Conversations on Feminism: Domestic Violence Against Aboriginal Women in Australia
by Latoya Peterson
Megan over at Jezebel provided a provocative conversation topic in her post “Aussie Feminist Germaine Greer Argues That Domestic Violence Against Aboriginal Women Is Understandable.”
She writes:
Despite Kevin Rudd’s official apology to the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for their treatment at the hands of the Australian government, his government continues to support and fund the previous government’s Northern Territory Intervention, which puts troops on the streets of Aboriginal towns (among other seemingly repressive measures) to combat the well-documented widespread epidemic of domestic and child abuse. That said, feminist Germaine Greer’s response to it is nearly as shocking. She suggests that domestic violence is an understandable outlet of rage against oppression and thus argues that we shouldn’t ask them to stop. What?!
When I first saw this story, I thought she was joking, but she’s not. In trying to argue that rage, substance abuse and violence is a result of the oppression of the Aboriginal people, most people would be hard pressed to say that she’s wrong. Addiction begets addicts, violence begets violence, and crushing and hopeless poverty and societal isolation does nothing to help. But that does not mean that no one should try.
Megan then goes on to outline the current situation with aboriginal women in Australia, and explains that the military intervention is a clumsy solution which does not attack the root causes of the problem, like poverty or systemic racism.
Then, she notes:
If one accepts the premise that Aboriginal men are — consciously or subconsciously — expressing their rage over their position in Australian society on the bodies of Aboriginal women and children, one must also recognize that it is the wrong outlet. But domestic violence (as we learned yesterday) also stems from sexism, from an attempt to assert power over another person and from the failure to understand that it’s completely wrong. That, even as Ted Bunch noted, more “brown and black men” are punished for it than white men is not a reason to refrain from punishing the former, but a reason to increase the equity in the system for the victims of the latter. And the last thing a feminist ought to be doing is advancing the idea that domestic violence is an understandable reaction to racial oppression and can thus be dealt with, if it still exists, when racial oppression is gone.
Megan’s post sparked a fascinating discussion in the comments section where many Jezebels argued different parts of the issue. Some Jezebels read Greer’s response as condoning or excusing the violence against aboriginal women. They noted that this kind of reasoning has also been used to excuse violence against women in communities of color - that the men have been so oppressed by racism, that they are not responsible for their behavior toward the women in their own communities.
Other Jezebels argued that that wasn’t what Greer was saying at all; Greer’s comments were taken out of context and she was arguing to diagnose the root cause of the behavior, not excuse what was happening.
Commenter Queen of Doorbells posts this link with a video of Germaine Greer fleshing out more of her thoughts.
Main premise from Greer:
“If what you are trying to do is explain an extraordinary galaxy of self-destructive behavior… if you’re saying well, here is someone who lost…absolutely everything that makes life make sense to him, we can’t be surprised that he is involved in self-destructive behaviors which extend to the people who love him best. That’s got nothing to do with excusing it. It’s got to do with understanding it. The only way we are going to make any headway…is if we address the actual cause of the self-destructive emotion, and try to understand it, and draw it into the public domain.
Somebody has to tell us where it hurts. Someone who is about to put a noose around his neck and hang himself from the branch of a tree has got to say to us “I’m doing this because! Because the world you’ve given me to live in is, for me, unbearable.”
And I am transfixed with black rage. Because I don’t think people commit suicide out of grief. I think they commit suicide [as] an act of profound hostility. […]
Even in this case, I am not trying to talk away or excuse destructive behavior, whether it’s within an Aboriginal context or without. What I’m trying to say is if we don’t understand it, we won’t deal with it. And everything we do - taking away alcohol (we’ve done that a thousand times before), intervening, knocking down land rights, riding roughshod over people - will fail. And it doesn’t matter how much money we throw at the problem, and how much rhetoric, we will fail because we haven’t dealt with the poison at the foot of the tree.”
I highly encourage you all to watch the video from 37:30 on as it highlights the discussion surrounding the project and the issues with implementation.
Julie Bishop, another panelist (and representative of the government), points out what she perceives to be a flaw in Greer’s argument - since all of these issues have roots in historical wrongs, and we can’t re-write history, what does she reasonably expect to have happen? She posits that Greer’s theory also fails because it does not provide an action to be taken now.
This is where I would like to begin the discussion, readers.
Bishop reports that the problem is that action needs to be taken to protect these women and children who are suffering under current conditions. And she is correct - something needs to happen. However, as Jessica Yee beautifully pointed out in her post a few weeks back, government intervention does not always work to alievate the problem, and can actually make things worse.
So, how do we work toward a viable solution?
