Joe Jackson (Song: Real Men) 1982
Lyric:
And if there’s war between the sexes
Then there’ll be no people left.
Sarah Ison (Federal Political Reporter, The Australian) April 30, 2024
“I think the public mood and from organisations advocating for change (is that) yes, the government is doing a lot, but it’s not like this huge step away from what the Coalition was doing; investing in prevention, in frontline workers.
This is what governments have always done, invest in different frontline services and in some prevention and some research. It seems a bit status quo at the moment. …
There have been 27 murders of women (in Australia) in the first four months of 2024. …
And it just seems, I think because of how high those numbers are, (that) we need something else, something more” …
NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb April 26, 2024
Domestic-violence incidents take up about 60 per cent or more of police general duty time.
UNSW Criminology Professor Michael Salter (Opinion, The Guardian) April 30, 2024
The … most effective interventions to prevent domestic, family and sexual violence and homicide have been made in response to male public violence [John Howard’s gun control legislation & alcohol restrictions], not men’s private violence. Prevention approaches specific to violence against women have focused on changing attitudes to gender equality and violence and are struggling to demonstrate positive outcomes.
Waleed Aly (Columnist, The Age) May 3, 2024
‘Holding all men responsible for a violent minority has failed to keep women safe’.
Karinna Saxby, David Johnston, Rachel Knott (Authors, The Conversation) May 1, 2024
‘Our research shows a strong link between unemployment and domestic violence’.
ACTU Secretary Sally McManus (Panellist, ABC Q&A) May 6, 2024
“Why have we undervalued disability care or aged care or early childhood educators? It’s because they’re feminised, which just basically means it’s completely dominated by women. And those caring jobs used to be done for free. And so, as a society, we didn’t value them.”
Misha Ketchell (Editor, The Conversation) May 8, 2024
‘No one has a single solution – and don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.’
The Author: A Childhood Experience
We need Universal Empowerment,
which, disproportionately favouring women, will infrastructurally minimise domestic-violence.
The author was an infant/toddler when his mother and father’s marriage disintegrated into domestic-violence (including coercive-control and, to a degree, religious-authoritarianism).
What followed spans a father’s mental-illness, a mother’s superhuman strength-and-sacrifice, fear (including terror), separation, poverty, escapes, bewilderment, distrust, stigma, torn-secondary-relationships, secondary-physical-altercations, police-assistance (including state executive level), court-cases, being pursued by private-detectives (including break-ins), name-changing, solitary-confinement-type-loneliness and, to detract from being tracked, schooling outside the Education Department.
Selecting one anecdote to demonstrate the sort of trauma (in this case, only secondary) visited upon children via domestic-violence, at age 6, the school wanted to keep the author down a year because, “He can’t read” – the books were about daddy going to work and mummy staying home doing the housework – however, following his full-time-teacher-mother battling the system and its privileged but narrow guardians (including women-administrators), demonstrating he could read portions of a newspaper on cricket, they allowed him to proceed to Grade 2.
At 24, meeting his father for the first time (and discovering he had a new family), it was soothing, broadening and laid a foundation for him and his father to develop a limited but stable relationship. [The author was fortunate – i.e. many, in otherwise similar situations, don’t have this opportunity, which may leave gaps unfilled, questions unanswered and yearnings unquenched, which, in turn, reducing the potential for contextualisation, may decrease the benefit from the positives and increase the detriment from the negatives.]
Regarding minimising domestic-violence, with blame increasing in our society yet humanity’s greatest understatement, ‘No human is perfect’, while we can’t make ourselves flawless, we can optimise our systems, which requires just one of the many occupying a ‘platform’ (or with access to one) to lead – i.e. initiate discussion of the policy solution.
And, while ‘platformed’-men are (at best) tardy in stepping-up, these days, there are plenty of ‘platformed’-women who are also yet to do all they can for Disempowered-women.
For example, Australia’s 2 most powerful Disempowerment-fighting-peak-bodies (ACOSS & the ACTU) are executively led by esteemed long-serving super-empowered women – i.e. the ACOSS CEO (14 years at the helm) and the ACTU President (6 years) & Secretary (7 years).
…
May 9, 2024
Hello
Regarding domestic-violence, we have both the source-problem and, notwithstanding The Conversation editor’s belief, the solution; the only missing-link is someone, with a platform, kickstarting the discussion.
The Problem
The source-problem is Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), which, among other things, infrastructurally creates:
- Poverty
- Paid-work-exploitation
- Reduced choice-&-opportunity
- Via the imposition of Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW), unemployment
- Feelings of hopelessness
- Frustration (especially amongst those men whose comparative natural-aggression may not have a productive outlet)
- A need for security, which becomes an expectation to own a home and settle-down when one’s physiology may be telling them to move and be dynamic, which may also increase our society’s prosperity
- Reduced capacity to ‘societally-contributively self-actualise’
- Mental-illness.
