Masa Vukotic, 17, was walking in a reserve in Melbourne when she was fatally attacked. (Facebook)

After the murder of teenager Masa Vukotic, a police officer suggested women shouldn't be alone in parks. Once again women were being told the onus was on THEM to adjust THEIR behaviour, writes Lauren Rosewarne.

Michael Sanguinetti. A name probably completely unfamiliar. Unless of course, you take an interest in the personal safety rhetoric foisted upon women by well-meaning men. And then he's known for one hell of a case of foot-in-mouth disease.

Back in 2011, Sanguinetti, a constable with the Toronto Police, addressed a forum on campus rape. Playing the role of the hard-boiled seen-it-all-heard-it-all cop-of-the-meanest-mean-streets, Sanguinetti told the forum: "I'm not supposed to say this; however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

Cue the Slut Walk counter-attack.

Truth be told, I'm of the belief that Sanguinetti's comments weren't particularly shocking to most of us; he simply gave voice to one of a litany of well-established rape myths: this one centred on the magical properties of clothing.

The story goes like this: If a woman dares to frock-up in a manner deemed provocative then she puts herself in a position of peril. Myth being the operative word here and yet one clutched onto so very tightly. Victim-blaming explains a chunk of it, sure, but so does the delusional appeal of control. In this culture of perpetual vigilance we're encouraged to think that if we just put just enough infrastructure in place, that next time the bad things won't happen.

Sanguinetti's words, while egregious, weren't the real problem. The truly jarring bit was that they came out of the mouth of a police constable; a figure representing the state.

And here's where I get angry.

Speaking on radio yesterday about the Melbourne murder of Masa Vukotic, Detective Inspector Mick Hughes showed symptoms of suffering from Sanguinetti's same sad syndrome: "I suggest to people, particularly females, they shouldn't be alone in parks."

Subtler than Sanguinetti, sure, and yet women were given the exact same message: that the onus is on them to adjust their behaviour.

I have no qualms with individual women taking personal measures to feel safe. If women feel safer jogging in pairs, safer using the perimeters of a park instead of zig-zagging through, safer carrying a rape whistle/can of hairspray/secret stash of wing chun moves and safer drinking less alcohol, great. Whatever gets you (sanely) through the night.

I have, however, a deluge of qualms with the state recommending such moves.

Sanguinetti's remarks made such a thud and Hughes' are making their own wee whimper, because they were doled out by the police. Police, who are charged with the task of - wait for it - policing. Not advising women on what constitutes an appropriate route home, not creating a culture where we question why victims "neglected" to take heed of advice, but making sure criminals get to court.

Amongst their unenviable workload, police have a role in setting a public mood. When they tell women that being alone in a park is problematic they are setting the tone that crimes against women are normal. Worse, that they are inevitable. The state is, in essence, implying that women are permanently under threat and that they need to take suitable precautions. Armies need to be assembled, battle armour needs to be donned, well-lit routes need to be drawn up; bad people are there, ladies - protect yourself!

Bad people - plural, of course. God forbid we dare talk about this as gender-based violence.

When police tell women to avoid the Law and Order-bogeyman of the park, the state is telling them that public space is the place to be fearful of. In turn, the debate - the paranoia - gets channelled solely into the false idea of rampant public crime and crazed marauding rapey men. Sidelined and completely minimised is the far less clickbait-worthy story of a women's true peril transpiring when she crosses the threshold of her own home.

Research on gender and crime frequently spotlights the so-called "paradox of fear": women disproportionately fearing the crimes that are actually least likely to happen to them. Stranger rape being the classic example. In telling women to procure a chaperone, police are feeding this unreasonable fear of random violence. You know the kind: the stuff that gets all the media attention.

With the pretty and innocent worthy victims and all the captivating CCTV footage, timelines and shocked-witness props. By painting parks/cities/the world as a Wild West that only a fool would traverse unguarded, we're being fed a distracting lie that impinges on our rights to use public space equally.

Women are more likely to be raped, beaten and murdered by their partner than by any bogeyman lurking in the shrubbery. And yet I haven't seen the police fronting a press conference advising women against heterosexuality. Against marriage. Against getting all naked and vulnerable and sharing a bed with a man. Ridiculous? Far-fetched? Of course. And yet somehow we're supposed to smilingly swallow suggestions that we alter our commute and acquire escorts to brave these mythical badlands? Like hell!

Dr Lauren Rosewarne is a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne. She tweets at @laurenrosewarne and can be found at www.laurenrosewarne.com.

Topics: police, law-crime-and-justice, community-and-society, domestic-violence

Comments (269)

Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.

  • it's about time :

    20 Mar 2015 8:34:19am

    For God's sake stop trying to overlay a feminist/sexist agenda on what is just simply common sense advice.

    If a cop told me not to venture into a certain part of town unless I wanted to get beaten and mugged my masculinity wouldn't be an issue.

    While feminism focuses on itself and her rights it will never get it and lose support from good men. There are simply animals out there and women are seen as easy prey.

    Alert moderator

    • Erica M:

      20 Mar 2015 9:43:02am

      Ideally, drivers of cars would notice me, slow down and not hit me if I walked onto the street without looking. That doesn't mean that I'm going to close my eyes when crossing the road though. This article just demonstrates that some people will take any excuse to pretend that they're being victimised, and deliberately misconstrue what should be obvious.

      Alert moderator

      • Keith Lethbridge Snr:

        20 Mar 2015 12:31:10pm

        G'day Erica.

        Yes, we live in the age of the victim. I recommend against it. It's a trap. Once a person gets accepted as a victim, it's very hard to get out.

        Regards,

        Cobber

        Alert moderator

      • MojoMouse:

        20 Mar 2015 2:07:10pm

        With respect, Erica, I think you're missing the point.

        Lauren is pointing out that women are being advised that it's their behaviour that needs to be changed to avoid being the victim of a crime. Don't walk in parks at night, don't dress provocatively etc.

        Where do we see a man or woman being advised NOT to wear an expensive watch, because if they do they have some responsibility if it gets stolen from them? We don't see this advice, because people are free to wear expensive watches, and if someone steals from them or attacks them, it's a crime. The crime has nothing to do with the fact that the person was wearing the watch.

        Similarly, if a person, male or female, is attacked while wearing a designer suit by someone filled with rage against the wealthy, the attack is a crime, and the wearer of the suit is not seen as inviting it in any way.

        Deeming a women even partly responsible for rape because of what she's wearing is reprehensible.

        I rarely agree with Lauren Rosenwarne's articles, and see many of them as pointless feminist puff, but in this instance I totally agree. Well written, Lauren!

        Alert moderator

        • Erica M:

          20 Mar 2015 2:57:27pm

          "Where do we see a man or woman being advised NOT to wear an expensive watch, because if they do they have some responsibility if it gets stolen from them? ... Deeming a women even partly responsible for rape because of what she's wearing is reprehensible."

          I've seen and heard exactly this advice plenty of times, and when did rape come into this?

          Ideally, no-one would be being robbed, but the simple reality is that there are things which you can do to not be an obvious and easy target. Just because the victim could have reduced their likelihood of being attacked, but didn't, doesn't mean that it's not still a crime. If someone has their handbag snatched, or watch stolen, then yes, the presence of the handbag/watch did contribute their being targeted.

          Nobody is suggesting that she caused the attack by what she was wearing, but it beggars belief that anyone would think that people can't take precautions to protect their own safety. If you don't, you can't assume that someone else is always going to be there to do it for you.

          Alert moderator

        • Skeptik:

          20 Mar 2015 3:00:05pm

          Rubbish. Risk and mitigation are a daily, hourly, by the minute action for nearly everyone.

          It is now illegal to leave your keys in a car in NSW as it 'entices' thieves to take it.
          I must not wear provocative statements printed on my t-shirt or race riots may ensure in parts of the USA.
          Don't drink to excess or I will be a victim of violence when out on Saturday nights.
          Do not leave my drinks unsupervised at nightclubs to avoid drink spiking.
          Pubs and clubs early closure/lockout in Kings cross to reduce violence.
          I don't leave my house unlocked, ever, even though the police should keep bad people away!
          I don't park a half million dollar sports car in a high unemployment area and think it is the police's fault it gets "pin stripes" from bored youths.
          I don't hitchhike, or give lifts to strangers.
          Movie stars have minders and adopt disguises.
          Many professionals have 'silent' phone numbers etc.

          As a male, I "modify" my behavior every day in so many ways on a regular basis based on RISK.

          Having read this article and the comments I realise I should assume danger and risk is everyone else's fault and I should do as I please when I please and blame everyone else for the consequences.

          What planet to people live on when honest, if poorly put, advice to help you avoid trouble becomes a trigger for a misogny rant?
          As far as I can tell, only an ideology bound fool calls out those who are trying to help with risk identification and mitigation.

          Alert moderator

        • damon:

          20 Mar 2015 3:26:23pm

          "Where do we see a man or woman being advised NOT to wear an expensive watch"

          When I was visiting Caracas some years ago, a horrified woman walked up to me and, pointing to my gold watch, said urgently "Take that off. You could get killed".

          Alert moderator

        • Mark of SA:

          20 Mar 2015 3:29:08pm

          "Where do we see a man or woman being advised NOT to wear an expensive watch, because if they do they have some responsibility if it gets stolen from them? We don't see this advice, because people are free to wear expensive watches, and if someone steals from them or attacks them, it's a crime. The crime has nothing to do with the fact that the person was wearing the watch."

          Clearly you have NEVER read any travel guide if this is what you think; and I suspect never travelled to far. How about this general tip from the Australian Government Smart Traveller site:

          "avoid overt displays of wealth and never carry large amounts of cash"

          Pray tell us, what good is it after you have received head injuries from a mugger that the blow was criminal?

          I'm afraid that comment was about as stupid as saying that one does not need to lock up their house when they are away, because it is a crime to break and enter.



          Alert moderator

        • MojoMouse:

          20 Mar 2015 4:05:47pm

          This is the first time I'm in complete agreement with people who have criticised a comment I made.

          Having thought more about it, I was wrong in my comment. I absolutely agree with risk mitigation.

          Thank you to those who pulled me up on this.

          Alert moderator

        • JackFrost:

          20 Mar 2015 4:30:30pm

          No one is blaming the victim, that is just a feminist projection. Whats being said here is some advise on how to lower your risk. Police give similar advice to men on how they can lower their risk also, particularly for theft - ie don't leave your doors open etc etc, its not limited to women. If feminists took their blinkers off, they would see that.

          For example I left the car door open, it got stolen. The police came and after I explained what happened, they reminded me that locking the door would reduce the risk of it being stolen again. Were they blaming me, should I write an article about it -> NO, they were just giving advise on how to lower risk

          Finally, its just advise, no one is saying you have to follow it.

          Alert moderator

        • Milner:

          20 Mar 2015 5:44:19pm

          All the cops were trying to say was "be streetwise". They aren't blaming women, they just live in the real world. Maybe you should too.

          I have young sons who I am trying to teach to be independent and who routinely catch the bus and/or walk/cycle home after school and sport. I am constantly telling them to "be streetwise, watch your back, but be cool" as the reality is that problems are relatively rare.

          Unfortunately there will always be evil/mentally ill/drug affected people out there. Personally I think it is time to bring back the death penalty for certain offenders.

          Alert moderator

        • Tom1:

          20 Mar 2015 5:42:05pm

          Mojo: For one we are talking about the advice from two individuals. One is definitely out of order. The Australian officer is just talking common sense, and it only applies to females more than males because they are more vulnerable. I think there will be a natural change in behaviour anyway, at least in the short term, probably mores sensible than an increase in the numbers walking alone in isolated areas.

          I cannot see where such advice is in any way blaming the victim, and is not likely to be used in the offender's defence. There are probably plenty that would be prepared to pull the lever in this instance.

          Alert moderator

    • RosieA:

      20 Mar 2015 9:43:45am

      I think the issue being avoided is the role of our society in producing these "predatory" people. There is enough understanding of human emotional development, for us to have insight into why this problem exists. We don't want to change those societal behaviours and attitudes though, that are all part of the cause. I don't mean cause of a specific violent act, I mean the cause of the state of mind that can perpetrate it. I suspect our current focus on personal success and wealth rather than the well-being of all, is only going to make violence in all forms, worse.

      Alert moderator

      • Scotch_Carb:

        20 Mar 2015 12:21:36pm

        RosieA, over the last few thousands of years of civilization we have not been able to solve the problem of violence.

        Ideally we would identify what makes people violent. Why a select portion of society demonstrates anti-social behaviour that we need to protect ourselves from - muggings, robberies, murders, rapes - and if we could do that then the ideal of never having to worry about walking through a park alone at night (dangerous regardless of gender!) would be realise.

        Pragmatically, we haven't solved that problem. So advice like 'don't walk through a park alone after dark' is pragmatic and universal. It is up to every thinking and breathing adult to be accountable for their own safety. If they take all the right precautions and *still* fall foul of someone then yes, you can't say that there was anything more they could have done. But suggesting that people vulnerable to attack stay away from situations where they can be attacked isn't sexist, it is practical.

        Alert moderator

        • richardw:

          20 Mar 2015 1:46:54pm

          You can be attacked in all situations. That's the point.

          If you avoid situations where you may be attacked you wouldn't be at home or outside.

          Alert moderator

        • John Coochey:

          20 Mar 2015 2:39:13pm

          Yes Richard and others but there are probability functions, when I travel in war zones I do not wear anything that can be mistaken for a uniform, when I was in South Africa I was advised not to display my wealth, particularly in poor areas. I cannot envisage wearing clothing iwth a slogan that some might find offensive and then seeking out those who might be offended to show my "right" to wear what I would like.

          Alert moderator

        • washingline:

          20 Mar 2015 2:47:46pm

          being alone in a park at night makes it that little bit more likely ..

          Alert moderator

        • RosieA:

          20 Mar 2015 5:38:23pm

          I have no issue with practical advice and common sense, nor that advice may vary according to gender. My comment was that the article and other posts are only looking at the problem that exists and how we cope with it....not the whole complexity of issues that give rise to the problem in the first place. Human violence has been an issue for millenia but our understanding of psychological development is now really quite sophisticated. If we just took in and used what we already know, we would be in a far better place, though I accept the problem would still not be "solved".

          Alert moderator

      • it's about time :

        20 Mar 2015 3:39:10pm

        You know Rosie one of the hardest things I've ever had to do, one of the hardest things any parent has to do is to inform their beautiful sweet innocent children of the realities of life.

        You raise them to be trusting and innocent and loving and then you have to turn around and advise them of stranger danger. You have to tell them the world outside their home is fraught with danger.

        You teach them manners and consideration for others and then you watch them go to school and get eaten alive by narcissistic little brats whose parents egg them on in the name of being the best they can be.

        It's even worse being a man. You associate with other men, you know what evil lurks in their hearts, you know what an imperative it is to have a dick to stick into a woman.

        And you wonder how the hell you convey that to a daughter without being found guilty by association.

        Alert moderator

        • RosieA:

          20 Mar 2015 5:25:22pm

          I understand, iat. I was far too trusting of the world for my own good at times. Somehow, though, we need to turn narcissistic orientations around. I don't believe that this is simplistic nonsense as many people lead decent, caring lives. As you point out, our upbringing has much to do with it and that is my point. As a society we have made individual wealth a goal (a very narcissistic goal in itself) rather than an harmonious, well adjusted society. I don't mean to imply the problem is simple but as a society I think we have our priorities all wrong. We are producing a sick society.

          Alert moderator

      • DannyS:

        20 Mar 2015 6:22:41pm

        Rosie I think you're right in the general sense that we as a society don't give enough thought to the prevention of criminal behaviour. The solutions are expensive and governments place a far greater priority on keeping society just ticking over instead of advancing.