(Image pulled from the Jezebel website.)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
occhiblu wrote:
Julie Bishop, another panelist (and representative of the government), points out what she perceives to be a flaw in Greer’s argument - since all of these issues have roots in historical wrongs, and we can’t re-write history, what does she reasonably expect to have happen? She posits that Greer’s theory also fails because it does not provide an action to be taken now.
But it does, I think. If the theory is that historical wrongs like forcibly seizing Aboriginal property and disregarding the autonomy of Aboriginal people have led to this epidemic of violence, then it would seem that the practical actions put in place by the government intervention — which include forcibly seizing Aboriginal property and disregarding the autonomy of Aboriginal people — might be charitably described as misguided.
I think it’s difficult, if not impossible, to end violence and oppression through more violence and oppression. While I think taking a hard line against abusers is necessary, I think that hard line needs to include an awareness of the origins of the violence *and* a commitment to educate abusers, not just punish them. Otherwise you just create more rage without presenting a framework for reconciliation.
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:40 am ¶
Cara wrote:
I just wanted to say that it’s pretty well-known that Germaine Greer went off the deep end some time ago. I can’t remember the last time I read anything about her that wasn’t a feminist going “she said WHAT?”
Now, I do agree that colonialism and the domestic violence rates are likely related, and I agree that band aid solutions are crap and don’t work. But one is not the sole cause of the other (notice how there doesn’t seem to be an epidemic of aboriginal women beating their husbands), and to say that domestic violence therefore has to be last on the agenda is clearly wrong. If Greer is actually saying what UPI says she’s saying — that aboriginal women are wrong to go outside their communities for help when their communities refuse to listen, and that they have no right to advocate for their own safety because of how it will “defeat” aboriginal men . . . well, wow. WTF. Aboriginal women are the ones we ought to be listening to most carefully, and if they’re asking for help, it strikes me as equally colonialist to say “nope, sorry, not what’s best for you!” Just as wrong as it is to say “you want that help? Well no, we’ll give you this “help” instead (i.e. taking away alcohol) because it’s what we think is best.”
Also, is it just me or is Greer completely appropriating language in her essay “On Rage” with the “whitefella” stuff? To the best of my knowledge, Greer does not have any aboriginal ancestry (and I double-checked her wiki page), and that really rubs me the wrong way personally.
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:46 am ¶
la frontera wrote:
I think that any response that has a lasting impact will come from the community itself. The community knows its needs much better than anyone standing on the outside.
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:59 am ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
I admit that the culture clash angle makes me uncomfortable, because it does have echoes of colonialism and does sound like it’s excusing “violence against women in communities of color - that the men have been so oppressed by racism, that they are not responsible for their behavior toward the women in their own communities.” The discussion has a bit of “white [women] saving brown women from brown men” flavor, to me. Because Greer didn’t stop there and admitted that ignorance on the part of white majority Australian culture and different societal, historical, etc., factors are what’s causing this violence, not an inherent “that’s the way they are”, I breathed a sigh of relief.
Personally, I believe that, in the framework of violence as an outlet for oppression, the oppressors trying to stop the violence isn’t going to do any good. It will be viewed as more oppression.
I believe that grassroots and community organizing is better; the Aboriginal communities need to be at the front of this. White Australian feminists can help, but they can’t set the pace, direction, or agenda. Aboriginal women know what’s best for them and have a much better grasp of their community.
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:20 pm ¶
Alexandra wrote:
I don’t know but the thing that bothers me the most is I don’t hear anything from aboriginal women and their stance on this issue. I was disturbed that none of the panelists were aboriginal. As far as Greer’s arguments go, I see where she’s getting at but it comes across more as an excuse because at some point you got to find ways to begin working around that. I agree with Cara a lot that this comes across as very colonialist and that . But also agree strongly with Fatemeh about giving agency back to aboriginal women and letting them take the reigns.
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:34 pm ¶
tanglad wrote:
I don’t have much knowledge about violence in Aboriginal communities, but this post made me think of insights shared by indigenous women activists from the Northern part of the Philippines. Activists from the women’s group Innabuyog have analyzed how violence against women and children (including domestic violence and violence related to militarization) increased with the incursions of mines and dams in their ancestral lands. They linked the displacement of peoples from their lands to the erosion of sociopolitical systems that were the basis for community integrity, structures, and relations that protected women from violence.
So yeah, it would be impossible to go back in time and undo the Northern Territory Intervention. But how about an analysis of the sociopolitical conditions, the Aborigine community relations that guarded against violence and nurtured equitable relations? And of how such conditions could be cultivated and nurtured now? These analyses should involve Aborigine community members, of course, and could be the basis for devising community-based programs to address child abuse and violence against women.