Individually (let alone cumulatively), each is a significant underlying stress factor in domestic-violence – i.e. domestic-violence is, predominantly, not a source-problem but a symptom, which, therefore, despite emotion telling us to ‘solve it directly’, must be solved indirectly via eradicating SIS and SIS’ progeny of UMHoW-caused-unemployment.
Placing domestic-violence into the Big Picture – i.e. into the context of our self-created perfect storm of exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro[international/natural] (SEE-in) catastrophes – it’s a form of Disempowerment:
- Socio- Disempowerment (including domestic-violence)
- Econo- Inefficiency (including unemployment & cost-of-living pressures)
- International-Enviro- Authoritarianism (including religious-authoritarianism)
- Natural-Enviro- Unsustainability.
[However, with the Econo- a subset of the Socio-, their causes and effects intertwiningly circulate – for instance, as Karinna Saxby, David Johnston & Rachel Knott pointed-out, domestic-violence is correlated with unemployment. Moreover, domestic-violence is also correlated with religious-authoritarianism.]
Regarding the source-problem for all 4 SEE-in components, it is SIS.
And, the solution to SIS is, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.
‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ Solution
‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ is SIS-&-unemployment-eradicating plus self-funding.
Regarding the solution, as always, our available tools consist of Science, Human-Organisation & Technology (SHOT); however, while S&T in the form of, for instance, ankle-bracelets may play a peripheral role, it’s Human-Organisation that’s most important.
And, though the law can be tweaked, it’s mostly in place, which means, as Sarah Ison pointed-out, “we need something else, something more”.
‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ involves substituting The Universal Subsistence Income (USI) for:
- Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) [unemployment’s creator]
- Income-Welfare.
Thus, by happy non-coincidence, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ clears the deck of underlying problems, which also allows resources to be productively focused on the remaining (vastly reduced) needs including those relating to domestic-violence.
Moreover, the resources available are increased because the reform is also self-funding – i.e.:
- Government-revenue (per given tax regime) increases as, with less regulation, business booms
- Non-USI expenditure plummets as crime (including domestic-violence, which, according to NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb, takes up the lion’s share of police time), mental-illness, escapism, bureaucracy etc free-falls.
Regarding the family-home environment, in India, I heard women (who had been involved in a USI trial) ecstatically describing a transformed power dynamic in which finances were discussed with their husbands because now they had an income when, previously, they often didn’t.
And, regarding a woman escaping domestic-violence, without bureaucracy, she has a mobile Subsistence-Income – i.e. payment of The USI into joint bank accounts is prohibited. Also, with no UMHoW, there is zero unemployment, which means she can easily find paid-work to match her circumstances. Furthermore, unlike income-Welfare, which is typically lost when paid-work is gained, The USI isn’t lost, which means any paid-work-income is added to it.
Universal Empowerment
Domestic-violence is not only a man problem;
like all our societal-challenges, it’s first & foremost a system problem,
which is the responsibility of all adults
– i.e. we just need to complete our Universal Empowerment infrastructure.
Regarding citizen-Empowerment, there are 5 Universal Empowerment infrastructure cornerstones, which, in order of importance, are:
- Universal Rule of Personal & Property Coopetition Law
- Universal Subsistence Income (USI)
- Universal Liberal Democracy
- Universal Education
- Universal Healthcare.
Currently, other than law and healthcare (to address mental-illness), further attempted solutions fall under Universal Education – i.e.:
- Educating boys
- Highlighting coercive-control
- Blaming all men.
Regarding educating boys, in principle, this is positive (though Michael Salter points out, it’s not really working) provided it doesn’t make them feel inferior or guilty.
Regarding highlighting coercive-control, this type of conceptual nuance is excellent; however, the caveat is, at least in the short-term, those women most threatened (with the most paranoid intimidators) may be at greater risk – i.e. there may be a doubling-down on such as, “If you tell anyone, I’ll kill you”.
Thus, it would have been better to implement ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ first then focus on coercive-control – anyway, given the sequence, there’s an even greater need to implement ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ quickly.
Regarding blaming men per se, which, as Waleed Aly points out, ‘has failed to keep women safe’, as well as distracting us from optimising our national-systems, it’s a counterproductive dangerous generalisation that doesn’t stack-up.
First, we’re all the animal called ‘Homo Sapiens’ and, accordingly, we should all be infinitely humble.
Second, males get half their DNA (and environmental cues) from women.