        Far more social workers are needed and much greater access to treating mental health issues, whether elective or court ordered, spring to mind.

        People who commit the terrible crimes referred to in Lauren's article are thankfully rare.

        But I would not be at all surprised if several different government agency officials knew about the alleged perpetrator of this crime and what he would be capable of doing.

        And I am certain the these officials do not have the resources, funding or manpower to protect the rest of us.

        Alert moderator

    • Dove:

      20 Mar 2015 9:43:56am

      The author is a feminist. If that kind of thinking offends you, why on earth are you reading it, much less commenting on it? And why is always men who make the criticisms? There are sports articles out there just waiting to be commented on

      Alert moderator

      • Eagle:

        20 Mar 2015 10:10:23am

        Are you actually saying that feminism, a movement based largely on it's view of men, should never face criticism from those it accuses?

        'Aren't there sports articles just waiting to be commented on?' is identical in intent to 'aren't there kitchens that needs cleaning?' Both are hyper sexist and stereotypical, but strangely enough one is consider reasonable to be published.

        If you disagree with something you have every right to state your argument. This right is in fact the principle that allows feminist commentary to exist in the first place. The thinking you espouse would have denied that movement from even existing in the first place.

        Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          20 Mar 2015 10:28:27am

          Eagle, no-one appreciates a well reasoned and prompt response more than me. Perhaps I write in haste. But do glance down the comments written here and you'll find most of them critical of not only the authors views but also of the fact that she is a feminist. I am familiar enough with many of the contributors to know that these are the same people who praise feminists in every country but their own and howl whenever some religious nut advocates that women should cover up. And here they are advocating that women should cover up. But why spoil a good read for you?

          Nothing is above criticism. Not feminism. Not me. If your critique is anything other than a bunch of grumpy old paternalists feel threatened, then I'd be only too happy to read it!

          Alert moderator

        • whogoesthere:

          20 Mar 2015 11:14:11am

          I'm a woman, and a feminist, and I am critical of the article. To me it displays the hyper-sensitivity of some modern feminists to an off the cuff remark made with the best of intentions.

          Things like "we're being fed a distracting lie that impinges on our rights to use public space equally" implies woman are too stupid to weigh up risks and make their own decisions, and are easily fooled by these 'lies'. That as soon a a man in authority opens his mouth we lose the capability to think for ourselves. I find this type of 'feminist' response condescending.

          As a woman I'm quite capable of ignoring what the copper said if I choose. I don't need it to be made into such a huge drama which ignores the important thing in all this - a young person is dead.

          Alert moderator

        • Sanctimonious Troll:

          20 Mar 2015 12:07:40pm

          Spot on. Women don't need these sorts of "thought police" feminists, to imply they can't think for themselves as suggested by this author and other "writers" is condescending and part of the problem. Women are adults and more than capable of making decisions for themselves and assessing risk.

          Alert moderator

        • richardw:

          20 Mar 2015 1:49:58pm

          Why shouldn't anyone comment on the remark?

          It perpetuates an attitude that should be avoided.

          That can and should be said.

          It's not hyper-sensitivity at all.

          Huge drama? Where?

          I thnk you are making a huge drama where there is none.

          Alert moderator

        • whogoesthere:

          20 Mar 2015 2:21:10pm

          Why is an attitude that you need to be aware of personal safety and attitude that should be avoided ?.

          And the huge drama is all over the media, including the article itself.

          In the interview the cop sounded quite distressed about the crime, as well he should have. He was answering a question and maybe over-reacted a bit. But he's only human and not perfect.

          But instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt he instead becomes part of a huge male conspiracy to disempower women. In short a mountain has been made out of a molehill.

          Alert moderator

        • Aven:

          20 Mar 2015 2:08:39pm

          Agree - as a woman I don't have a problem with the cop's comment and the article does seem over the top (then again, I don't self-identify as a feminist).

          I have and do walk home alone after dark. I live by myself and used to use public transport without having much cash for taxis. So 'walking with a friend' was unrealistic in my case.

          However, I've always been aware of my personal safety and over the years developed a 'safety plan' - so what action do I take walking past a group of drunk men blocking the street? What action do I take if I feel somebody is following me through a nature strip or a street?. Mind you, I never had to really really test the validity of these actions. But I have thought about them and take care when walking. Honestly all men and women should have their own 'safety plan' and be aware of their surroundings when traversing supposedly 'high-risk' places like an unlit sidestreet or a park.

          Perpetrators do look for an easy mark. A person alone is a 'safe' target for attack rather than a group of people. I think that's a common-sense fact. Similarly a woman walking alone is seen by a male perpetrator as a 'safer' target for a robbery than a man walking alone. In many ways that is the result of society teaching us that a woman is physically weaker and more vulnerable than a man. That is not always true and I feel pretty confident of being able to defend myself that I can appreciate but ignore the cop's well intended advice. There might come a day when I will need to test out my martial arts abilities on the guy that makes the mistake of presuming I'm weak and vulnerable.

          Alert moderator

        • Erica M:

          20 Mar 2015 3:00:24pm

          I feel exactly the same way.

          Alert moderator

        • it's about time :

          20 Mar 2015 2:15:49pm

          Spot on. Instead of well meaning "I know better than you what's good for you" (read chauvinistic) men telling women how to think and behave we've replaced them with sisters who while they boast different genitals still hold on to that basic premise.

          Alert moderator

        • Calypso:

          20 Mar 2015 3:34:48pm

          I couldn't agree with you more. I am so tired of this assertion coming from purported feminists that women can't think for themselves, that the world is some sort of mirror which should reflect back to us that which we wish to see. I am responsible for how I feel about myself, no-one else. It seems to escape psuedo feminists like Lauren that while we rely on external sources for our own image, we effectively forsake autonomy and put those external sources in charge of us.

          Alert moderator

        • Eagle:

          20 Mar 2015 12:54:30pm

          Sure, though I note as an aside I feel uncomfortable speaking on such matter so soon after a well publicised death, but never mind. As a gen y male I hope to have a few more years before my age is used as an easy mode of dismissal so I'm sure you'll be pleased, demographically speaking. First of all I agree with Rosewarne in regards to the home being far more dangerous to women in terms of homicide risk; all statistics indicate this.

          I disagree with her comments in regards to Mick Hughes. His comments about location being a risk is completely unrelated to Sanguinetti's about attire. There are, simply put, times and places that are more dangerous, and being by oneself is a risk multiplier. Regardless of how one feels about the justice of a situation the reality is that location and circumstance do sometimes dictate outcome.

          I know this, because a man attempted to kill me with a piece of wood when I was jogging around an oval pre-dawn . His attack only ceased after being illuminated by a vehicle. Both the police and my own intuition told me that waiting till sun-up would have mitigated the risk. I do not feel aggrieved or 'victim blamed'; I reject the term as illogical. A flat mate of mine attempted to procure marijuana late at night, by himself, whilst intoxicated. The dealer and multiple accomplices instead chose to bash him into unconsciousness with a pieces of plumbing and a star picket, after an argument about pricing. In both these cases if the victim wasn't alone and out at night, the chances are these events would not have transpired. It is not unreasonable for a police officer to point this out, and to conflate it with remarks by a separate officer years ago, referring to clothing and sexual assault is disingenuous.

          Police aren't trying to modify 'female' behaviour; they're trying to modify everyone's; because they don't want us to die. A more pertinent criticism of society might be to not only note that female domestic victims are less highly publicised; but that male victims of homicide (2/3rds to 3/4ths of the dead) are rarely acknowledged by the media, certainly not to this extent. This in spite of the fact that male victims are probably more than 10 times as likely to be attacked by a stranger (the most 'marketable' type of crime). Far from victimising women, it is males who are predated upon more frequently by the violent, no doubt in part because there is an obvious prejudice in society; to view attacking other males as a lesser crime.

          Rosewarne's articles serves to shore up this position, I reject the primary argument explicitly; police tell male victims exactly the same things as female ones. The real paradox of fear is the fact that the media trumpets attacks on females; but it is males who do more of the bleeding and the dying.





          Alert moderator

        • mike:

          20 Mar 2015 1:29:21pm

          A brilliant comment, Eagle, well said!

          Alert moderator

        • OUB :

          20 Mar 2015 1:31:00pm

          Well written Gen Y guy.

          Alert moderator

        • Michael:

          20 Mar 2015 1:46:12pm

          There's no like button here.

          Violence against women get publicity.

          Strangers attacking women get the most publicity, followed by domestic violence (this is not to say that this publicity is enough just that it exists in a lesser extent to stranger violence against women).

          Stranger violence against men is considered so commonplace as to rarely get media attention.
          And domestic violence against men is a plot point in tv shows and a joke in many sitcoms and romance movies.

          I think the reason violence against women gets the higher level of media attention is largely due to the inherent sexism in our society. Women are viewed as vulnerable and so when they are attacked it makes news.

          Men are considered capable and so it is not popularised.

          Alert moderator

        • foxlike:

          20 Mar 2015 3:25:01pm

          Men are considered masculine when they fight. That's why no-one comments on it, (until the victim ends up in an induced coma) 'cos it's 'normal'. Men who would admit to being afraid of going out alone at night are definitely in the minority; even the most incompetent fighter will hop into a fray....

          Alert moderator

        • Michael:

          20 Mar 2015 3:48:24pm

          That is a horribly sexist generalisation.

          Alert moderator

        • Closet Romantic:

          20 Mar 2015 6:23:47pm

          This is because the consequences of not fighting are far worse than the consequences of losing a fight

          You know the spartan women used to say come back with your shield or on it.

          It's training not nature that's why we get so many deserters or conscious objectors in wars

          And we know what used to happen to them.

          If you fight lose and survive your own people will support you

          If you don't fight you don't have a tribe

          Women get more options here.

          Alert moderator

        • richardw:

          20 Mar 2015 1:56:56pm

          I agree with a lot of this but I have a problem with the police in this regard.

          The police tend to give such advice fairly quickly.

          The problem is it's their job to make the risk go away not to discourage people from living life.

          Obviously there is not a simple and clear dividing line. Recommending that your friend didn't do a drug deal would be wise advice for instance.

          Suggesting to women that they don't visit parks is only wise advice if we don't have the safety we should have. And why women? Clearly they are not the most likely to get assaulted in parks at night?

          The advice was sexist no matter how well intended.

          Where can I as a man go and not be at risk of harm? Tell me so I can stay there.

          Alert moderator

        • Michael:

          20 Mar 2015 2:12:25pm

          Did you read the polices statement?

          He said 'people, especially women'

          He did not say women. The especially women would suggest sexism.

          So "Suggesting to women" and others...

          "Where can I as a man go and not be at risk of harm? Tell me so I can stay there." Mp where. But if you are running alone in a park your risk is increased.

          Alert moderator

        • Ann:

          20 Mar 2015 2:31:13pm

          Thank you Eagle for a reasonable argument that lacks rhetoric.

          Rape victim-blaming is only dangerous because, once upon a time, rapists were rarely prosecuted or punished. Advising women what to do to reduce their risks of being raped is wise, but when it was set against a background of injustice, it became hypocritical.

          However that does not mean it is hypocritical by itself! When justice is provided (and we may not have reached that stage fully yet, in regards to rape), then it is no more dangerous than telling people to not leave valuables or money visible in their car.

          Alert moderator

        • indigo:

          20 Mar 2015 4:01:28pm

          May I suggest male homicide victims are less likely to be the victim due to a random attack with no association with the killer, as in say more likely to be, for example, involved in a drug deal gone wrong? Innocent and underserving as those men may be, the headline grabbing story with women is in the fact that they are often going about their daily business, trying to get from a to b, and there is real tragedy and shock there, like with other headlines, say a natural disaster.

          Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          20 Mar 2015 4:28:27pm

          Eagle,

          Having read all of the posts today I make a full and unconditional retraction of my use of the word, sports. Make it cartoons

          Alert moderator

        • barsnax:

          20 Mar 2015 2:10:27pm

          A lot of the perpetrators of these horrible assaults and murders are under the influence of ice. Did you see the idiot accused of these latest crimes? Eyes like black frying pans as he laughed and gave the TV cameras the bird.

          Terrible drug and more resources should be put into stopping its supply.

          Alert moderator

        • mike2:

          20 Mar 2015 2:48:33pm

          more recources for the government to waste??i think the judges who punish bad people with cotton wool buds are a lot to blame for how our society is going down the road of no respect or care about others

          Alert moderator

        • Jj:

          20 Mar 2015 5:22:45pm

          'Feminist, a movement based largely on its view of men. ... Umm, no. It's not even a movement as such, and if it were a movement, it could not be characterised as being 'based largely on its view of men'. The fundamental logic is that people's gender should not determine their access to society: equal work opportunities, equal pay. It's really truly not all about men; not even slightly about men.

          Alert moderator

        • Eagle:

          20 Mar 2015 6:28:40pm

          That may be the case theoretically; but in practice feminism bases itself around accusation. Accusation of sexism, accusation of inequality, accusation of imbalance; much if not all of which is directed at men.

          The primary core of feminist ideology is a belief in a 'patriarchy' a male dominated and male serving system that must be overcome. This is the prism through which all social, political and economic practice is viewed by feminism; that these things must become less male focused. This entire article above is fixated on a specific interpretation of a policeman's advice; and such rhetoric has become de rigueur in feminism. It can not be seen as anything other than disingenuous to argue otherwise.



          Alert moderator

      • it's about time :

        20 Mar 2015 10:27:56am

        Ha I get it I should check the ideological stance of the writer first before I comment and because I'm male I should restrict myself to sports articles. It's obvious someone has drawn battle lines and neatly stereotyped me.

        Fortunately logic and common sense do not reside permanently in either trench across the no man's land of your war of the sexes.

        I get what feminists are saying. Women should be able to go anywhere without fear and wear what they like. Get around naked if you like. Interestingly with the high rate of divorce and the increasing predominance of single parent families you'd think men's attitude towards women would be getting better as more and more women take more responsibility for the upbringing of their male offspring. A topic for a thesis maybe.

        And I'm not offended merely offering my point of view. I'm sorry if that offends you.

        I too should be able to go where I like without fear of harm. I could take that cop's advice as an offence to my manhood and venture where I like regardless. That might make me a valiant champion of my personal freedoms but it would also make me a fool.

        Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          20 Mar 2015 11:23:00am

          No need to apologise, IAT. If we are to be reminded of the harsh realities of the world then perhaps the feminist goal is to change that reality.

          I think that your study would be an interesting one

          Alert moderator

        • Curious party:

          20 Mar 2015 11:59:53am

          "you'd think men's attitude towards women would be getting better as more and more women take more responsibility for the upbringing of their male offspring"

          Two points: 1) I think there is substantial evidence that men's attitude towards women IS getting better. Its just that it is the chauvinist holdouts that tend to be the loudest (and the most easily promotable by the media).
          2) I doubt whether, even with the increase in single parent families, women are taking more responsibility for child-rearing than they used to have. Remember that socialisation told us (tells us) that men are not supposed to show a caring side and be involved in the gooey emotional side of child-rearing.

          Alert moderator

        • it's about time :

          20 Mar 2015 1:52:58pm

          More responsibility in the sense of becoming more influential in the home for the formation of attitudes towards women given the absence of a male figure who may present a different paradigm of the world. But there are heaps of other/outside variables.

          Alert moderator

        • Closet Romantic:

          20 Mar 2015 6:27:36pm

          Err there is this really ancient saying I think it's Roman

          The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

          It's a truism your mother whether your a man or a woman can make you feel like crap with a look or a tone.

          Alert moderator

      • mike j:

        20 Mar 2015 10:54:34am

        Introduction to Feminism 101:

        Feminism is about equal rights, but only women are allowed to discuss or criticise it.

        Feminism is about ignoring opinions that offend you.

        Women don't like sports, and men are only allowed to comment on sports articles.

