Even as a man burns his three children and ex-wife alive, the police are wondering - is it actually domestic violence? Or is it an instance of a husband being driven too far?.
I think those women are misinterpreting what the police officer said. Suggesting someone might have been "driven too far by issues he’s suffered" is not the same as saying "she made him do it"....
[Det Insp Mark Thompson said] “Is this an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and her children perishing at the hands of the husband, or is it an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues he’s suffered by certain circumstances into committing acts of this form?”
[Renee Eaves, a victims’ advocate said] “If police are now implying that a murdered woman might be at fault”
Angela Lynch, the chief executive of the Women’s Legal Service Queensland, said: [...] “It’s victim blaming. It’s saying that she might have caused this through her own actions.”
I think those women are misinterpreting what the police officer said. Suggesting someone might have been "driven too far by issues he’s suffered" is not the same as saying "she made him do it". It's saying the man might have been under pressure from other issues. Maybe he was suffering mental health problems. Maybe he was a drug user. Maybe... lots of other things, which had nothing to do with his wife.
There is no justification at all for these murders. However, suggesting that the culprit might have had problems which caused him to snap is not the same as saying the victim brought it on herself.
There's a lot of nuance that people seem to overlook in cases like this. They make it all black and white, when there's often shades of grey involved. A healthy well-adjusted man does not go around killing his wife and children, regardless of any possible provocation. Understanding his motives and the causes for this murder will help to prevent future domestic violence. If we know what's driving men to do this, we can stop it. And that requires us to realise that it's not about "evil" and "innocent". It's about the complex societal and psychological influences which create a man who commits violence against his family. He didn't come from nowhere. His whole life history has led up to this point. Well... what aspects of that life history do we need to look at and understand, in order to stop other men doing the same thing?
(And, I'm very aware that by daring to suggest we might want to understand the motives of a man who killed his family, people are going to be tempted to paint me as also victim-blaming, or even a dreaded "Men's Rights Activist". It's not these. It's that I'm aware nothing is ever simple, and that there are often multiple causes and issues tied up in these cases.)
To add a little more context to his quote: I think they interpreted him just fine. A man can be under pressure from other issues and still commit domestic violence against his family. The...
To add a little more context to his quote:
“We need to look at every piece of information and to put it bluntly there are probably people out there in the community that are deciding which side, so to speak, to take in this investigation,” he said.
“Is this an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and her children perishing at the hands of the husband, ~or~ is it an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues he’s suffered by certain circumstances into committing acts of this form?”
I think they interpreted him just fine. A man can be under pressure from other issues and still commit domestic violence against his family. The detective was not adding nuance, he was setting up a false dichotomy - as if poor victim suffering men can't also commit horrific domestic violence against their families. Suggesting that this could be anything other than domestic violence is absurd.
We live in a society that just gave an Order of Australia to a woman who openly admits to being in opposition to sexual violence victim advocates, and there is a federal inquiry into the family courts because a senator thinks women are lying about domestic violence. When the detective refers to "sides" what do you think he means?
Frankly, I think it's condescending to imply that the growing list of domestic violence victims and advocates reacting poorly to his comments just can't comprehend his meaning. Maybe the detective intended to convey some other meaning, but part of his job description is to communicate clearly, and he has obviously failed to do that in this case.
I don't agree. The police officer was trying, as police officers are required to do, to keep an open mind, to not jump to conclusions, to remind people that they can't judge a case without knowing...
I think they interpreted him just fine.
I don't agree. The police officer was trying, as police officers are required to do, to keep an open mind, to not jump to conclusions, to remind people that they can't judge a case without knowing all the facts. In that context, he mentioned the husband possibly "being driven too far by other issues". Those women's advocates immediately interpreted this as meaning "the victim is to blame for what he did to her". I don't see that connection. Unless "other issues" is actually secret code for "that bitch wife of his", I think they misinterpreted what he said.
You are ignoring my point so I'll outline it for you. The detective referred to two sides. One side is characterised by: "an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and...
You are ignoring my point so I'll outline it for you. The detective referred to two sides.
One side is characterised by: "an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and her children perishing at the hands of the husband"
The second side, is described as: "an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues he’s suffered by certain circumstances into committing acts of this form"
The two sides are obviously him vs. her, and the police detective implied that he is keeping an open mind about taking the murderer's side in this investigation. Maybe you could say he was alluding to feminist politics vs. MRA politics, but it amounts to more-or-less the same thing.
Even if this was all a big misunderstanding - the detective is using the same language that is frequently used to defend domestic violence (she drove him too far). His job is to make public comments regarding a high profile domestic violence case, and he used the same language that domestic violence apologists use to blame victims for their own abuse. It is cruel and gaslighting to imply that victims (now including Rosie Batty) are imagining things. The detective was out of line.
