Recently you may have seen that Mark Latham decided to write down his opinion on Rosie Batty, domestic violence and how things just aren’t like they used to be. And the editors at the Financial Review, in their wisdom, decided yet again, to publish his writings. If you haven’t read it, and feel you must, click here.
I wasn’t going to write a post about his nonsensical ramblings, but I’m furious. Furious that someone who apparently has the capacity to access the statistics and to talk to the relevant people can write such ill-informed, disrespectful and damaging twaddle. If you don’t want to read it, fair enough. The gist of it, from my reading, was this: he started off questioning how Rosie Batty is grieving her child, reminiscing for the days when the ‘working class’ would keep their grief private (I am not joking, he used those terms). He then moved on to having a go at her for speaking at events, like business functions, and for having an agency who arranged her bookings for these events. He bemoaned the way we turn grief into celebrity these days. He had a go at several writers for airing their issues in public, and made light of one man’s discussion on alcoholism, by stating that his writing made him feel like drinking. Hilarious. The ultimate point of his piece then seemed to come through, where he attempts to argue that the issue of domestic violence is a fiction made up by left feminists, and it only really affects indigenous and “other underclass communities” anyway. Yes, he refers to indigenous people as “underclass” and apparently anyone else who experiences domestic violence is also a part of the “underclass”. Wait, what? What year are we in?
So here are some of the things that sprang to mind upon reading this. Mainly, why the hell is the Financial Review still publishing this drivel? But also; who is Mark Latham to dictate how a person grieves? Who is he to tell Rosie Batty that she isn’t grieving her murdered child in the correct fashion? How are we at a point, as a community, where it’s ok for someone to so publicly shake their head and ‘tsk tsk’ at a woman who is working through a grief that will be life long, life changing and very nearly soul destroying? Rosie Batty must every day deal with the violent loss of her son, and every day she manages to get up and step into the world with the purpose of helping others and preventing more family violence. Oh yes, truly worthy of dressing down.
To the comments on her being represented by an agency, and horror of horrors, being paid for her work: This is coming from a man who works within an industry where people regularly use agencies to manage their speaking appearances, his ‘dismay’ is questionable. He is pedalling smoke and mirrors. Having an agency representing her merely means she has someone sorting out her speaking appearances, whilst she gets on with the actual work. You know, the important work, of speaking, educating and raising awareness of an epidemic of violence that in the majority, impacts on women. Women like you, me, your sister, cousin, girlfriend, colleague, boss, mother.
To his claim that the idea that women from all socio-economic communities are at risk from domestic violence being a “Big Lie” of the feminist left. Well, one can only imagine he hasn’t actually read anything about domestic violence in Australia. He follows this up with this zinger. That domestic violence is concentrated in indigenous and “other underclass communities”. Putting aside the charming, retro use of the word “underclass”, so what? Just because there is a higher prevalence in indigenous communities means we shouldn’t speak about it? Shouldn’t do anything to address it? The truth is, the numbers are so high that it means it is prevalent across all communities. Low, middle and high socio-economic.
His assertions that Rosie Batty is putting women at risk is not only insulting, but also flies in the face of all that is known by those who have actually studied, worked, researched or experienced family violence. You know, the ACTUAL experts. Being an ‘almost’ important person, does not make you an expert.
Being a white, privileged, “well educated”, well paid male does not give you the right to belittle the indigenous, the working class or to dismiss the ongoing horrific experience of thousands of women. An experience forced upon them by men.
Feeling miffed because a “working class” (I shit you not, he referenced ‘working class’) woman isn’t sitting at home hiding her grief does not give you the right to belittle her, nor does it make you an expert on family violence.
I’ve worked with it, I’ve sent it. I personally know women who are well educated, well employed, highly regarded, white and other, who have experienced varying degrees of violence against them. By well educated, well employed, well regarded white men. Because they are women. Don’t be fooled by his apparently racist, sexist dismissive ramblings. This issue is huge, it is relevant and his scared, pitiful whining against the “left wing feminists” ie women who don’t conduct themselves in a golden age, 1950’s fashion, speak more of his fearful close mindedness, than anything actually resembling fact.
Well Mark Latham, here’s my opinion. We are not in the 1950’s anymore. We are no longer shackled by old fashioned views on grief, violence, abuse and the role of women. Men and women today are able to talk about the terrible things that can happen in our society because as we evolve as a society we recognise that education is important. Education where we tell young men and women that violence of any kind is not acceptable. We do not hide at home in our grief anymore, unless that is what we want to do. Indigenous people and women ARE NOT underclass. Violence against women DOES happen across all parts of our society and WE ALL need to do more about it. Rosie Batty suffered an unthinkable loss, and has somehow managed to focus her life so that to help others. To speak up, to make others aware and to educate our society on the violence that is harming women and children daily. For that, we should be gathering around Rosie, lending her our strength and asking what can we do? We should be standing with her. I know I am.
Something I have been thinking about, pretty much since I started the blog, is whether or not to post photos of the kids, and to use their names. So far I have chosen not to. On my personal FB and Instagram pages I do, but here on the blog I have generally used photos that don’t show their faces, and referred to them as the Little Miss and the Little Mister. But is this thinking sensible caution or just a touch paranoid? Most of my favourite bloggers identify their kids either with their names or photos or both. And these are successful bloggers, with loads of people clearly knowing who they are.
I come from a professional background that no doubt contributes to my caution (ten plus years in child protection and working with vulnerable/at risk families). I’ve done a bit of reading around the web, and of course, found conflicting ideas on the subject. Some people feel that the children should be old enough to agree/disagree with their photos being posted. Some feel that there is a risk of predators accessing and misusing the images. Some have even suggested that in the future, other kids could use the images in cyber-bullying – particularly if they are embarrassing photos. I found this article and this one to be interesting reads on the topic.
I have to say I’m still undecided. It’s cumbersome, referring to the kids as the Little Miss and the Little Mister. And sometimes, I really want to share photos with you! Like here. Perhaps I’ll share the occasional photo and think on how to refer to them without too much identifying information.
What do you do? What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!