        Thanks for your insights, Dove. Pretty much what we thought feminism was about.

        Alert moderator

        • John Coochey:

          20 Mar 2015 11:45:15am

          I am always interested when I read an article about "women as victims" as to what the author's position on women in combat. If the police chief had recommended women join the military and learn how to fight would she have vilified him for suggesting women should put themselves in harms way?

          Alert moderator

        • mike j:

          20 Mar 2015 12:15:47pm

          Women in the armed forces are the biggest victims of all.

          They are victimised by the 'misogynist culture' of the military. They are victimised by not being allowed into some frontline units and, when they are, they are victimised by enemies for propaganda or sexual assault.

          Of course 95% of workplace fatalities are male (higher in the military) but the modern female victim industry is all about finding victims to suit your political entitlement agenda, not about putting victimhood in context.

          Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          20 Mar 2015 2:25:06pm

          Do you speak from your own military experience or the TV's?

          Alert moderator

      • mike2:

        20 Mar 2015 2:37:05pm

        so only nodding donkeys who all agree with whatever lefty writers say should comment here??no wonder you keep asking for proof yet never providing any proof of your own as your a follower not a thinker

        Alert moderator

    • Breakfast in Bed:

      20 Mar 2015 10:02:17am

      Uhuh, but what Lauren is saying is that such advice coming from the police perpetuates victim blaming when the reality is that a woman is more likely to be abused, raped and/or killed by an intimate partner.

      Alert moderator

      • Politically Incorrect:

        20 Mar 2015 11:46:43am

        Uh, no. Police are saying there are predators out there seeking victims. It's not safe for you to go parks at night alone and that if you do, you better know how to protect yourself.

        Lauren in her misadery filled mind somehow equates that to victim blaming.

        Alert moderator

      • xstephen:

        20 Mar 2015 11:52:11am

        What she is saying is the Policeman shouldn't say it. Political correctness gone mad. The advice is sound, but we all know we can't do it on every occasion. But you really need to be very aware of the risks and minimise them. There are weird people out there with serious personal issues.

        Alert moderator

      • Curious party:

        20 Mar 2015 12:02:42pm

        Feminists choosing to interpret such advice as victim blaming is what perpetuates victim blaming. If you all decided to take it as well-meaning, if perhaps misguided, advice to try to ensure safety of citizens then this comment would not have engendered any kind of debate about women's rights.

        Note: This is in reference to the Victorian police statement not the Canadian one.

        Alert moderator

      • Paul:

        20 Mar 2015 12:48:56pm

        She also said that police should be *policing* rather than advising people on safety. I assume she means *catching criminals*. However, an important part of the job police do is advising people. They visit schools and talk to children; they attend community safety group meetings; they visit houses and businesses and advise on security measures.
        Would Lauren also say that police are blaming the victim every time they recommend installing locks and security devices?

        Alert moderator

    • Mickcim:

      20 Mar 2015 10:10:09am

      There's a difference between an 'unsafe area of town' and a public park.

      Alert moderator

      • KiwiInOz:

        20 Mar 2015 10:36:16am

        They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are many parks that I would not go through at night, despite being well trained in martial arts self defense.

        Alert moderator

      • Clicky The Robot:

        20 Mar 2015 10:44:00am

        "There's a difference between an 'unsafe area of town' and a public park."

        Why? Are parks not "areas"?

        Alert moderator

    • Calypso:

      20 Mar 2015 10:10:10am

      As a feminist I agree with much of what you have to say, including the statement that we should not lump all men in with bad men. I would ask however that you do the same by not lumping all feminists together. Lauren Rosenwarne neither represents feminists or women. Nobody voted for her and I disagree with just about everything she has to say.

      Alert moderator

      • whogoesthere:

        20 Mar 2015 10:40:43am

        I too am a woman, and a feminist, and I too disagree with this article. Feminism has many points of view. As you say, people who shouldn't lump all feminists together.

        Alert moderator

        • BrandonMP:

          20 Mar 2015 11:39:35am

          Luckily, it seems most reasonable people are playing the ball here, and not the woman.

          Alert moderator

      • luisa:

        20 Mar 2015 3:18:31pm

        Spot on!!!

        Alert moderator

    • Mickcim:

      20 Mar 2015 10:21:38am

      There are far too many comments being posted by old retired men with nothing better to do than get cranky online.

      Alert moderator

      • mike j:

        20 Mar 2015 2:48:02pm

        Better watch that self-referencing, you'll create an infinite loop.

        Alert moderator

      • mike2:

        20 Mar 2015 2:53:44pm

        yea them old people,,,the ones who built our dams,sewers,elecric gids etc,,what does this younger generation do for the country apart from spending billions on progressive ideals like gay rights and asylum cheats??they build nothing so comments like yours are quite silly

        Alert moderator

    • not fair:

      20 Mar 2015 10:23:38am

      That's hardly fair in this case. The policeman said WOMEN should not be alone in parks, not EVERYONE should take caution. Also, it wasn't as though she was out walking after midnight - this was IN DAYLIGHT. Are you saying us females shouldn't be allowed out anywhere without a chaperone? The poor girl was being perfectly sensible walking in a public park during daylight hours. We should never claim it was the victim's fault in situations like these.

      Alert moderator

      • John Coochey:

        20 Mar 2015 10:52:31am

        You are juxtaposing two seperate incidents as is the author. The first was a police chief urging caution to minimize risk and the other is a random attack in broad daylight. There are certain parts of Canberra I do not go after nightfall without trepidation but that does not mean I am totally safe in all other areas.

        Alert moderator

      • Good Grief:

        20 Mar 2015 11:06:20am

        Ideally, everybody should have somebody with them while traversing in public. The simple reason is that if anything happens to one person, another person is there to respond.

        I almost lost my father because he was alone. He was at a place he has frequented, where he blacked out and fell into a ditch. If it wasn't for the fact that someone stumbled his unconscious body a few minute later, he wouldn't be here today.

        With that said, the reality is, there are nasty men who target women (it's not to say men are nasty, but like all things, it only takes 1 out of thousands to spoil a community) and they are not guilty until they act upon those nasty tendencies. If there was a racial hate group that targeted certain demographics, I am pretty sure the police would advise that demographic in a similar way and not venture out alone.

        Alert moderator

      • libpotato:

        20 Mar 2015 11:15:44am

        "I suggest to PEOPLE, particularly females, they shouldn't be alone in parks."

        The quote actually said people but yes, how dare the police say such outrageous things. Next thing you know they will be 'victim blaming' and suggest people should lock their doors at night

        Alert moderator

      • mike2:

        20 Mar 2015 2:56:25pm

        so if i ever see a woman in trouble in the middle of the night in a park do i have to go help her???why do i have to get hurt just because she was stupid enough to think feminist prpaganda like this trumps basic common sense,sure go put your self in harms way by going for a midnight picnic but dont ask any man to risk there own safwety just so you can prove a silly point

        Alert moderator

    • Sydney Bob:

      20 Mar 2015 10:40:36am

      The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes data on crime; murder, rape, assault etc. The A.B.S. figures show that our cities are becoming much safer, all the measures of violence are on the decrease, but one domestic violence.

      Murders make great headlines for newspapers, because they are so rare and we should not accept random violence. The problem is by focusing on these rare cases we lose focus on the rear issue, domestic violence.

      Alert moderator

      • John Coochey:

        20 Mar 2015 3:24:12pm

        Actually Bob if you are taking the Women's Safety Survery/ People's Safety Survey DV declined initially and then steadied but of course the same surveys show men are far more at risk of assault as women and nearly a third of victims of partner violence are men.

        Alert moderator

    • Jane E:

      20 Mar 2015 10:49:28am

      The point is, the police didn't tell you, Mr, to not go anywhere. They are not talking about a crime-ridden part of town. They are talking about parks.

      And no, Mr, these men are not 'animals', they are men who chose to dominate women, to rape them, to control and overpower. And they could be your best mate and you'd perhaps never know. Just like the 's/he was such a good dad when he/she murdered the spouse and kids

      This is not about 'feminism', its about safety

      Alert moderator

      • Curious party:

        20 Mar 2015 12:07:54pm

        "This is not about 'feminism', its about safety"

        If you really are concerned about safety then perhaps follow the safety advice offered by the professional? I get that its unfair that people, particularly women (apparently), are not able to do whatever they want in society without some danger to them, but thats the reality of life. The police cannot stop all crimes before they happen, we all have a responsibility to try to manage our own level of safety.

        Is there a way that this could have been worded to not make you misinterpret the comment?

        Alert moderator

      • Ann:

        20 Mar 2015 2:38:31pm

        Jane many perfectly good parts of town become crime-ridden at night.

        Train stations. Nightclub strips. Parking lots.

        I wouldn't let my husband go out at night alone to many of these places.

        Alert moderator

        • Columbo the TV detective:

          20 Mar 2015 4:43:40pm

          "I wouldn't let my husband go out at night alone"

          Oh when will women stop treating men like chattel?!

          Alert moderator

    • Sallyt:

      20 Mar 2015 10:57:03am

      Any man who tells me I can't use public parks is not a "good man" and I don't want his support.

      Alert moderator

      • agaras:

        20 Mar 2015 11:14:34am

        @Sally
        But he isn't telling you can't use public parks, he is being a good person in letting you know that their people in this world who don't see the world like you do. That "good man" is thinking about your safety, because you're not. Walking alone in a park, isn't the same as being alone in a park.

        Do you look before you cross a road? Even on a quiet street, I teach my children to look, and be aware of their surroundings. I heard the policeman remind those who are vulnerable just to do that, that is what I have read, but I am just a man who opinion isn't worth considering, it would seem too those decrying foul on the choice of words.

        Alert moderator

      • Clicky The Robot:

        20 Mar 2015 11:24:57am

        "Any man who tells me I can't use public parks "

        Has anyone ever said that?

        Alert moderator

    • Zing:

      20 Mar 2015 11:31:02am

      Is the author offended about having to be careful in parks? Nobody is saying she has to.

      In fact, I'd encourage her to walk around public parks alone at night. Either she'll be perfectly safe or she'll end up being someone's victim. One way or the other, she'll serve an example for others - and isn't that what any feminist desires?

      Alert moderator

      • Helvi:

        20 Mar 2015 11:48:20am

        Zing, some areas of big cities are extra dangerous, I would NEVER advise any one, no woman ,no teenager, to walk there late at night alone. I find your post rather cruel.

        Alert moderator

        • Closet Romantic:

          20 Mar 2015 6:33:13pm

          Helvi

          What zing is neglecting is that we line in the age of the gun and access to specialist training

          A well prepared woman could easily handle win most conflict as long as it's only one or two individuals

          A sort of take back the night vigilante style

          Alert moderator

    • Luke:

      20 Mar 2015 11:36:02am

      What the author is saying is that the authorities should be doing a better job in making our world a safer place to live rather than essentially be complicit in giving predators the opportunity to attack and telling the good people in the world not to venture in particular, public, places if they don't want to get in trouble.

      Alert moderator

      • fredn:

        20 Mar 2015 1:01:43pm

        And how big a police force do you imagine it would take to make every square foot of the city safe?

        Alert moderator

    • Jay Somasundaram:

      20 Mar 2015 12:55:32pm

      To be fair, there is some basis for the criticism of Sanguinetti's statement. What he is really saying is that the police are unable to keep our streets safe. Rather than openly acknowledging and dealing with police failure, he tries to avoid criticism by changing the goal-posts.

      Unsafe streets is everybody's problem. That it affects women more than men is probably more God's fault than men's fault. If She had made women stronger and taller, then we wouldn't have this problem.

      Alert moderator

      • Closet Romantic:

        20 Mar 2015 2:22:32pm

        Hi Jay

        Actually the streets are safer for women than they are for men the victims of the one punch / king hit attacks that where so worried about last year in general where male.

        It seems to be different in the domestic sphere.

        What's confusing me is this aren't we all trained t risk assessment and it varies from individual to individual based on individual resources a six foot four football player regardless of gender has less to fear than a five foot four badminton player regardless of gender.

        Lauren's last article also had people ranting about personal responsibility which makes me think it's gone mad as a concept when we call remote communities a lifestyle choice without informing the residents what the govt will and won't provide in terms of services and letting them make up their own minds , the various health issues being lifestyle choices to the point where lung cancer sufferers who have never smoked are silent about their condition for fear of the inevitable criticism.

        Personal responsibility is just that personal respond ability and it differs from person to person.

        Alert moderator

      • Ann:

        20 Mar 2015 2:40:33pm

        "the police are unable to keep our streets safe"

        Well, they would be able to if we were all radio-tagged with our position and vital stats logged in a central database at all times.

        But some people might object to that.

        That's the compromises you have to make for a functioning society.

        Alert moderator

  • Paul:

    20 Mar 2015 8:40:47am

    Whilst i agree with the belief that the victim should not be blamed for being a victim, common sense has to prevail. I am a male and there are places that I would not go to protect my safety. The whole thing comes down to making decisions based on consequences. A female should never be blamed for being raped, however if she decides to get into a car with several males that she does not know, then any reasonable person would say that this is a poor decision. The reason it is poor is that she does not have control of what happens to her. She is unable to physically defend herself, the males are stronger, her chances of getting out of the car are limited due to constrictive exists and the car may be travelling at speed. Often the victim lives with those consequences for the rest of their lives. There are a number of public areas that I will not go into by myself or even with friends not because I am scared, but I have considered the consequences. They include being robbed, assaulted and the like. People are generally safer if make make better and safer decisions. It is very dangerous to be walking alone at night in any city, even in Australia.

    Alert moderator

    • steveabc:

      20 Mar 2015 9:29:09am

      Poor choices.............. getting into a car with several males she doesn't know..... or wearing "slutty" clothes.......2 very differently worded bits of advice BOTH offering the same basic advice "consider the consequences" when we get to hept up about semantics we tend to forget the actual issue i.e keeping people safe Paul you have put forward a very sensible analaysis well done

      Alert moderator

    • Floyd Fan:

      20 Mar 2015 9:55:46am

      I agree that all people should and do take precautions to avoid potentially risky or dangerous locations. I think it is disingenuous to say that this implies that we are condoning the behaviour of the attacker, far from it.

      Typically the attacker would be someone who does not take the time to read such articles as above and understand or care about the rights or safety of others. Absolutely they are responsible for their actions and should be duly punished but I don't think its unreasonable to take measures to protect yourself from such individuals. Unfortunately they do exist and the reasons why are a whole other issue.

      To conflate this attack with issues of rife sexism is a bit of a stretch and only hinders your very poignant reminder that the real problem lies behind closed doors.

      Alert moderator

    • not fair:

      20 Mar 2015 10:26:25am

      But this girl was walking in a public park in the daylight hours. Can you see any "consequences" she should have considered in that situation? Do you consider the possibility that you might get murdered every time you take a stroll through your local park?

      Alert moderator

      • Curious party:

        20 Mar 2015 12:20:43pm

        Of course its not fair, 'not fair'. The world does contain dangers, and I don't know that it is possible to ever completely eliminate those dangers. Is it worrying to know that we could all be victims of such an attack? Yes, but this worry needs to be tempered by the fact that the vast majority of the time when we walk through parks we DON'T get attacked.

        This was simply a horrible case of bad luck on the part of the poor victim. I don't think I (as a man) would have been any safer if I had been in her situation. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

        Alert moderator

      • Aven:

        20 Mar 2015 2:51:14pm

        Do you consider the possibility that you might get murdered every time you take a stroll through your local park? -

        Awareness of your surroundings is the key. When you're at your local park, do you look around and notice who else is there and what they are doing? People, animals, cars, bicycles? It's not about fearing being murdered but knowing what is happening around you.

        Btw, my comment is not a criticism of the girl who was murdered. We don't know what she did / thought just prior to being attacked. I was directly answering your question.