I don't really even consider this up for debate anymore. If you look at twitter you can see how many people have "misinterpreted" his comments. Notable personalities include Anthony Green, Kevin Rudd, Tanya Plibersek, Larissa Waters and his own boss. When that many people 'misinterpret' you, it's time to stop blaming others and start blaming poor communication.
The police really need to read Kate Manne's Down Girl. This case looks like it could have straight out of her section describing how some men under a system of misogny come to kill their wives and...
The police really need to read Kate Manne's Down Girl. This case looks like it could have straight out of her section describing how some men under a system of misogny come to kill their wives and children.
As an update to this: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/lead-detective-on-camp-hill-murder-suicide-steps-down-from-investigation-20200221-p54325.html
As an update to this:
Speaking outside the family home, [Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina] Carroll told News Corp the Clarkes had asked her to contact Inspector Thompson to thank police for their efforts and say they had not been offended by his comments.
Even as a man burns his three children and ex-wife alive, the police are wondering - is it actually domestic violence? Or is it an instance of a husband being driven too far?.
I think those women are misinterpreting what the police officer said. Suggesting someone might have been "driven too far by issues he’s suffered" is not the same as saying "she made him do it". It's saying the man might have been under pressure from other issues. Maybe he was suffering mental health problems. Maybe he was a drug user. Maybe... lots of other things, which had nothing to do with his wife.
There is no justification at all for these murders. However, suggesting that the culprit might have had problems which caused him to snap is not the same as saying the victim brought it on herself.
There's a lot of nuance that people seem to overlook in cases like this. They make it all black and white, when there's often shades of grey involved. A healthy well-adjusted man does not go around killing his wife and children, regardless of any possible provocation. Understanding his motives and the causes for this murder will help to prevent future domestic violence. If we know what's driving men to do this, we can stop it. And that requires us to realise that it's not about "evil" and "innocent". It's about the complex societal and psychological influences which create a man who commits violence against his family. He didn't come from nowhere. His whole life history has led up to this point. Well... what aspects of that life history do we need to look at and understand, in order to stop other men doing the same thing?
(And, I'm very aware that by daring to suggest we might want to understand the motives of a man who killed his family, people are going to be tempted to paint me as also victim-blaming, or even a dreaded "Men's Rights Activist". It's not these. It's that I'm aware nothing is ever simple, and that there are often multiple causes and issues tied up in these cases.)
To add a little more context to his quote:
I think they interpreted him just fine. A man can be under pressure from other issues and still commit domestic violence against his family. The detective was not adding nuance, he was setting up a false dichotomy - as if poor victim suffering men can't also commit horrific domestic violence against their families. Suggesting that this could be anything other than domestic violence is absurd.
We live in a society that just gave an Order of Australia to a woman who openly admits to being in opposition to sexual violence victim advocates, and there is a federal inquiry into the family courts because a senator thinks women are lying about domestic violence. When the detective refers to "sides" what do you think he means?
Frankly, I think it's condescending to imply that the growing list of domestic violence victims and advocates reacting poorly to his comments just can't comprehend his meaning. Maybe the detective intended to convey some other meaning, but part of his job description is to communicate clearly, and he has obviously failed to do that in this case.
I don't agree. The police officer was trying, as police officers are required to do, to keep an open mind, to not jump to conclusions, to remind people that they can't judge a case without knowing all the facts. In that context, he mentioned the husband possibly "being driven too far by other issues". Those women's advocates immediately interpreted this as meaning "the victim is to blame for what he did to her". I don't see that connection. Unless "other issues" is actually secret code for "that bitch wife of his", I think they misinterpreted what he said.
You are ignoring my point so I'll outline it for you. The detective referred to two sides.
One side is characterised by: "an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and her children perishing at the hands of the husband"
The second side, is described as: "an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues he’s suffered by certain circumstances into committing acts of this form"
The two sides are obviously him vs. her, and the police detective implied that he is keeping an open mind about taking the murderer's side in this investigation. Maybe you could say he was alluding to feminist politics vs. MRA politics, but it amounts to more-or-less the same thing.
Even if this was all a big misunderstanding - the detective is using the same language that is frequently used to defend domestic violence (she drove him too far). His job is to make public comments regarding a high profile domestic violence case, and he used the same language that domestic violence apologists use to blame victims for their own abuse. It is cruel and gaslighting to imply that victims (now including Rosie Batty) are imagining things. The detective was out of line.
I don't really even consider this up for debate anymore. If you look at twitter you can see how many people have "misinterpreted" his comments. Notable personalities include Anthony Green, Kevin Rudd, Tanya Plibersek, Larissa Waters and his own boss. When that many people 'misinterpret' you, it's time to stop blaming others and start blaming poor communication.
Okay. Bye.
The police really need to read Kate Manne's Down Girl. This case looks like it could have straight out of her section describing how some men under a system of misogny come to kill their wives and children.
As an update to this:
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/lead-detective-on-camp-hill-murder-suicide-steps-down-from-investigation-20200221-p54325.html