What This Means
This research suggests that the way Australia publicly talks about domestic and family violence—framing women and girls almost exclusively as victims and men as perpetrators—while broadly accurate at the population level, has the unintended consequence of making it harder for male victims, especially boys, to be recognised, believed, and supported. The authors argue that media portrayals reinforce this problem by depicting violent mothers as mentally ill (rather than abusive), treating male violence as inherent, and largely ignoring boys who experience abuse. They contend these patterns violate international human rights principles, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees protection from violence for all children regardless of gender.
The paper proposes that harm reduction approaches—commonly used in areas like drug use and suicide prevention—should be more deliberately applied to family and gender-based violence, and should explicitly include male victims. The authors advocate for a new model of masculinity built around 'ethical intelligence,' emphasising empathy, emotional openness, and engaged parenting as alternatives to traditional norms that discourage boys and men from seeking help or admitting vulnerability. They argue this shift should be reflected across education, media, and government policy.
This research suggests that recognising male victimisation does not undermine efforts to address violence against women, but rather strengthens an overall human rights framework that protects everyone. Despite a noted Australian Government commitment of $32 million toward boys' and men's health, the authors argue that meaningful change requires deeper integration of these issues into public narratives and institutional policies, rather than treating them as competing with or separate from gender equity goals for women and girls.