        Alert moderator

    • paul:

      20 Mar 2015 10:28:49am

      It takes 10-15 minute to walk to the city where I live. If I'm in the city and intoxicated I will always take a taxi home - Why? Because I listen to the police warning of the dangers of walking around the city late at night (especially drunk!). Despite the warnings there are regular media reports about men (not women) who get assaulted walking home.

      Can you imagine if the police decided to not issue warnings because the FCA (Fitness Council of Australia) objected to anything that discouraged walking - complete lunacy - just like the logic behind this story.

      Alert moderator

  • steveabc:

    20 Mar 2015 8:43:13am

    Old people are told during heat waves to keep there front door locked and closed (rather than have a cooling breeze) better to suffer from heat exhaustion than a home invasion the police tell us to hide any valuables undercover when we park our cars at the supermarket carpark. Instead why don't the Police arrest the bad guys? well they do but the Judges let them go with a stern telling off, the problem dear Aunty is not that a Police officer has offered this sage (if apparently un PC advice) but that he has to

    Alert moderator

  • phil:

    20 Mar 2015 8:43:19am

    As far as murders/ assaults go it is not just women
    who are in danger. There are some places that are
    risky even in daylight. There are a lot of drug/alcohol
    and mentally disturbed people who should simply not
    be out on the street. and thirty odd years ago would
    not have been ,their rights have been expanded to
    the detriment of others .
    this is a legal and social issue not sex
    The advice given by the policeman was basic common sense
    The pedestrian equivalent of defensive driving

    Alert moderator

    • Ben Nallay:

      20 Mar 2015 9:17:56am

      Excessive tobacco tax has caused most of the aggression in town. Tobacco tax leads to interdomestic violence.

      Alert moderator

      • Michael:

        20 Mar 2015 9:47:02am

        "interdomestic "

        Inter- means between. So you actually said domestic violence between houses.

        What I think you meant was Intra-

        Intra means winthin.

        However seeing as domestic violence is violence within a domestic setting what you would have said even if you used the correct prefix would have been

        'Tobacco tax leads to violence within within a domestic setting.'

        Alert moderator

        • Ben Nallay:

          20 Mar 2015 10:38:37am

          Yes and no. I'm talking about violence that happens between two different peoples' houses, such as on a street or at a bus stop. It's 99% over a smoke because tobacco tax is five times too much for any fair and logical reasoning. That's why we're all so violent nowdays. It's damned healthways scamming us makes anyone sane sensible normal human mad enough to kill over it and good on them if they do! Stop the rorts! Bad tax = angry big men. Thank you for the lesson anyway.

          Alert moderator

        • Ann:

          20 Mar 2015 2:43:02pm

          Seriously? You're saying almost all violence happens because people are desperate for cigs?

          Congratulations! You've won "Most Ludicrous Post of the Day" Award!

          Alert moderator

        • Ben Nallay:

          20 Mar 2015 3:49:44pm

          No Ann. Stop trying to twist things around to try to make yourself look clever. I'm suggesting that tobacco tax causes a lot of interdomestic violence, probably more than any other cause of violence between strangers. If you don't understand, come around and I'll take you for a nice walk through Hammy Hill one night with a packet of smokes for you to puff on in public.

          Tobacco tax is a major cause of violence, just like idiots are a major cause of frustration for vulnerable people who have to share the same universe with them.

          Alert moderator

        • Clicko de le Roboto:

          20 Mar 2015 4:12:24pm

          I suspect it also causes a lot of children to miss out on things. One pack of cigarettes would buy about 5 litres of milk, one pair of kid's shoes or a trip to the museum with the school.

          Alert moderator

        • Ben Nallay:

          20 Mar 2015 6:34:00pm

          One pack of cigarettes costs around $2-3.00. Try duty-free in Singapore if your mind needs a system upgrade. It's the TAX on tobacco which is now around 600 or 700% which costs so much and causes children and women and pet kitties and puppies and guinea pigs and gold fish and budgerigars, oh, and men, to miss out on things. Tobacco tax is a major cause of intra- and inter-domestic violence though, because of the inherent way it hits so directly right where it hurts the most.

          If you don't like violence, get rid of tobacco tax down to 1990 rates. That'd be around $5-6 a packet, not $25. It's government sanctioned violence. I hope they get the message before too many more people have to die for the sakes of the anti-tobacco scammers. Karma is such a nice thing to believe in.

          Alert moderator

    • vulcan:

      20 Mar 2015 12:59:08pm

      Phil
      Do you believe you are head of the household?
      When was the last time you stopped someone from telling a derogatory joke about women?
      How complicit are you?

      Alert moderator

      • Michael:

        20 Mar 2015 2:20:31pm

        I can't speak for Phil but I can't say I have ever actually considered who is the 'Head of the household'

        That would not have ever occurred to me without someone bringing it up.

        And as far as derogatory jokes about women, I don't have any friends who do. Largely because I pull them up on it and then they get annoyed and stop talking to me, which is fine with me. I also pull women up on sexist jokes about men and don't watch shows which humourise domestic and sexual violence.

        I Love Lucy
        Married with Children
        The Newsroom
        Basically any American Sitcom.
        The Hangover

        The list goes on.

        But more on topic I don't see how your comment relates to what Phil said.

        Alert moderator

  • Michael:

    20 Mar 2015 8:49:31am

    I agree with you here Lauren,

    I have had a problem with the way many people have approached this one. The number of people who have correlated it to domestic and sexual violence is incredible.

    This was, tragically, a random act of violence. It is very hard to protect people from random acts of violence. But the media has run with it being a 'classic example of men's violence against women'

    I have a problem with this for several reasons, a couple of them you voice above, the reason you have not voiced which I hold is that this kind of random violence is far more likely to happen to men. But no one seems to care about that. If this had have been a man killing a man there probably wouldn't have been any news about it (or at least much more limited)

    People care because she is female and I have a problem with that.

    Interpersonal violence from people women know is by far their biggest risk factor, attention and time should be spent here.

    But this specific circumstance is much more common to men then women, don't confuse it with the major risks that women suffer, lest we lose sight of them.

    Alert moderator

    • jj:

      20 Mar 2015 9:48:29am

      Thanks for your comments, but I really have to respond to your 'If this had been a man killing a man there probably wouldn't have been any news about it ...' Really? Did you not notice our own prime minister waxing lyrical about king hit vs coward punch and a massive flurry of (perfectly valid) attention in the media and public sphere more generally about this man on man assault? (while, dare I say it in the current environment, the death rate for women at the hands of those who apparently love them is about 1 a week and the public discourse is remarkably unflustered by it)

      Alert moderator

      • Michael:

        20 Mar 2015 10:07:03am

        The 'Coward punches' were publicly seen my many people on a busy nightlife street.

        To make out it is the same circumstances is misleading.

        Significantly more men are killed in random acts of violence then women, but there are less news stories about it.

        Why has this attack made national news in Australia but other fatal muggings and stabbings in parks where men are the victims haven't?

        Alert moderator

      • Ann:

        20 Mar 2015 2:44:15pm

        Glassings in bars were also spoken about publicly but I doubt that's a high cause of death.

        Whatever people fear the most gets talked about. It turns out women getting randomly killed is something people (not just women) fear a lot.

        Alert moderator

    • MK:

      20 Mar 2015 11:25:39am

      I agree with Lauren in so much as I disagree with her target,
      The police,
      If her point is about the fact that gendered violence commited by people known to women is a bigger problem,

      then a bigger part of the problem might be a little closer to home, maybe look in the mirror
      just look at this article in point,
      If that was the point of her article, so much of her article misses the point in its police bashing and point scoring

      "Police, who are charged with the task of - wait for it - policing" I'm not sure that sentence is a great inidactor of understanding what the purpose of police is

      The strength of reaction by feminists/protestros and pushin g the point to pedantic pithery,
      any such vile overbearing comment relating to women taking active actions regarding their preronsl safety,
      gets met with the ineveitable barrage of claims they should be able to walk through said dar parks naked,
      and the S##*walks

      kind of puts all the foucs on just that part
      yes victim blaming is bad,
      but if you focus all the victim blaming of the outlier random assaults

      Alert moderator

      • Michael:

        20 Mar 2015 12:04:13pm

        I do not believe her target is the police.

        I believe it is any, and indeed every, state body which does not put wholly the responsibility of this event on the perpetrators shoulders.

        I do sometimes feel that there is a disjoiner between what a man sees and what a woman sees.

        I have been told all my life about how I should not get 'too' intoxicated in public, and to not be alone in public and don't travel alone at night. But I do not feel this is controlling of my behaviour.
        However having been told all my life that I will get a good education and a good job and support my wife and kids I do feel is controlling behaviour.

        So I think these things are strongly coloured by your viewpoint.

        Alert moderator

    • Curious party:

      20 Mar 2015 12:24:20pm

      "But the media has run with it being a 'classic example of men's violence against women'"

      Also, wasn't she the third victim of this man who was on a violence spree? Were both the other victims female? (I know one was)

      Alert moderator

      • Michael:

        20 Mar 2015 12:50:16pm

        Four separate victim attacks have been identified.

        Two men and two women.

        Alert moderator

      • mike j:

        20 Mar 2015 2:51:27pm

        So, your incorrect speculation gets published and my ABS statistics get deleted. Just another day at The Drum.

        Alert moderator

  • Giles:

    20 Mar 2015 8:50:15am

    "Bad people - plural, of course. God forbid we dare talk about this as gender-based violence."

    Apparently, the individual arrested for the murder went on a rampage attacking both men and women. He has been charged with seven offences.

    Alert moderator

    • John:

      20 Mar 2015 9:02:23am

      You mean the man arrested, right ?

      Alert moderator

      • Clicky The Robot:

        20 Mar 2015 9:33:39am

        meanwhile a woman stabbed a man on a tram in Melbourne. Does the gender of the attacker really matter?

        Alert moderator

        • Ann:

          20 Mar 2015 2:51:45pm

          Well, statistically it's unlikely for a woman to be behind an attack of violence. That's not really a debatable fact.

          Of course we accept that not all men are violent people... but most violent people are men.

          Alert moderator

        • Ben Nallay:

          20 Mar 2015 3:29:31pm

          "but most violent people are men."

          You mean that most successfully violent people are men. Most violent women are not very good at it without some serious advanced planning and preparation despite plenty of practice on men and children. They don't work out enough when they're young, I guess. That's life. Typical women.

          Alert moderator

  • Jim:

    20 Mar 2015 8:55:28am

    I work in a role that provides care for young people of all genders ranging from seventeen to their mid twenties. I am very aware of the negative effects of victim-blaming and responsibility shifting from the criminal to the victim and completely agree that the comments made by these police officers were extremely unprofessional and perpetuate a warped perspective on violence.

    However, I regularly struggle to balance that concern with the responsibility of my job to provide advice on safe practice to those in my care. How do we, in pastoral care roles, balance providing useful advice on safe practices with not placing the onus on the potential victim to change their behaviour?

    Alert moderator

    • steveabc:

      20 Mar 2015 9:35:46am

      Jim write a letter to your Local MP asking for stronger protection for the "potential victims" so that they don't become victims in the first place (better education, more police, tougher judges, more jobs, better mental health care........)

      Alert moderator

      • John Coochey:

        20 Mar 2015 10:29:34am

        Jim got it right! I wonder what the author's position would be on women in combat in the military? Going deliberately in harms way. We are told that the can hack it with men after the right training so why do they not seek out such training in civilian life? If I was injured roller blading on the motorway I doubt if I would get much sympathy if I wore an T shirt which was offensive to some culture and deliberately went into a area inhabited by such a culture again I would expect little sympathy.

        Alert moderator

    • Xx:

      20 Mar 2015 9:36:50am


      Jim,

      The unfortunate truth you have to tell them is that they have to be aware of their surroundings. At all times. It's better to change your behaviour than end up a victim.
      Dr Rosewarne seems to be in the privileged position of being able to pontificate about language and ideology on this issue, in a perfect world she would be right. In the real world however, vulnerable people get taken advantage of.

      Alert moderator

      • Breakfast in Bed:

        20 Mar 2015 10:15:33am

        Absolutely, Xx and Jim the other thing I would do is provide as much education as you can to all young people about healthy and respectful relationships in order for them to be aware of the dangers sign of a potentially abusive/unhealthy relationship. Unfortunately, some young people interpret jealous, controlling and possessive behaviour as loving as opposed to the abusive and unhealthy behaviour it is

        Alert moderator

    • Oaktree:

      20 Mar 2015 11:13:05am

      I believe the policeman in question did qualify his remark somewhat. If we had a daughter, we would ensure that she used survival techniques in this dangerous world, just as I did my sons. One of our requests was that they did not go to clubs unless in a large group, with safety in numbers being the reason.

      The difficulty in this particular instance is that this was a random attack and happened in broad daylight in a public place with little if any history of violence. It appears the attacker continued with his anti-female rampage after this terrible occurrence.

      If you can't change the threat, you need to modify your behaviour to counter it. Sorry, that is just the way it is.

      I am so sorry that this young woman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and my condolences to her family and friends.

      Quite honestly, I would be happy to see the death penalty carried out in this instance. The perpetrator will in all probability continue to be a threat and an expense to the community for the rest of his life.

      Alert moderator

  • Kerrie:

    20 Mar 2015 8:59:57am

    Whilst I agree with the author's sentiments I must admit that I don't follow all of her argument. In particular it seems pretty normal to me that the police give advice about self-protective behaviours. For instance most car parks seem to have notices about locking doors and not leaving valuables in plain sight. It is not made explicit whether the potential thieves are opportunistic or pre-meditated (ie thieves trawl the car parks looking for good stuff to steal and/or unlocked cars), but the advice remains the same: don't invite bad people to choose you. That being said I wish the police would give more gender neutral advice: be mindful of your surroundings, have an exit strategy, be conscious of how you present yourself, etc that could be just as equally applied to the young men who are more likely to victims of assault.

    I agree that the police might do better to focus on the danger presented by friends, family and acquaintances given that they are the most likely perpetrators of all kinds of assaults. Of course, that kind of message is potentially a lot more fear inducing than telling people to distrust strangers.

    Alert moderator

    • Calypso:

      20 Mar 2015 10:15:44am

      But is the focus dictated by the police, or by media interest? How do we know what questions the police were responding to?

      Alert moderator

  • Hoju:

    20 Mar 2015 9:00:12am

    I have every legal right to walk in to a known violent part of town at night waving around huge wads of cash saying "Im rich, look at me, Im rich".

    If I end up getting robbed then the one(s) robbing me are criminals and deserve to be punished. But could I have done something more sensible when passing through (or even just avoided the area)?

    My 15 year old daughter always complains because we dont let her travel on public transport at night on her own. It interferes with ability to catch up with friends, and means she has to leave early - to get home in time.

    Are you saying my wife and I should let her travel on her own at night, because if she is attacked its not her fault?

    If there is a spike in attacks on women because they agree with you that they are free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, whereever they want, no matter how reckless... will you accept some responsibility?

    Alert moderator

    • Dr Dev:

      20 Mar 2015 2:13:59pm

      The point is, would you have he same policy if your 15 year old was a son?

      Alert moderator

      • ScotchCarb:

        20 Mar 2015 4:23:33pm

        I'm male.
        When I was a 15 year old boy I was 100% not allowed to catch the bus/train alone at night. If I was going to be out after dark my parents had to know where I was going to be and would pick me up/drop me off - otherwise I wasn't going to be leaving the house.

        Now, as an adult, I'll catch a bus or train by myself after dark as needed. But I'll exercise caution and be mindful of my surroundings. If I'm not 100% certain of my safety I'll cancel my plans and figure something else out.

        Gender has nothing to do with it.