Third, women have equal responsibility for our society’s systems and share equal fault for them still being suboptimal.
Fourth, it implies women are superior to men, which is the snobbery of being sexist – i.e. each gender has strengths and weaknesses, which the other complements. We need to construct national-systems that maximally harness the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses such that citizens’ ‘societally-contributive self-actualisation’ is maximised.
Fifth, given women are better-off in the West than elsewhere and the Western Model is both the exception rather than the rule and under increasing pressure, if the West fails (and the blaming all men argument further weakens us) then women will disproportionately suffer.
Sixth, the collateral damage of humiliating all men produces a pressure-cooker effect, which may culminate in a medieval type backlash – i.e. we already have medieval-type groups in our society and this will see them further separate and grow.
Thus, let’s nurture the good we have and build on it.
The Freedom to Prioritise Children
Children with mental-illness are more likely to become victims and/or perpetrators of domestic-violence.
Back in the comparatively rough-and-tough ‘insensitive’ times of the ’60’s & ’70’s, a ‘latchkey kid’ was pitied yet nowadays is typical.
[Wikipedia: ‘A latchkey kid, or latchkey child, is a child who returns to an empty home after school (or other activities) or a child who is often left at home with no supervision because their parents are away at work.’]
So, in addition to social-media’s and internet-pornography’s disaffects, perhaps, the increase in child mental-illness is partly due to a comparative decrease in parental attention.
In any case, given children have different personalities, circumstances and experiences, they have different needs, which also differ depending on their stage of development.
Thus, parents should have choice so they can adapt.
‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ gives parents that freedom because it takes care of every modern-economy-residing-person’s first priority – i.e. obtaining a Subsistence-Income.
The Social-Services Industries’ Reckoning
Is Disempowerment decreasing? Is the plight of the Disempowered improving?
In Australia, is there any social-services’ executive who believes, say since 2010, either Disempowerment has decreased or the plight of the Disempowered has improved?
Regarding the social-services industry’s attempts to assist the Disempowered, their emphasis has been on a continuous slow-and-steady ‘tortoise wins the race’ negotiated incremental increasing of:
- Income-Welfare; and,
- Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW).
However, obviously, compared to The USI, both are amateurish peripherals.
Moreover, particularly in the case of UMHoW increases, inflation has totally decimated the ‘benefit’.
Regarding ACTU Secretary Sally McManus, who is an unflappable caring irresistible negotiator, and her reasonable assertion that many feminised jobs are undervalued, the hard way is to continuously battle for wage-increases for each paid-work group (while leaving out women who don’t have paid-work).
The easy way is to give all women The USI (i.e. income = USI + wage) then let the non-SIS-afflicted-market decide the paid-work wage – also, in the case of disability care, aged care, early childhood and cleaning, wages will likely increase as women can be more discerning.
In terms of advocacy, potentially, it is also easier – i.e. business and, irrespective of what they may say, governments dislike increasing either income-Welfare or UMHoW because …
In the case of business, it increases their costs: from increased wages to increased cost-inputs to increased regulation to increased taxation.
[Note: While some businesses may support rises because it increases the Aggregate (total) Demand for their goods & services (i.e. the poor spend a greater percentage of their income), The USI increases Aggregate Demand far more.]
In the case of governments, it increases unemployment and, rather than being self-funding, it decreases their budget by both:
- Increasing expenditure via income-Welfare payments, public-servant-wages, flow-through costs, crime, mental-illness etc.
- Decreasing tax revenue mostly because business is dampened.
Regarding increasing income-Welfare, from a whole-of-society point of view, as well as increasing government-budget-pressure, which detracts from other government-services, it also increases:
- The dole-bludger narrative, which increases mental-illness and societal-disunity
- The gain-paid-work-lose-income-Welfare distortion, which detracts from employment and causes other inefficiencies.
Thus, regarding initiating advocating ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’, since both business and politicians seem shy – i.e. no business leader, employer association, politician let alone political party has yet mentioned it (and, in the media’s case, its focus is more on reporting than proactively initiating) – what about the social-services industry, especially given its raison d’être is to fight Disempowerment and most of its leaders are women?
Conclusion
As Sarah Ison stated, in relation to domestic-violence, ‘we need something else, something more’.
The self-funding SIS-&-unemployment-eradicating ‘USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ holistically fits this bill.
So, given we know the problem is Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) (& its progeny of unemployment) plus we’ve got the solution, all we need is a leader.
Returning to our ACOSS & ACTU leaders, obviously they want to help women and children; however, with their initiatives and negotiations, to this point, suboptimal, the question is, into the future, will their thinking and actions sufficiently evolve?
Thank you.
Best regards
Paul Ross
The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)