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:36 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
When I started blogging about race and class years back, i would get emails from New Zealanders and Aussies talking about the parallels they saw in what was going on here in the states with Blacks and Native Americans (i’m 1/4th chocktaw). I’d read their comments, letters and they’d refer me to local news outlets, books, etc to give me some flavor for what they were going thru.
the parallels are stunning in how systematic the dehumanization was/has been. I mean, Aussie aborigines (who are also descendants of africans, fyi) weren’t even counted in the census in about 1967. they were classified as plant-life. Same for New Zealand Maori’s.
It’s gonna take a group effort of education and healing, specifically classes and retraining for those convicted of rape, domestic abuse, etc.
You can’t just lock up people who been taught by their whoe society they are worthless and barely human then expect them to figure out something else once they’re behind bars.
They’ve gotta be educated while they’re being incarcerated; because they have committed legit crimes. And it’s not fair to tell a woman, “he raped you, but he had low self esteem so he gets a pass” either. but education’s gotta be part of the solution.
it’s such a clusterf*** of a situation, not unlike many the inner-cities and reservations here in the US.
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 5:20 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Apropos the topic of DV and aboriginal women, I remember an excellent movie about an urban Maori family called “Once Were Warriors”. It’s probably at least 10 years old.
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 7:07 pm ¶
observer wrote:
“Aboriginal women are the ones we ought to be listening to most carefully, and if they’re asking for help, it strikes me as equally colonialist to say “nope, sorry, not what’s best for you!” Just as wrong as it is to say “you want that help? Well no, we’ll give you this “help” instead (i.e. taking away alcohol) because it’s what we think is best.””
I seem to recall Aboriginal women calling for alcohol bans in some communities: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/08/2158353.htm.
But I agree it is a matter of listening, supporting, but not jumping in and causing more problems with more domination.
Great discussion here.
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:02 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
Black Canseco, great comment! Agree, agree, agree.
PLANT LIFE?! (shaking head)
Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:52 pm ¶
Falyne wrote:
As an American white chick, I’m going to nth the call to hear the actual wishes of the aboriginal Australian women.
Yeah, it’s shitty to stand back and watch while women and children are brutalized, raped, and killed. But given the Australian government’s history on intervening… I don’t doubt the possibility it’ll just make everything ten times worse.
If there’s a way to combine, not military intervention and dominance, but something along the lines of providing reinforcements to be directed by local government, with adequate funding for locally-directed educational programs….? Something that preserves autonomy, yet makes government materiel available to those local autonomous agencies? That’d be my armchair recommendation….
Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:05 am ¶
Horserider wrote:
Is this to say that domestic violence was nonexistent in aboriginal communtities before the coming of the colonist? or that by removing opression domestic violence in these communtities will disappear totally. Are there incidents of domestic violence within non oppressed australian communities?
Can someone help us with a tool to sort D violence as a result of oppression from D violence that would happen regardless.
Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 4:17 am ¶
Katie wrote:
I second and third and fourth what everyone’s said - Aussie government top-down solutions will only perpetuate the f-ed up power dynamic that colonialism and genocide began.
Also, I second the Germaine Greer being a complete asshole. This is good summation.
http://nataliaantonova.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/this-is-germaine-greer/
Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 7:01 am ¶
Persia wrote:
I believe that grassroots and community organizing is better; the Aboriginal communities need to be at the front of this. White Australian feminists can help, but they can’t set the pace, direction, or agenda. Aboriginal women know what’s best for them and have a much better grasp of their community.
Joining in the chorus of YES here.
And I love the implication that domestic violence is the sad fruit of colonialism. Because as we know, domestic violence only happens to poor women of color. Yeah.
Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 8:41 am ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
“And I love the implication that domestic violence is the sad fruit of colonialism. Because as we know, domestic violence only happens to poor women of color.”
I don’t think anyone wants to romanticize communities of color to the point of blaming every aspect of sin and the human condition on white colonizers.
Sure every community has its internal homophobias, biases, crime, stupid social constructs, but to pretend that unwanted outsider influence doesn’t perpetuate, exacerbate and in some cases mutate these issues is just foolish.
Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:47 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Black Canseco
“Sure every community has its internal homophobias, biases, crime, stupid social constructs, but to pretend that unwanted outsider influence doesn’t perpetuate, exacerbate and in some cases mutate these issues is just foolish.”
Cosign. Very well put. That is the most concise summing up of the cultural fallout of colonial intervention I have heard in a long time.