        Alert moderator

  • Dew point:

    20 Mar 2015 9:06:00am

    Imagine if the cop had called a news conference and said "There is a violent murderer / rapist on the loose and we are doing our best to find him. Our current advice is that women should walk through the location where the recent murder ocurred, because at the end of the day they should be able to do that."

    Alert moderator

    • The Concerned Citizen:

      20 Mar 2015 10:13:38am

      This is effectively what it boils down to:

      Law enforcement isn't capable of helping in this area beyond trying to catch the culprit after the offense has occurred;
      Thus, they take the easy way by telling the public to simply avoid places that are hard to protect people in. The alternative is to ask the criminals not to do it (good luck there).

      Once again, women are asked to shoulder the responsibility for crime prevention- but the truth is until we pull more cops away from mobile speed cameras and more into protecting sensitive locations, this is really the best we can expect.

      Alert moderator

      • Curious party:

        20 Mar 2015 12:32:58pm

        Police can't charge people for crimes they haven't committed yet though. The police therefore have limits in how much crime they can prevent. They attempt to limit crime by incarcerating criminals (both to stop that criminal committing crimes and in the hope that they will scare other potential criminals), by providing advice about personal safety, and by being present.

        The last one there seems to be the most foolproof way of preventing crimes, but the problem is that Australia is a big country and it is impossible to have police stationed at every place where it is possible for a crime to be committed.

        "women are asked to shoulder the responsibility for crime prevention"

        Guess what? Crime prevention is everyone's responsibility. It is our responsibility to refrain from committing crimes and it is our responsibility to try to increase our level of safety by taking sensible precautions.

        I'm not sure what kind of society you want to live in if you don't think you have any responsibilities to the broader society.

        Alert moderator

  • whogoesthere:

    20 Mar 2015 9:07:59am

    We all know the horros of child sexual abuse. If a copper said "Don't leave your child alone with a man you don't know" would that be OK ?. If a park ranger said "check if a water hole has crocodiles in it before you go swimming" what about that ?.

    The author herself says "I have no qualms with individual women taking personal measures to feel safe." Yet if an authority figure gives the same message it's victim blaming.

    Maybe his words were ill chosen. Maybe he should have said something like "the chances of an attack were quite small, but maybe it's best to take precautions anyway", but what he did say isn't the crime of the century.

    I'm a woman and I used to walk through a quiet park every day by myself. I knew there was a risk, albeit a small one, but I chose to take it. Everyone can make that choice. But pointing out there is a risk is just common sense.

    And everyone knows that DV is a bigger threat. But imagine if someone did say "Women be very careful who you live with because alot of men beat their partners. They'd be howled down by 'don't victim blame' women, and 'don't generalise us' men !.

    Somehow this policeman has turned into the bad guy here, not the killer. In my view, that's ridiculous.

    Alert moderator

    • Aven:

      20 Mar 2015 2:41:16pm

      The author herself says "I have no qualms with individual women taking personal measures to feel safe." Yet if an authority figure gives the same message it's victim blaming.

      The author should have been more explicit and said:

      "All individuals should take personal measures to feel safe" - non-gender and good advice.

      Alert moderator

    • Ann:

      20 Mar 2015 2:59:13pm

      "But imagine if someone did say "Women be very careful who you live with because alot of men beat their partners."

      I wish more people would say that. Or how about "Even if you love someone they may not be suitable to have a long-term relationship with" or even better "For goodness sake use birth control you ninnies. You never have to remember to put on or take an IUD".

      Alert moderator

      • whogoesthere:

        20 Mar 2015 3:58:54pm

        I wish more people said those things too. But if they did people like the author would have a fit and say it's 'victim blaming'.

        Alert moderator

  • VoR:

    20 Mar 2015 9:10:46am

    Cue the Park Walk counter-attack. Hordes of women and supportive men gather to walk through our parks alone. Wait ...

    It must have been a bad day when warning "people, particularly females" not to go alone in parks makes you angry.

    Alert moderator

  • Kevin:

    20 Mar 2015 9:10:55am

    You know in Japan it is completely safe to walk the streets @ 3am if your a woman, man or child. Maybe we should be looking to Japan rather than the U.S. or U.K to see what they do, as it works.

    Alert moderator

    • Ann:

      20 Mar 2015 3:01:16pm

      Well, I think that's a hearty dose of huge cultural and social pressure to conform to an expected standard, the pressure of which squeezes out many failures who are shunted to the side of society and mocked.

      Also almost complete cultural homogeneity of the population and their life paths.

      Alert moderator

  • awake:

    20 Mar 2015 9:17:21am

    This is a silly argument. Why walk in a dark park, go to the bad end of town (whatever that is), walk across railroad tracks.

    Surely all of us must take some responsibility for our own safety. Feminists can talk up this till the cows come home, however nothing will stop someone with severe mental health issues carrying out their will.

    Who would be a Policeman/woman dammed if you do and dammed if you don't and just as likely to be shot anyway.

    Alert moderator

  • rusty:

    20 Mar 2015 9:22:49am

    Face it - men, no matter how they pretend, are just rapacious brutes with no self control; poor beasts little better than the lower animals. We must not expect them to change, cos it's in just in their nature to be unable to control their instinctive and violent need to dominate. This is just reality.

    Women, as the higher form of life, need always to regulate their behaviour so as not to in any form or manner impinge, manipulate or otherwise, curtail the natural behaviours of the male in the wild (ie. parks, dark streets, private homes).

    In the case of more extreme forms of male behaviour, I suggest castration would be a kindness to all concerned.

    Alert moderator

    • Erica M:

      20 Mar 2015 9:53:34am

      Ah, I see that you've fully adopted the message of third-wave feminism, tumblr would be proud of you.

      Alert moderator

    • leafygreens:

      20 Mar 2015 12:25:28pm

      sadly in large parts of the world everything you have said is actually believed and would be a reason why a woman raped in broad daylight in a public place would then either be arrested and punished by the authorities, or killed by her male relatives, or cast out and shamed by both genders in her community.

      There was a recent case in Tas of a woman's persistent stalker getting off because 'culturally' he didn't 'understand' it was wrong...

      of course criminals shouldn't break the law in the first place, but the reality is more complex.

      Alert moderator

    • Ann:

      20 Mar 2015 3:02:23pm

      "I suggest castration would be a kindness to all concerned"

      We already chemically castrate some sex offenders. Perhaps it should be rolled out on a wider scale... for both genders.

      Alert moderator

  • Flint Mint:

    20 Mar 2015 9:25:21am

    I wouldn't listen to what an American constable says anyways. What he was saying I think is there are sick males that cannot control there sexual urges and become animals when they see a girl in a short skirt and top, does this justify there actions hell no. But because we as a society know these sick people are out there it is our personal obligation to ensure that we manage this risk and stop ourselves from being in these situations either by covering up or avoiding a certain area all together. The Aussie cop was saying its safer to travel in groups to prevent being attacked in this manner. If there is a real man in the area when this happens I can guarantee that they would do there best to stop it.

    Alert moderator

    • Jane E:

      20 Mar 2015 11:23:22am

      Actually - this is rarely about men who can't control their sex urges. It's about people who chose to kill. It's about power, disrespect, sometimes hatred, sometimes jealousy etc. Sometimes a person has mental illness - but that doesn't mean they didn't choose to commit a crime. Sometimes it's done to 'be somebody' - like a naughty child wants attention and if they can't get good attention, see how disruptive they can be and all the attention they can attract. (Not saying the killer is a naughty child).

      The real problem is that society, juries etc are often completely comfortable with their own narrow and uneducated view and would rather believe 'she provoked him' than the violence was the choice of the perpetrator, and it wasn't her clothes that excited his crime.

      This is not at all the same as the comment about women think they should't have to obey self-protection good sense. Rubbish, we think about it every day. But we do question why it is so?

      And Flint Mint, sadly the speed with which such 'attack and run' crimes are committed would make it hard for a real man - whatever that is supposed to be - to stop it. That used to be true but even real men fear the consequences to themselves for intervening these days.

      The saddest thing about these conversations is the apparent difficulty anti-feminists have in just looking at the facts (as we are fed) about this case, and these circumstances, but are keen to blame all women for having rights.

      Alert moderator

      • Curious party:

        20 Mar 2015 12:47:04pm

        "this is rarely about men who can't control their sex urges."

        Actually, this is about men who have very strong sexual urges as well as a bunch of other things (hatred, disrespect, lack of empathy, anger, poor emotional regulation, propensity towards physical responses to emotions etc etc). The line that rape isn't about sex is a falsehood. We know from research into rapists that they have typically had a higher sex drive. Rape is about sex, but it isn't JUST about sex. (I realise that you weren't necessarily disagreeing with my point btw).

        "we think about it every day. But we do question why it is so?"

        We all have to think about our personal safety. Its not just women. Luckily, the low prevalence of these sorts of attacks (per our population) means that we don't have to think about our personal safety all the time.

        You are right that having a man with her wouldn't necessarily have helped though - he had a knife after all. That just goes to show that we are never completely safe, although I am still confident that I am safe the majority of the time (if I take the precautions that I judge to be appropriate for the setting).

        Alert moderator

  • Freddie Frog:

    20 Mar 2015 9:26:19am

    Why is the principles of risk minimization so hard for feminists to understand?

    It's not a women's issue and police and authority figures use it all the time for any number of crimes.

    I personally got a neighbourhood watch newsletter yesterday. They told me to make sure I check Windows and doors before going on holiday and make sure someone picks up my mail so I can lessen the chance of burglary. How dare they victim blame like that, I'm outraged.

    Alert moderator

    • Calypso:

      20 Mar 2015 9:54:55am

      "Why (are) the principles of risk management so difficult for feminists to understand?"

      They aren't. They're difficult for Lauren to understand and she neither represents feminists or women, only herself.

      Alert moderator

      • Freddie Frog:

        20 Mar 2015 2:39:45pm

        OK,
        I'll retract.

        Why are those principles so hard to understand for a large proportion of feminists and in particular a large number of feminsts who are very vocal and get published in various mainstream media.

        Alert moderator

        • Calypso:

          20 Mar 2015 3:26:23pm

          My guess? They're trying to make a career out of it. I am reminded often of The Simpsons episode where the psychiatrist explains to Marge and Homer that Bart doesn't care whether he gets good attention or bad attention, just so long as he gets attention.

          Alert moderator

    • blax5:

      20 Mar 2015 11:03:01am

      What is hard to understand is how it has all changed. When I was a teenager I travelled all over West Berlin by public transport, including evenings and never saw an incident. Even 20 years ago I heard from Germany that, in villages especially, no woman can leave her house after dark for fear of rape, robbery, or worse. In Japan you can still do it, apparently and yes, we should look at what they do differently.

      Having said this, the principle of not advertising what's not for sale is a good one.

      Alert moderator

      • Ashigaru:

        20 Mar 2015 4:51:29pm

        blax5, what they do differently is have a culture where people are encouraged to think of the community, and others in general, rather than the western cult of individualism and selfishness.

        Alert moderator

  • Ben Nallay:

    20 Mar 2015 9:26:48am

    "I suggest to people, particularly females, they shouldn't be alone in parks."

    Cheer up Lauren, he wasn't talking to you. You can go walk in the park at night alone if you still want to.

    Alert moderator

  • ptb:

    20 Mar 2015 9:31:33am

    There are bad men in society. Always have been, always will be. Suggesting means of avoiding them attacking you is no more 'victim blaming' than suggesting it's a bad idea to leave your smartphone on the front seat of an unlocked car at the shopping centre carpark.

    Also just because Problem A is worse than Problem B, doesn't mean that it's wrong to suggest means of lessening Problem B.

    Alert moderator

    • Floyd Fan:

      20 Mar 2015 9:59:46am

      Spot on ptb. One issue will always be more serious than another but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't give attention to any 'lesser' issue.

      Alert moderator

  • Edward:

    20 Mar 2015 9:31:40am

    I think it's very easy to take the moral high ground.

    Unfortunately we lose sight of the fact that the police see the worst of society and their views will adjust accordingly. I wonder for instance how often an officer says to themselves "if only such and such had..."

    Sometimes we just need to accept the advice for what it is, well intentioned. I know someone who was a policeman and he had a certain approach to advice on personal security and I often thought he was going overboard. I can understand, however, where he was coming from, that it's better to err on the side of caution than to live with regret.

    Alert moderator

  • AJS:

    20 Mar 2015 9:36:46am

    Whilst holidaying in San Francisco, my wife and I asked a policeman if it was ok to walk from point A back to our hotel. He asked if we were armed - we replied no. 'Then don't' was his quick response.

    Whilst we were considering his advice, the policeman hailed a taxi, opened the door and said have a good night.

    I now thank him for his advice and good judgement - we are alive and well.

    Lauren - My wife and I had to adjust my behaviour because quite simply there are bad people out there.

    Alert moderator

    • Clicko de le Roboto:

      20 Mar 2015 4:21:50pm

      Years ago two male friends of mine went to Dallas (maybe Houston) for the Superbowl. The friend they were staying with worked during the day so they decided to go out and look around.

      As they were walking down the street, which they noticed was eerily deserted, a cop stopped them and asked if they were from "around here". When they told him no, he pointed to a high board fence and said "well just behind that fence are some really bad dudes, get in and I'll take you to a bus stop". They weren't offended.

      Alert moderator

  • stu:

    20 Mar 2015 9:44:18am

    The irony with many of these articles that the most common group to be a victim of a violent attack/murder are actually young men between the ages of 18 and 21. If an authority figure was to tell young men to be careful and avoid certain behaviours that could be encourage attacks we would all say "yeah duh" but if its the same advice to women quick everybody climb on your discrimination high horse...hyahh!!!

    Alert moderator

  • anote:

    20 Mar 2015 9:46:08am

    While I am not an expert there is a law of the sea that was more reasonably treated. It is to give way to starboard (give way to the right).

    However, little boats simply stay out of the way of big boats. It's sensible.

    While Rosewarne has a very good point she has gone well beyond what is reasonable to make it a universal truth.

    Don't let the fact that the ocean has sharks stop you from going into the ocean but don't go where you know it is infested with sharks; especially looking like a seal.

    Alert moderator

  • Gordon:

    20 Mar 2015 9:50:08am

    For the record, people should be able to go about their lives without fear of molestation anytime anywhere, but I was amused by "the myth of the magical properties of clothing". If clothing never elicits an emotional response then about a gazillion dollars spent on fashion is a complete waste of time.

    Alert moderator

  • Rex Der Plaisse:

    20 Mar 2015 9:57:59am

    This commentary is not only stupid, it is actually reprehensibly dangerous. Personal safety has to be assumed as a personal responsibility to an extent. Taking responsibility doesn't mean that the victim is to BLAME if anything goes wrong. This is Thinking 101. I guess the author would also think it is rational for a cyclist to not wear a helmet and to hold his cracked head in the gutter while shouting 'I had right of way!'. Sure. But wear a helmet anyway. Same deal for people engaged in other high risk activities such as walking alone at night in secluded places. Some common sense please.

    Alert moderator

  • Redfish:

    20 Mar 2015 10:00:02am

    Wow talk about a large chip on the shoulder, but hey dont take his advice if it upsets you go walking through as many dark parks as you like.

    Alert moderator

  • Northerner:

    20 Mar 2015 10:03:21am

    Anyone with an ounce of decency would agree that in an ideal world all women (and men) should be able to walk anywhere, at any time, without fear of attack.

    Anyone with an ounce of common sense would agree that in our present (real) world it is not wise for women (or men) to walk alone in certain places at certain times.

    Dr Rosewarne takes offence at an informed public figure, with the public's interests in mind, offering this piece of advice.

    She accepts some precautionary measure are a good idea. Then she says, "I have, however, a deluge of qualms with the state recommending such moves."

    My question is this: What is the (real) world coming to when it is considered inappropriate and unacceptable, as they say, for the state to utter what we are all allowed to think - and is manifestly common sense?

    Alert moderator

    • Calypso:

      20 Mar 2015 3:24:26pm

      While a common sense defense always makes me leery, I agree with the distinctions you make about an ideal world and the real world. The way we should be able to live our lives is one thing, the way we do live our lives is another.

      Alert moderator

  • Marcus:

    20 Mar 2015 10:05:32am

    Great article, I have sent copies to my nieces.
    I was particular outraged by this crime as. We should be able to use our public places especially parks like , whenever! Going for a walk in a park should not be seen as risky behaviour .
    This murderer guy, seems he should have been in jail , what is wrong with the police?
    And why do we have we put up with the blame the victim crap.

    Alert moderator

    • terry:

      20 Mar 2015 10:18:26am

      The police don't put people in jail, do they? The courts do.

      Alert moderator

    • phil:

      20 Mar 2015 10:50:30am

      Go spend some time in a long stay cheap caravan park
      And take a good long look at what is roaming our streets
      on the outer edges of our society .The same freedoms of
      movement you demand also apply to them.
      How exactly do we restrict their rights without restricting
      our own. The police for the most part can only act after
      the event .They are not clairvoyant

      Alert moderator

      • Curious party:

        20 Mar 2015 12:49:05pm

        Moreover, the police SHOULD only be able to act after the event. Punishment should follow the crime not precede it.

        Alert moderator

        • phil:

          20 Mar 2015 2:08:29pm

          The ability for those with possibly dangerous mental health issues
          to be restrained have lessened in previous decades some may say
          for human rights issues a ,cynic may say for budgetary considerations.
          Likewise the ability to lock people up for public drunkeness .
          In some areas where alcohol violence is rampant ie indigenous communities
          it makes more sense to isolate the drunks rather than the victims
          The pension day drunk may be a bit less appealing spent in lock up
          Rather than the wife and kids having to flee to the nearest shelter.
          Likewise far more attention should paid to the families of the mentally
          ill who are mostly the first ones to notice a change in behaviour or
          possibly a failure to take medication, and the laws changed to make
          it easier for the authorities to act

          Alert moderator

    • Xx:

      20 Mar 2015 6:19:31pm

      Walking in a park should be safe. Sometimes it's not.

      We must always be fully aware and vigilant of our surroundings. You certainly should not walk alone in deserted areas.

      I say this from bitter experience. I wish someone had made me aware of the deviant underbelly that needs to be avoided in our society, perhaps I wouldn't be the psychologically scarred woman I am 20 years later.

      It's not victim blaming, the police asking women to take care. It's much much better to change behaviour than to become a victim.

      Now go and tell your nieces that.

      Alert moderator

  • God:

    20 Mar 2015 10:06:38am

    I love these women who are so hard done by because of their gender, yet are doctors and lawyers (clearly you probably shouldnt be, because you are clearly biased).

    YOU make women look bad by being petty.

    A girl has been murdered and YOU turn it into a discrimination issue, YOU'RE the sexist, YOU are the problem with equality.

    Alert moderator

  • Calypso:

    20 Mar 2015 10:07:04am

    Lauren, your objections are ridiculous, shrill and perverse. A policeman, who very likely was asked a question we didn't get to hear along the lines of "what can women do to keep themselves safe?" responded with a couple of helpful suggestions along those lines. He neither blamed women or victims or put the onus on us to take responsibility for the actions of others. In fact, he very pointedly said that the victim wearing headphones should not be considered a factor in her misfortune; that we all should be able to do that. He also said that we SHOULD be able to live our lives as we please, but really, Lauren, you already know that none of us get to do that, male or female, child or adult, we all have to look out for ourselves.

    Further, at the time of making those suggestions, the accused murderer had not been found, and the homicide detective, having taken a look at the crime scene, had expressed his feeling that the perpetrator had deliberately chosen that park as the venue for his crime - therefore yes, until he was found parks in general were very much "the bogeyman."

    Lastly, could you take a moment to consider that the homicide detective in this case is a human being with feelings. He has to bear witness to horrors you will never have to cast an eye on, Lauren, so maybe, just maybe, you could give him the benefit of the doubt instead of accusing him of women hating or victim blaming or whatever label you wish to assign him to while demanding complete freedom from judgement yourself. Maybe it is not unthinkable that someone who looks upon those horrors every day may desperately wish for people to find ways to support their own safety.

    Alert moderator

    • MD:

      20 Mar 2015 1:41:44pm

      I am with Calypso here. I wonder what Lauren's reaction to the same comment made by a policewoman would be?

      The police have to do many things which ordinary citizens like Dr Rosewarne are spared. One of those things is to deal with dead bodies.

      It's one of those things most people don't like to think about but that somebody has got to do. Some of those dead bodies belong to victims of violent crime. Some of them are women, more often they are young men. Many more people are savagely bashed, stabbed, glassed, shot or raped and again it is the police who are in the front line having to deal with this, both victims and perpetrators. I have had some dealings with this, although not in the same front line way as the police do, and I can assure you that it is a most unpleasant and emotionally traumatic experience. Another thing the police have to do is to inform the victim's family of their loved one's fate. I can think of few harder things to have to do.

      Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I am inclined to cut the police a bit of slack when they are asked to comment on yet another hapless victim of yet another gruesome violent act carried out by yet another vicious cowardly grub. What on earth do you expect them to say? Hey guys, it's cool, it's all the grub's fault just carry on and don't give it another thought? I don't think so. The last thing they are trying to do is "blame the victim". For heaven's sakes they are just hoping to lessen the chances of the same thing happening to someone else. Duh!

      Alert moderator

      • Calypso:

        20 Mar 2015 3:21:57pm

        I'm with you also, MD. Detective Hughes made a specific response to a specific crime. It was not his intention to issue any sort of dissertation on whether strangers or associates are the greater source of violence against women.

        Alert moderator

  • Wabunda:

    20 Mar 2015 10:07:39am

    I've been followed in broad daylight 11.00am, all it took was making a phone call and the guy turned around and was gone, so I have learned also not to go walking even with my purse exposed (held in hand).

    Unfortunate things happen, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Nothing wrong with a bit of sound advice, don't go into parks at night by yourself, unless you are a very aware person and can defend yourself.

    I sit quietly along the river at night by myself, I like it because its serene after working in the city all day, it's my sanctuary and no one not even some lunatic will scare me from my piece of peace.

    I've been sitting in quiet spots at night by myself for nearly 20yrs now, the only time I was approached very closely was at 6.00am in the morning not far from a casino going for a walk as the sun was rising, I deflected it by walking towards him asking why are you following me, he said he just got out of jail and wants some sex, I said well this is not the right way to go about it, yes I was lucky that he listened to what I had to say, I reported the incident and hoped that the next girl going on a walk at 6am in the morn was just as quick thinking and reacting as I was, you gotta be a bit switched on when you're out amongst the so called living, regardless of being a woman or man.

    Alert moderator

    • Pedant:

      20 Mar 2015 1:20:45pm

      "6.00am in the morning"

      As opposed to 6.00am at night?

      Alert moderator

  • paul:

    20 Mar 2015 10:10:20am

    "Women are more likely to be raped, beaten and murdered by their partner than by any bogeyman lurking in the shrubbery"

    Correct, according to my 5 second internet research - but one website suggested 1/3 rapes are committed by a non-stranger (random). To me that is still a very high % and I think you are underestimating a very serious problem - The police have every right to alert women that unfortunately there are bogeyman out there and they should take sensible precautions.

    Alert moderator

    • leafygreens:

      20 Mar 2015 12:41:34pm

      Personally, I know my 'chance' of being raped, beaten and murdered by my partner is far less than that of a random attack on the street.

      So it makes sense to minimise the risk of being the one the random attacker chooses.

      A real total nutter on a rampa (male or female) will always pick the first one they find regardless, but most other have a way of picking a victim.. just like a predator cuts the weak and most likely to make an easy meal of, out of the herd, I don't intend to be the stray and helpless looking one...

      Alert moderator

      • Curious party:

        20 Mar 2015 2:06:37pm

        There is a logical error in using descriptive statistics as predictive ones. The fact that a given percentage of people are attacked by their partners doesn't mean that the likelihood of an individual being attacked by their partner is that same percentage.

        The likelihood of an individual being attacked is not affected by the number of other individuals who were. It is only affected by the circumstances directly related to that individual (ie personal characteristics of the partner).

        Alert moderator

      • Curious party:

        20 Mar 2015 2:07:08pm

        There is a logical error in using descriptive statistics as predictive ones. The fact that a given percentage of people are attacked by their partners doesn't mean that the likelihood of an individual being attacked by their partner is that same percentage.

        The likelihood of an individual being attacked is not affected by the number of other individuals who were. It is only affected by the circumstances directly related to that individual (ie personal characteristics of the partner).

        Alert moderator

  • Dr Reg:

    20 Mar 2015 10:12:07am

    Oh, God forbid! I am sure the vast majority of women would think it was only sensible, well-intentioned advice; and, moreover, would follow in their own action by heeding that advice. And, not give a moment's notice to thinking they were any less feminist or being patronised by avoiding going into parks alone.
    The author seems to want to get into print at any cost. Please, you are not doing your cause any favours.

    Alert moderator

  • foolking:

    20 Mar 2015 10:15:58am

    With a never ending nightly smorgasbord of how to murder a normalisation of fear and violence has inevitably emerged .

    Top this up with a daily serve of killing human images and other stuff for hours each day,and there you have it, the perfect storm.

    The practical advise from the local police officer is an absurdity, but to blame him directly is pressing the atom bomb [button 'd'] on your computer game .

    We don't have to be the US,we should just sample the worthwhile stuff they do. The studies that say these things are harmless are concocted rubbish.

    When I was a kid it was shoot the Nazi's Japanese and Indians, shooting Aborigines was a little too close to home,..

    All the opposite of what religion stands for.. but tolerated.

    Yes there is a childhood need to play act out scenario's but surely we could be a little more intelligent about what this is actually doing to a formative and adult mind and take it from there.

    I can't wait till the world develops past this folly, but I have to, another Don Quixote moment, what a week.

    Alert moderator

  • Mark:

    20 Mar 2015 10:21:07am

    OK, you can respond to this advice with a gratuitous feminist diatribe, or you can accept it as wise and well-intentioned counsel from someone who knows about safety in public places.

    DI Hughes was clearly giving advice from his experience of how things are, not how they should be - any other message coming from someone in his position would be negligent. Police also tell us to lock our cars and houses - should we tolerate that sort of victim-blaming?

    Even Constable Sanguinetti's advice wasn't as bad as it was disrespectfully delivered. He deserved to be pilloried for the latter, but not so much for the former.

    Telling us all that violence against women is unacceptable is not going to have any impact on the sort of man who murdered Ms Vukotic.

    Alert moderator

  • CJ22:

    20 Mar 2015 10:24:28am

    I in no way infer from the advice given that this female or any others suffering the same fate are in any way responsible for their deaths. This is one of many tragedies that happen. The only person responsible is the criminal. Having said that, I justifiably advise my 20 something daughter to avoid being alone in places where these types of criminals are more likely to be. I would be remiss as a father if I didn't do that.

    Alert moderator

  • Gordon:

    20 Mar 2015 10:33:01am

    The false dichotomy is annoying. No-one in this horrible case would conceivably mean to blame the victim. The victim was an innocent person taking a walk. It is perfectly possible to recognise the responsibility of the perpetrator while at the same time understanding what is and is not recommended behaviour under certain circumstances.

    We also can work toward extending the safety of people in all circumstances, like we have so successfully with workplace safety. We have said that going to work SHOULD be safe, and we have gone on to make it largely so by addressing all aspects of risk objectively. Going for a walk SHOULD be safe. Let's work at making it so with all the means at our disposal.

    Alert moderator

  • saline:

    20 Mar 2015 10:34:37am

    Anyone can meet the 'wrong' person at the 'wrong' time and can't defend themselves.

    Expect it? That's the problem, you don't expect it.

    I don't see much value in any new laws, except for one. That is some extreme penalty should be imposed on any policeperson who deals with an AVO offender lightly, or dismisses the need to deal with an AVO offender immediately. And that law could be named for Rosie's son.

    You can lock windows and doors and they can take the tiles off the roof. They can kick walls in. You can hire bodyguards and they'll wait in the washrooms.

    They hide in crowds and that's where I've be assaulted. Witnesses see these things happen and won't come forward, not out of fear mostly, but "What's in it for me?" They are complicit.

    Laws to punish a perpetrator change nothing. A villain never contemplates failure, only success.

    Alert moderator

  • Conservative :

    20 Mar 2015 10:40:43am

    Most of my female friends walk alone late at night. I tell them I can give them a lift but they refuse. Silly women!

    Alert moderator

  • saline:

    20 Mar 2015 10:43:23am

    Why blame men for all attacks?

    Women attack people, mainly children, too.

    We need to use the collective noun, 'people'.

    Alert moderator

  • Modus:

    20 Mar 2015 10:44:57am

    'After the murder of teenager Masa Vukotic, a police officer suggested women shouldn't be alone in parks. Once again women were being told.....'

    The police can not protect every one 24/7. At some point you must take responsibility for reality as it is.

    You want 24/7 protection, you can pay for it. You don't like that nasty man punching you back then leave or stop throwing knives.

    Mental health system failure all round is obvious, includes the selective outrage lobbyist industry.

    Alert moderator

  • mike j:

    20 Mar 2015 10:47:57am

    The dust hasn't even settled on this crime and Lauren Rosewarne has already decided the issue here is gender, as is using this woman's death to flog her female victim worldview which rejects the proposition that women should have any personal responsibility for their own actions.

    I guess Lauren doesn't want to be seen to be responsible for the articles that she writes. I can't say that I blame her.

    Alert moderator

  • Relax Now:

    20 Mar 2015 10:48:30am



    Too early for this article, perhaps a weak later would be better.

    Alert moderator

    • Curious party:

      20 Mar 2015 2:08:17pm

      It was already weak enough!

      Alert moderator

  • The Thinker:

    20 Mar 2015 10:50:05am

    O my God, this is taking the extreme feminist ideology into a new area.
    When police suggest to men they avoid walking in Kings Cross in narrow laneways in the early morning hours, I thought "Yep, that makes sense".
    Imagine if the police had said to Lauren. "We suggest all women walk alone at dusk in dimly lit suburban parks. This will show potential predators that they can't win"

    Alert moderator

  • fi:

    20 Mar 2015 11:14:12am

    I like many nurses work shifts and have to walk around in the public space at night. We have not choice. If I was attacked would the public blame me. I cannot afford the parking in the city. Confining women is just not realistic.

    Alert moderator

    • Curious party:

      20 Mar 2015 2:11:08pm

      No, people wouldn't blame you, just like noone here is blaming the girl. The suggestion is to avoid walking alone in dangerous places if you can avoid it.

      What you are describing is a serious safety issue and something that should be taken up with management.

      Alert moderator

  • BT:

    20 Mar 2015 11:25:28am

    Please stop blaming the policeman, he is giving sensible advice, the sort that I'd give to my daughter. Yes, violence against women is appalling but that is a societal problem which we collectively must try to fix, the nice policeman can't fix it, he just has to deal with the consequences of the problem, hence his advice.

    Alert moderator

  • William Smith:

    20 Mar 2015 11:25:59am

    According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication "Personal Safety, Australia, 2012", women in Australia experienced violence (i.e. physical or sexual assault or threat) during the previous 12 months at the hands of the following numbers of perpetrators:

    Stranger: 148,800
    Partner (current or previous): 132,500
    Boyfriend, girlfriend or date: 68,700
    Other known person: 170,800

    Other known persons include parents, children, siblings, friends, acquaintances, neighbours, employers and co-workers. Here are the equivalent numbers for men:

    Stranger: 497,800
    Partner (current or previous): 51,800
    Boyfriend, girlfriend or date: 26,600
    Other known person: 272,100

    The most striking thing about these numbers is the chasm between men and women's experience of violence in Australia. Men are substantially more likely to be the victims of violence in Australian society.