I thought Greer’s original comments (and subsequent expansion of them) were a brave acknowledgment of how complex these issues are and not at all a “free pass” for domestic violence in aboriginal communities. There is a long history of western states employing putatively liberal discourses–like feminism–for colonial ends and Greer has placed the situation in Australia into that context. If we encouraged this level of nuance instead of punishing it we might have a shot at understanding each other across cultures. When Greer wrote, “That’s got nothing to do with excusing it. It’s got to do with understanding it. The only way we are going to make any headway…is if we address the actual cause of the self-destructive emotion, and try to understand it, and draw it into the public domain” I cheered into my computer screen.
Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 1:13 pm ¶
magda wrote:
I think that the fact that the program that specifically targets one community but not other communities is a problem. Sure, there may be higher rates of domestic violence in the Aboriginal community, but I seriously doubt that there is no domestic violence in every non-Aboriginal household. So the fact that the government is only targeting the Aboriginal community suggests a lack of actual concern about domestic violence, and instead an intent to paint the Aboriginals as violent people and also to exert violent control. By exerting violent control I mean that I have trouble understanding how having soldiers on the street really prevents violence against women and children. In fact, military occupations have historically had the opposite effect.
Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:08 pm ¶
Natalia wrote:
Thanks for sending me this way, Fatemeh.
Hey Latoya! Just wanted to thank you for the extra-good reading, and discussion.
Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 11:57 am ¶
stefanie wrote:
@Black Canseco
“Sure every community has its internal homophobias, biases, crime, stupid social constructs, but to pretend that unwanted outsider influence doesn’t perpetuate, exacerbate and in some cases mutate these issues is just foolish.”
I agree with Joseph that this is concisely and precisely the point. Just wanted to add that Conquest by Andrea Smith, though about American Indian women and not about Aboriginal women in Australia, provides a brilliant analysis of the particulars of colonial perpetuation, exacerbation and mutation of violence against and within American Indian communities.
One of the points that Smith makes is that while violence may have always existed in American Indian (and all) communities, so too did systems of community accountability to deal with the problem. Colonialism in the US not only shifts the nature of the problem of violence, but also systematically dismantles tribal systems of law and accountability for dealing with that problem. I imagine that the same is true in Australia.
Posted 21 Aug 2008 at 1:25 am ¶
Korolev wrote:
I live in Australia - I live in one of the capital cities (Brisbane, Queensland). And I have seen less than 30 aboriginal people in real life. In the 19 years I’ve been here, I have seen less than 30. I have seen more Somalian immigrants and Maori immigrants than Indigenous Australians. They just aren’t in the cities, they’re not in the suburbs. I travel around Brisbane quite a bit, but they are nowhere to be found. It’s pretty weird - the indigenous people where the first people in Australia, their population numbers in the millions…. and yet, they are nowhere to be seen by the vast majority of Australians. They are invisible to most of Australia. Only mentioned in newspaper reports and seen on TV. The university I go to, The University of Queensland, is the largest in Queensland and one of the best for biomedical sciences and law in the world….. and I have not seen one aboriginal student. Not one. I’ve seen Somalian students. I’ve seen students from Ghana and Kenya. But not one indigenous student. At all. And I’ve been there for 4 years now.
The problem is that the indigenous community has been marginalized - no one sees them. It’s a sad fact, but it’s true - they are invisible to the great majority of the Australian population. Instead of dealing with the problem of racism, our government did what the US government did with the Native Americans - they just shoved them out of the cities to reservation-style areas and paid next to no attention to them for many, many years.
This has resulted in segregation. Unofficial segregation, but segregation nonetheless.
The solution is simple - provide access for Aboriginal/Indigenous communities to the other parts of the Australian culture. For some reason, this is not done. We exploit their artwork and their cultural artifacts to trap tourists, but our government doesn’t do much to help them. We just hand out enough money for them to buy alcohol and leave them alone.
We need to connect. We need to open up more highways to them. We need to start communicating, to start talking. As long as they remain on the fringe, away from us, nothing will ever improve.
The first key is compulsory education. Did you know that in some Indigenous communities (at least, until 2007), Indigenous children were not forced to go to school, and many didn’t. In fact, most didn’t. The schools were there, but they were underfunded, understaffed and the Indigenous population was deeply mistrusting of “white-man’s school”. I believe that the government has tried to make schooling compulsory in indigenous communities, and I hope it has a good effect.
The second is to encourage work, any sort of work, which allows them the freedom to travel. The government should give them access to the cities, allow for them to move closer to the financial centers of Australia.
Let them be seen. Let them be heard. This segregation (and it IS segregation) will never improve anything.
Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 8:23 am ¶