    According to Lauren Rosewarne: "Women are more likely to be raped, beaten and murdered by their partner than by any bogeyman lurking in the shrubbery." However these numbers indicate that women are more likely to experience violence at the hands of strangers than current or previous partners. If boyfriends, girlfriends and dates are included as "partners", this situation does change, but the number of women who experience violence at the hands of strangers is still large: 148,000 compared to 201,200 for current or previous partners, boyfriends, girlfriends or dates. (These numbers are large, but they are completely dwarfed by the number of men who experience violence at the hands of strangers.)

    Earlier in the week Detective Inspector Mick Hughes said: "I suggest to people, particularly females, they shouldn't be alone in parks". These numbers do raise questions about why Mick Hughes singled out females. After all, males in Australia are hugely more likely to experience violence at the hands of strangers.

    Alert moderator

    • Jehenna:

      20 Mar 2015 5:06:27pm

      And here you have highlighted the basis of the author's concern.

      Women are far more likely to be assaulted by someone they know, and yet the advice is that we should be fearing strangers - which acts to keep women under control and out of public spaces. And coincidentally, keep them at home where they are at far greater risk of harm.

      So why is it, that when something like this happens, which no matter how dreadful, is not anywhere near as common as domestic violence, the emphasis and advice that is trotted out is that women should avoid public places when alone?

      Surely men are at far greater risk given the much higher likelihood of assault by strangers, and yet there is a dearth of advice handed out to men to not go out alone.

      Alert moderator

  • Jerry Attrick:

    20 Mar 2015 11:30:58am

    Have to agree. Making the assault of women a special case for women to take more care does assume that there is an expectation of their greater vulnerability. However, I believe it is unhelpful to make this a gender vs gender matter.
    According the the Australia Bureau of Statistics: "Males were more likely than females to have been physically assaulted by strangers (52% compared with 21%) and people known by sight only (8% compared with 2%).
    Females were more likely than males to have been physically assaulted by someone they know (80% compared with 47%). For females who experienced physical assault in the twelve months prior to interview, intimate partners (25%) and family members (19%) were the most common offender type." Do these figures reflect a greater confidence among men that they can deal with an assault?
    With advancing age I'm increasingly aware that walking through places that offer easy hiding places is not a smart thing to do if there is not a reasonably high number of people about. This is based purely on the common sense view that avoiding risk of attack is better than attempting to deal with attack.
    Based on statistics, there should be more frequent advice to both men and women on the subject of guarding their own safety.

    Alert moderator

  • TheJohno:

    20 Mar 2015 11:42:45am

    If I leave my kids in the car on a summers day to run in and get the milk, I am a criminal not a mum with a lot going on.

    If I walk alone, through Kings cross at 3am Sunday morning, wearing a low-cut crop top with a short tight skirt and 4 inch heals, I am a victom not a careless person who should know better.

    No one plans to kill their kids just as no one plans to be assulted and raped / killed! Why can we have legitimate warnings about one topic but dare say anything on the other and we are casting blame upon woman in a degrading way?????

    Please...grow up and you may help your corse one day!

    Alert moderator

  • tonyp:

    20 Mar 2015 11:47:46am

    I think that in this case pointing out that there is only so much protection that can be afforded to a solitary woman in a park is not unreasonable. This is not to excuse in any way the perpetrator, nor does it condone violence toward women, nor does it seek to blame victims for the actions of their attackers.

    It simply points out a prudent counter-measure to reduce risk, especially when a predatory and dangerous perpetrator is known to be active.

    I believe this article to be drawing a rather long bow to ascribe any form of anti-feminist sentiment to this most recent utterance - as I think the author herself realises because rather than focus it in context she attempts to convolve it it with Sanguinetti's odious and ignorant comments. They are separate utterances and just because one is grossly offensive does not mean that anything in the same spectrum must be similarly repugnant.

    Alert moderator

  • Ben:

    20 Mar 2015 11:51:06am

    We need to unequivocally legalise self defense and at very least allow people to carry pepper spray and tasers. Then this would be largely a non issue.

    Alert moderator

    • VoR:

      20 Mar 2015 12:38:14pm

      Yes. Because tasers and pepper-spray would never be used by attackers. That would be unethical.

      Alert moderator

      • Ben:

        20 Mar 2015 1:33:46pm

        They already are, what is your point?

        Alert moderator

        • VoR:

          20 Mar 2015 2:57:25pm

          OK Ben. My point: Weapons that are available for defence can and will be used for offence. Making them illegal will never completely eliminate the latter, but it will minimise it. It also eliminates the risk that someone carrying the weapons purely for self-defence will find themselves in a situation where they yield to temptation to use it for offence.

          But you already knew that.

          Alert moderator

        • Ben:

          20 Mar 2015 3:44:06pm

          Sounds like you are making stuff up. But what should I have expected from someone who would remove the right of women and vulnerable people to defend themselves?

          Alert moderator

        • Sea Monster:

          20 Mar 2015 3:51:18pm

          The arms race element is valid but you've overlooked a much bigger risk. Accidents. Start carrying around weapons and more likely to injure you or someone close than the original threat.

          Alert moderator

        • capwell:

          20 Mar 2015 5:47:44pm

          interesting logic, do you not drive because you might have an accident also?

          Alert moderator

        • Sea Monster:

          20 Mar 2015 7:08:26pm

          I might drive because the increased risk is offset by the increased convenience and efficiency. On the other hand taking safety measures that are more dangerous than the danger you want to avoid...

          Did you know more people are injured learning self defence techniques than are injured in assaults?

          Alert moderator

  • DaveR:

    20 Mar 2015 11:55:44am

    Oh noes! Another attack on feminismism. Lauren, feel free to walk alone through parks, at 2am if you wish. The policeman was suggesting people, in this case women, be careful. He didn't say you can't, he isn't saying it instead of policing, as you snidely imply.

    It's articles like this one that give women's equality a bad name.

    Alert moderator

  • Wow:

    20 Mar 2015 12:11:10pm

    Didn't the Govt or Police recently suggest that those in the armed forces & police should be vigilant in wearing their uniforms because of the security threats?

    This isn't much different, particularly because when the policeman made the statement in Melbourne the offender was still not in custody.

    Maybe he didn't phrase it well, but it was well intended and to advise the public that there was a danger.

    Alert moderator

  • Breach of peace:

    20 Mar 2015 12:16:58pm

    The point is taken concerning the 'attitude' of the 'onus is on THEM to adjust THEIR behaviour." It is wrong to rape anyone whether male or female but surely common sense should prevail! Males do dress far more differently than females for a start. Their is far more exposure from females than their is from males. That is still no excuse to harm another person for their sexual gratification. Usually these rapists have been drinking or are on drugs or both so their conscience is seared...

    Females are the weaker species compared to males in most instances. Unless a female is a black belt in some kind or martial arts and can take on 1-3 males, females or males should not be walking in dimly lit areas by themselves. Today's society male that carries out this terrible deed with brute force is reprehensible and should get the maximum sentence of life with no parole. As a male I have no time or mercy for those that rape women or men and neither should society.

    Bringing this feminist attitude into this post does not help your cause or the cause of women that have been raped or will be raped in the future. There are places in every state that are dangerous to be in unfortunately and the police are obligated to tell you wherever it may be unsafe and unsound through common sense to walk. It is not a perfect world and it never will be. Of course there are some police who go to extremes in their views and they have wandered off their territory and given opinions instead of the facts.

    Yes I agree with you concerning a relationship where the male has beaten and murdered his companion whether married or not. Lastly in South Australia the police were pushing the 'Stranger danger' for several years until the public got fed up with it and wanted a more balanced view as the relations be it a father, step-father, uncle or cousin were sexually abusing the kids instead of a stranger. I think the statistics were one in five.

    Alert moderator

  • Peter of Melbourne:

    20 Mar 2015 12:21:05pm

    any person should be able to walk our streets without fear... this is not a "woman" issue, a "feminist" issue, this is an issue with the breakdown within our society of basic decency for fellow citizens, man, woman or child

    in this case you will find that masa's murderer will be give 20 years with a "non-parole" period of 12 years and if he had not have committed all the following offences in his rampage he would be out walking the streets again in a few short years....

    this is truly a problem in our justice system. people such as this have abrogated all rights to live within our society, whether it be sean price, adrian bayley, ivan milat etc...

    dig a deep bloody hole in the middle of the outback far from all other habitation, line it with cells and then these people need to be incarcerated there with minimal facilities until the day they die. justice served, end of story

    Alert moderator

    • Curious party:

      20 Mar 2015 2:18:17pm

      Its laughable that you think there was a time in human history where we weren't at risk of assault, rape and murder. The breakdown of society? Go research some history. Society has always had questionable morals and this society that you idealise has never existed.

      And by the way, these things were still happening in times when punishments like the one you suggested were actually happening.

      Alert moderator

      • Peter of Melbourne:

        20 Mar 2015 4:22:52pm

        curious

        its laughable that you are attempting to put that viewpoint upon my words. i have made it clear time and again that i accept that humans are animals at heart...

        my views are direct and to the point, i keep it very simple for people such as yourself who have a hard time understanding, and yet here still you have had such a problem *sigh*

        Alert moderator

    • Ben Nallay:

      20 Mar 2015 4:10:47pm

      "people such as this have abrogated all rights to live within our society,"

      These people are the products of our society Peter. It's not something they catch in breastmilk. They're not born with it either, and if they were, then would you blame their mothers or blame their mothers' societies? Every little bad thing in society compounds into certain unlucky clusters, and these snowball into public nuisances right back onto society. We're a lot more civilised than we deserve.

      Alert moderator

      • Peter of Melbourne:

        20 Mar 2015 4:41:36pm

        nope ben

        these people are the ones who have made the decision they do not wish to function in society as all others do

        they make their choices, let them live and die of them.

        Alert moderator

  • Pete:

    20 Mar 2015 12:25:17pm


    Using this young girls terrible death, and the words from the police officer who was dealing with catching the murderer and keeping the comunity safe, as a reason to pull out your victim card and push your feminist agenda is just wrong on so many levels!

    Alert moderator

  • John Brown:

    20 Mar 2015 12:45:38pm

    Why don't you get off your feminist high horse, a young lady was brutally killed and the person speaking those words has had the unfortunate experience of dealing with incidents like this his whole career.
    Show respect for the young lass who has lost her life, not make this into an "us and them" because some cop made a heart felt comment. Grow up.

    Alert moderator

  • Petes Me:

    20 Mar 2015 1:02:47pm

    The police comment and the article in response are both useless
    1. Impossible to police everywhere at all times, if a perp wants to find a victim because he has those thoughts, he will eventually. This was in daylight hours in a park so lets get real. The chances of it happening are tiny but tragic when it does occur.
    2. Not just men that seek to espouse the police POV, "what was she doing there in the first place" is the 1st comment made by many females also.

    Alert moderator

  • drll:

    20 Mar 2015 1:07:20pm

    I do not walk alone in isolated spaces at night.
    I do not enter parks at night.
    I do not wear headphones.
    I am conscious of my surroundings.
    I am vigilant in unfamiliar surroundings.
    I am male.

    Alert moderator

  • Alpo:

    20 Mar 2015 1:09:12pm

    1) The world is very imperfectly designed to adapt to our wishes.
    2) Because of that we have to include the actual working of the world in our decision making.
    3) Delusion, naivity and also ignorance must be avoided if you want to survive in a world that has its independent rules.
    4) Decide on how to behave on the basis of a realistic assumption of how the world works is biologically adaptive.
    5) The world can be changed yes, but it takes time. The world is a bit dumb, you know.
    6) Post-facto, the police and the law step in.

    Stay safe, everybody, and good luck!

    Alert moderator

  • rinaldo:

    20 Mar 2015 1:15:20pm

    Men and women are both victims of random violence. Why not put out a warning to men to not travel alone?

    Alert moderator

    • Clicky The Robot:

      20 Mar 2015 1:52:10pm

      "Why not put out a warning to men to not travel alone?"

      Because nobody cares about them.

      Although I think the word "people" as in...

      "I suggest to people, particularly females, they shouldn't be alone in parks."

      ...does include men. Doesn't it?

      Alert moderator

  • Steven:

    20 Mar 2015 1:15:48pm

    Lauren, you are way off track here. I have three sons and I regularly tell them to be aware of and careful of people when walking or cycling through the suburbs. Does that somehow make me discrimatory? It is just commonsense. That a cop suggests women be careful isn't transferring blame, it is just recognition that our society does contain people who may present a danger. I'd love to have a society where dangerous people weren't present and the advice wasn't necessary, but that isn't what we have.

    I have no respect for men who discriminate against women by sexist remarks, wolf-whistles, paying them less, given them less important jobs, groping etc etc. But very few of those men are ever going to step from that undesirable behaviour to murder. Murders are usually about incredibly deep anger or psychological issues, they are not driven by a discrimatory sense that "you just aren't as good or as deserving as me".

    Alert moderator

  • Cobbler:

    20 Mar 2015 1:37:20pm

    I'm really starting to think that 'Risk Assessment' should be taught at school so people actually know what it is.

    No-one is excusing murderers who murder strangers in parks. I can safely say that we're all (including men) opposed to it. Quote strongly in fact.

    What's more is that I'm also pretty confident that we all know that it's wrong too and that you will go to gaol for the rest of your life for doing it to. So what's with the constant inference that the patriachy needs to do something to make it go away. Sorry but some people are just crazy. There's not much we can do about it.

    Unfortunately though I can see some of those (/sigh) issues that keep cropping up coming out of the few recent cases of violence against women. No doubt the police will go to the guys house and find an old Xbox 360 and a copy of 'GTA: San Andreas' and this will become an issue of games and movies that appeal to men being the problem, because we all know that violence against women started in the 1980s and only exists in the 1st world........... Sarkeesian will get another $200k to make 3 you-tube videos about some bollocks that she made up, she'll cop a few anonomous threats from the internet, which is such a charming and peaceful place, and everyone will jump to her defence and continue to guilt men for having penises and liking things that correspond to how evolution has shaped us over the past million years.

    Seriously, can we just accept that sometimes thinking about our safety in relation to the activities we do is just a good idea?

    Alert moderator

    • Curious party:

      20 Mar 2015 2:20:20pm

      Bit of a long-bow to pull in the 'Gamergate' crap. Just let it go buddy.

      Agreed re risk assessments though.

      Alert moderator

  • washingline:

    20 Mar 2015 1:44:44pm

    So in the meantime while we're waiting for attitudes to change we should brazenly walk in parks alone? Just so the author can score one for her board? Get raped and stabbed, but hey, we're sticking it to the man. She can volunteer.

    Alert moderator

  • Petronious:

    20 Mar 2015 1:46:21pm

    The elephant in the room is that Australia has a high proportion of migrants whose attitude and religious views of women are that they are chattels to be used. No one it seems wants to mention this. In their own countries, women are never safe walking alone or are forbidden by their religious beliefs to do so without a chaperone. To see them doing so here is an unbearable provocation.

    Alert moderator

    • Curious party:

      20 Mar 2015 2:31:38pm

      According to the ABS:
      90.8% of the country has Anglosaxon or Australian background.
      There are no 'Islamic'* countries in the top 10 countries that Australians claim ancestry from.

      In terms of religious affiliations:
      61.1% are Christian
      2.2% are Islamic*

      What was this you were saying about a "high proportion of migrants whose attitude and religious views of women are that they are chattels to be used"? Were you referring to the Anglosaxon migrants whose Christian views make them think women are chattels?

      *Note: I inferred from experience with this sort of argument that you are a Christian Islamophobe and thus I tailored my response to draw your attention to your misapprehensions.

      Alert moderator

      • mike j:

        20 Mar 2015 4:18:07pm

        "90.8% of the country has Anglosaxon or Australian background."

        That's a bit broad, really. Even if you defined things like 'Australian background' and 'Islamic countries', these are unrelated categories.

        It's like saying "at least 95% of women enjoy man-bashing or shopping".

        Alert moderator

      • Peter of Melbourne:

        20 Mar 2015 4:54:18pm

        ahhh curious

        from what i have seen 90.8% of all your statistics exist only in some little weirdly defined fantasy land which is only accessible to yourself.

        provide your proof with a link to the abs data because as i can see from the abs they have no data which correlates to this, another of your unsubstantiated claims

        Alert moderator

    • Erika:

      20 Mar 2015 2:41:24pm

      Yeah, "Sean Price" is a very common name in the middle East and Afghanistan and Pakistan.

      Alert moderator

  • Fiona:

    20 Mar 2015 1:46:54pm

    Sad but true, the onus is on women to protect themselves as the Australian Justice System sure doesn't do it.

    Thank you to the police officer gave the warning, he is only stating the truth. This officer knows that dangerous people are slipping through the system and back onto the streets. Its a sad FACT.

    I really feel for the police who do fantastic work trying to catch these people, who should never be let out to hurt us again, only for the courts to put them back into circulation to re offend, it must be so disheartening.

    Alert moderator

    • Pete:

      20 Mar 2015 2:14:55pm


      Well said Fiona,

      DI Hughes has a lot of experience in cases like these, so his advise doesn't come lightly.

      Its hard to imagine the stress on police when dealing with a case such as this, they are all human after all.

      The justice system needs to be overhauled, I am not aware if this particular murderer was a repeat offender, but in cases like Jill Meagher and many others they were.

      How many more innocents need to be killed before there is change?

      Alert moderator

  • Julie:

    20 Mar 2015 1:57:16pm

    Yes, women do get raped and beaten, crimes against women do happen and to suggest that the police should only apprehend the perpetrators is ridiculous. After having seen a few murders, rapes and bashing, I believe they should warn people about safety.
    Yes we all have a right to go where we want and when we like, but there are still some evil people out there who will take advantage of that.

    Alert moderator

  • Palleycat:

    20 Mar 2015 2:11:10pm

    I am the same as dril.

    Before I go to anywhere overseas I read the DFAT website about local risks, and the Lonely Planet guide on the same topic. Often they warn against certain places, suburbs, times, etc. I have never realized that I was being blamed as a possible victim. I thought that I was seeking and getting good advice. And even after reading this article, I will continue to seek it and follow it. I value my personal safety too much not to.

    Alert moderator

  • Julie:

    20 Mar 2015 2:25:06pm

    Why does a newspaper print such a stupid article?

    Alert moderator

  • GarthM:

    20 Mar 2015 2:25:37pm

    it's about time.
    I agree completely. Good advice on safety is given purely for the reason of looking after oneself.

    Alert moderator

  • mike2:

    20 Mar 2015 2:32:47pm

    and if this writer got herself in to trouble by walking were she was advised not too she would scream blue murder if the police did not arrive within 30 seconds,these man haters dont seem to understand the reality that ours is not a perfect world,nor will it ever be and life just aint fair,just ask any male worker in a company that has not filled its quota of womans promotions

    Alert moderator

  • CJD:

    20 Mar 2015 2:41:10pm


    For me, it all leads to questions around how to nurture and create a less violent society yes one which is remains able able to defend itself where necessary? And this, of course, has pertinence in specific individual circumstances as well as social and global situations.

    I grieve for Masa and her family.

    Alert moderator

    • CJD:

      20 Mar 2015 5:09:51pm


      I think there's a typo-gremlin in the system today!

      Alert moderator

  • Chillax69:

    20 Mar 2015 2:46:42pm

    I'm male, 6"2', 96 kg and trained in self defence. I'm careful where I walk and take notice of police information about areas of concern. Has nothing to do with sexism. Think it's called intelligence.

    Alert moderator

  • foxlike:

    20 Mar 2015 2:51:16pm

    So informative reading all the comments that spew contempt for both the writer of this piece and her basic message: all of you supporting the police in blaming women for acting like free citizens, and most of you doing so because the writer is a feminist (a person who supports women's right to self-determination, not so very weird really).

    Actually the article is not about men, although it is almost exclusively men who are responsible for violence against women.

    I have never heard police caution men about going out at night, alone or otherwise, because of the chance that they will be attacked. If you can read, however, you will know that this in fact happens every week somewhere in Australia. The 'one-punch' attack is common enough to have merited it's own legislation.

    The very idea that men's freedom to do as they wish should be voluntarily curtailed or that they should be blamed for being where they were without the protection of someone else, would bring howls of outrage!

    Well, these are just the howls of outrage by women - feminists yet!!. Get used to the fact, we are here to stay.

    Alert moderator

    • Cobbler:

      20 Mar 2015 3:27:29pm

      What are you talking about Foxlike?

      No-one is blaming the victim here, no-one. Not one comment that she deserves it as far as I can see, but then again I think your feminist rage would have engaged regardless of whether you read them or not.

      You know all businesses and organisations conduct risk assessments to minimise their losses. It's called common sense. You identify what might happen and act to mitigate it. It's actually one of the strongest tools in promoting feminist issues in workplaces, much more than your shrill cries. Businesses don't want to get sued and so they don't tollerate behavior or activities that will facilitate it.

      That's all that has happened here. The police aren't blaming women, nor are posters, they're just suggesting that some precaution in some situations is advisable.

      As for your comment about men, not being cautioned about risky behaviour, are you serious? Ever heard of one punch laws?

      Here's a question for you: Who do you think make up the bigger proportion of victims of assaults out of men and women? I'll give you a hint, you're wrong.

      Alert moderator

  • robert:

    20 Mar 2015 3:00:09pm

    Like probably all of of us here, I'm deeply saddened by this horrible attack on Masa Vukotic. My sincerest condolences to her family and loved ones. There's a sense in which this is an attack on us all. I go running and walking in my local parks at night (often quite late at night), and it's great to see young women out there too, either running or walking or just taking a short-cut on the way home. This young woman seems like just the many women I see out at night in the parks near where I live. Trusting, not assuming the worst, not living in fear, and not surrendering to paranoia or a view of the world which is shaped by watching endless hours of American crime shows on TV. It's fantastic to see women out and about at night. I absolutely abhor the 'stranger danger' view of the world which our cops peddle at every opportunity. I can't stand a bar of Neighbourhood Watch and have nothing to do with them. As far as I'm concerned no one is entitled to walk around the place imagining the worst about their fellow citizens, promoting a negative and destructive atmosphere of fear and loathing. So I too really object to the notion that women should have to take special care when out at night. But at the end of the day I reluctantly accept that there are some men out there who are predatory and evil, and that whilst you're far more likely to be assaulted by your partner or your ex, than by a man in a park, if you're a woman you've still got to take a few extra precautions. I don't like this state of affairs, but this is the world we live in. Sure, strive for a better world, where this kind of cruelty and contempt for the life of another is banished forever. But pending the arrival of utopia, we've got to live in the world we've inherited. So Lauren I think you're just being a bit tough on the cops in this instance. Maybe they could have used a better choice of words, but they're speaking on the spur of the moment, and they're probably not great public speakers.

    Alert moderator

  • Dave:

    20 Mar 2015 3:04:16pm

    By this reasoning, as a motorcyclist, it shouldn't be my responsibility to make sure I don't get hit by a non-attentive driver. Instead it should be up to the apparently omnipresent and omnipotent police force to make sure that bad drivers are caught before they can run me over accidentally. Or it should be up to society to make sure that no-one is a bad driver.

    Get real. If I take that attitude, I will get run over. Just like people who take risks by going through a major city alone at night might get mugged, raped or murdered. Look on the bright side, at least as a woman, someone will usually volunteer to walk you home.

    Alert moderator

    • CJD:

      20 Mar 2015 4:06:43pm

      Well Robert, if I was to offer a similar argument to the debate that some of the guys here have been putting forth, in response to your scenario of the motorcyclists, and the fore-going of responsibilities, I say this...

      'Why car-driver blame all the time? Don't you know more car-drivers are hurt and killed in road-accidents than bikers?'

      See the point-missing much?

      Who's mainly causing those accidents when it isn't the bikers?

      Alert moderator

      • CJD:

        20 Mar 2015 4:28:59pm

        Obviously my post was meant to be addressed to Dave. My apologise, Robert (I was actually pretty impressed with how your put your points across.)

        Alert moderator

  • Juliet:

    20 Mar 2015 3:09:03pm

    I honestly think everyone is reading too much into the inspector's comments. I thought he just meant that all women should take extra care until the perpetrator was caught, because the police seemed to think they could be dealing with a serial offender who, at the time, was still at large. i am surprised at the backlash against his well-intended warning to take extra care until this psycho is caught.

    Alert moderator

  • washingline:

    20 Mar 2015 3:25:43pm

    Ok Ms Rosewarne, so I'm going to go and walk alone in a park at night, is that what you want? Should children do it too?
    As you are a Dr, senior lecturer at a university I doubt your commute involves walking, let alone through a park, so when you say "Like Hell!", that is all you are doing, just saying it, for colour.
    That policeman saw an awful scene of a girl stabbed to death, he was reacting. If he should be so wary of being politically correct, then so should you because you aren't considering the offense in your use of "Hell".

    Alert moderator

  • Regionalgranny:

    20 Mar 2015 3:42:15pm

    Perhaps the real problem with persons in authority and anyone else for that matter alluding to the fact that women put themselves at risk by their behaviour, dress or choice of pathway is that for those who prey on women may read this as giving them permission to visit violence such as sexual assault on those women.
    Usually males are not advised in the same manner although I would think that young males may be just as much at risk in today's world.

    Alert moderator

  • Mat S.:

    20 Mar 2015 4:17:23pm

    So by the logic of he author of this article, when a police officer tells a householder that keeping the door locked is a great way to keep burglars out, such a statement is not sound advice but an attempt to blame householders for burglary?

    Alert moderator

  • Sharpie18:

    20 Mar 2015 4:22:38pm

    The problem the author appears to have is confusing hazard and risk. Walking through a park by yourself is a hazard, your demographic type can amplify the risk - pointing this fact out to at risk demographic groups is not sexist, just common sense.

    Alert moderator

    • capwell:

      20 Mar 2015 6:05:53pm

      the author is a bit of a one trick academic pony, so concepts are used selectively to promote a single narrative.

      Alert moderator

  • Razget:

    20 Mar 2015 4:35:21pm

    Lauren makes a good point tbh. But something more needs to be added:

    The unfortunate truth, is that what this cop is really saying is that he feels powerless and unable to protect anyone in the situation this woman was in...so everyone else out there has to be defensive at all times and try like hell to avoid any confrontation.

    The sad irony of Australian law is if hypothetically this woman somehow killed her attacker the cops would probably be forced to arrest her for manslaughter and she would then face trial for a crime that some random creep instigated. If you don't wear a badge youre not allowed to kill anyone in Australia...not even in self defence. Its hard enough for police to kill people that are obvious idiots.

    The law and the police...they're mostly useless, but they come in hard and strong after the fact. The list of examples would go hundreds of pages long I believe...of times when police arrived too late, or not at all...where they were ultimately unable to really help much at all. Husbands that repeatedly violate their restraining orders and then eventually kill their wives...that's at the top of the list of police and judicial impotence.

    Alert moderator

  • Rocdocta:

    20 Mar 2015 7:06:32pm

    I read this article. I have 2 young daughters. I groaned.

    This seems just like another whine about

    "dont tell me what to do!! I am a big girl"

    and not an informative piece on the real dangers in australia.

    - People should be free to walk through any park in any place at any time without fear of attack.
    - Anyone could be attacked by an idiot.
    - Dont walk in a park by your self at night.

    Adults understand that there are things you want to do, things that you should be able to do, but you cant because in thal world there are bad people that dont care about solidarirty marches, facebook likes or fluff pieces like this.

    Adults dont whine when experts with experience tell you that what you want to do is a bad idea.

    Alert moderator

  • Helen:

    20 Mar 2015 7:17:50pm

    I am sick and tired of BLAMING THE VICTIM.

    On the other hand I don't put myself in situations that's dangerous. Sometimes you don't have a choice.

    Education is the key starting in the home, churches, schools, universities, colleges etc.

    The law has to be changed and the enforces of the law which include police officers, judges etc have to come down hard on these perps. NO BAIL.

    Possessions to be confiscated and sold to help pay for the treatment and costs of the victim and the rest of the money towards the law costs, etc.

    Alert moderator

Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.

Top Stories

  1. Malcolm Fraser at the Dispatch Boxes during Question Time in 1979.

    The myth of two Malcolm Frasers

    By Paula Matthewson

  2. Fraser and his team provided the stability people had yearned for.

    Malcolm Fraser brought order to chaos

    By Chris Earl

  3. Malcolm Fraser

    Malcolm Fraser: his top achievements

    The Drum

  4. To reap the benefits of science, society needs patience.

    Stability is crucial for Australian scientific success

    By Brian Schmidt

  5. Tunisian security forces secure Bardo Museum

    Tunisia beaten, but not broken by attack

    By Leila Ben Mcharek

  6. Prime Minister Tony Abbott

    Abbott's breathtaking shift on the economy

    By Barrie Cassidy

  7. Masa Vukotic, 17, was walking in a reserve in Doncaster when she was fatally attacked.

    The park as a bogeyman, and other violence fallacies

    By Lauren Rosewarne

  8. There is a strong argument to be made for tightening eligibility for the age pension.

    Pension plan: political pain for little fiscal gain

    By Matthew Taylor

  9. An Iranian woman crosses a street in front of a huge mural painting depicting Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

    How hubris undermined the Iran nuclear deal

    By Rodger Shanahan

  10. Paul Keating and Bob Hawke

    The next great reform will be of politics itself

    By Jonathan Green

Latest Episode

  1. The Drum, Friday March 20 Video

Hot Topic

  1. Reactions to the death of Malcolm Fraser Video

    Australia's 22nd Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, has died at the age at the age of 84. He's been remembered as "a great moral compass" and "a giant of Australian politics".

The Report

  1. Why do some parents refuse to vaccinate their children? Video

    A measles outbreak in the US has infected more than 170 people - despite the virus being absent from the US for more than a decade. Australia was declared measles-free just last year but in some areas, our vaccination rates have sunk lower than 50 per cent.

The Interview

  1. The Drum talks with Malcolm Fraser's former chief-of-staff Video

    Julia Baird talks with Malcolm Fraser's former chief-of-staff Dale Budd.

Contribute to The Drum

Learn how to contribute an opinion article to The Drum.

The Drum on Twitter
The Drum Facebook Account
The Brief promo

Features

  1. A flood marker in Broken Hill hasn't been wet for a while. Running out of water

    By Ginny Stein

    For the third time this century, one of Australia's most iconic inland cities is facing a critical water crisis.

  2. Dulcie Nicholls Gallery: Inspiring elders

    ABC Open celebrates Australian seniors and the contributions they make to our communities.

  3. Malcolm Fraser Malcolm Fraser: A look back

    Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser died on March 20, aged 84. Here are some photos from his long and illustrious career.

  4. Malcolm Fraser Malcolm Fraser in his own words

    Following the death of Malcolm Fraser, look back on some of the most memorable quotes from the former Prime Minister.

Top Stories

Just In

Most Popular

Analysis & Opinion

This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.

AEDT = Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time which is 11 hours ahead of UTC (Greenwich Mean Time)

Change to mobile view