Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Media extols 'loving father' who beat his son to death with a cricket bat

41 replies

DonkeySkin · 14/02/2014 11:36

UK members might have read of the horrific murder of 11-year-old Luke Batty from Melbourne, whose father stabbed and then battered him to death with a cricket bat in front of onlookers, including Luke's mother Rosie, at a junior cricket practice on Wednesday. The father was then shot by police as he came at them with a knife, and later died in hospital.

Greg Anderson had an extensive history of domestic violence, had threatened to kill Rosie Batty, who had an AVO against him, and was only permitted contact with his son in public places. Police believe the murder was premeditated - i.e., he took a knife to one of the few places he knew he would be able to get close to his son, killed him, and then carried out 'suicide by cop'.

I want to discuss the incredibly disturbing way the media here has covered the case. I'd do it in an Australian forum, but unfortunately we don't have any large online feminist spaces, and my impression is that the coverage is not that different to the way the UK media covers similar cases. I think it's important to talk about, because the implications for the feminist campaign to end male violence against women and children are grave if this is how public discussion of such crimes is allowed to proceed.

First off, every major news outlet has emphasised how much Anderson 'loved' his son, and was loved by him in return. In fairness, they took their lead from a statement given by Luke's mother which said exactly that. The other major emphasis has been on Anderson being allegedly mentally ill - again, this angle comes from Rosie Batty's interview, in which she speculated that her estranged husband had 'an undiagnosed mental illness'.

I am not going to pass judgement on anything a mother whose child has just been murdered in front of her says or feels in this situation, except to note that she is no doubt in shock and perhaps trying to rationalise what has happened. Regardless, this does not exculpate the media from reconstructing the brutal and premeditated murder of a child as the 'inexplicable' act of an otherwise 'loving father'.

Rosie Batty also told reporters of the years of violence and intimidation she had suffered at Anderson's hands, and that Luke 'felt pain and sadness and fear for his mum' - but this was all lost in the determination by the media to portray Anderson as a vulnerable man whose untreated mental illness was to blame for his act of violence against a son he 'loved more than anybody'. Notably, the word that has been used over and over again to describe this case is not 'crime', but 'tragedy' (Prime Minister Tony Abbott used the word five times in his comments on the case). A tragedy, it is implied, in which Anderson was as much a victim as the boy he murdered, and the partner he has left childless.

Such narratives are essentially a wholesale reversal of the truth. Anderson was not the victim of an unforeseeable tragedy, but the perpetrator of a brutal crime. This crime was not indicative of a hurt father's loss of control, but rather the ultimate assertion of his right to total control over his family. He was not 'vulnerable' and 'lost' - his partner and child were vulnerable to his deliberate and sustained violence. People with mental illnesses are much more likely to harm themselves than others, and, if they are experiencing violent psychosis, they lash out at random targets rather than carry out coldblooded murders of specific ones. Lastly, and most obviously, fathers who love their children do not annihilate them in order to get back at their former partners.

I believe such false framing of male violence against women and children is a political act. When a state-controlled media circulates lies in order to justify the violence of the state, we understand this for what it is: propaganda. The difference is that the kind of propaganda which seeks to justify and excuse male violence is not disseminated by a central controlling body - rather, it circulates in the cultural body of a patriarchal society, which subscribes, at its core, to the same belief that drove Anderson's decision to murder his son, one which asserts the primacy of a man's will and feelings over the actual lives of women and children. And so such a society must endlessly repeat back to itself stories that uphold this tenet, and seek to prevent the naming of truths that would expose it.

OP posts:
scallopsrgreat · 15/02/2014 14:31

"To these men, their children are not human beings that exist independently of them and have a right to their own lives - they are objects to be wielded in their battle to control their wives." Yes. That is it. Yet you'd think it was women who were the ones using children to control their exes given most press coverage. Whereas in fact in a greater number of cases those women are trying to protect their children from the effects of abusive men because no one else will.

mathanxiety · 16/02/2014 01:26

There is a tendency not to acknowledge that some fathers who get divorced are mentally ill, and also to proceed in custody cases as if a diagnosis of mental illness has no bearing on someone's capacity to be a parent. Of course if has a bearing on your capacity to parent.

It doesn't get addressed because nobody wants to do the old fashioned Victorian stigmatising of people with mental illness. But pretending it's something that only affects the individual with the MH problem is ludicrous.

It is incredibly hard for a woman to prove that a father is not fit to have contact with his child for any reason, including mental illness. Right now the theory goes that children's safety is paramount. But that gets women and children nowhere when the bar of proof is set egregiously high and it costs so much in fees for psychologists and lawyers to proceed with a case on this basis. Rosie Batty had managed to get over that hurdle and contact was limited to public places only, but still his 'right' to see his child trumped every other element of the matter -- the child himself was worried about his father.

He is called a 'loving father' because he was mentally ill. It's the expression of a sentimental idea that his demons prevented him from expressing his love for his son the way people do when they don't have MH problems. It's a patronising view of mental illness that does suffering people no good but fathers' rights advocates will take everything they are offered if it furthers their anti-mother, anti-woman cause.

mathanxiety · 16/02/2014 01:55

And it is also really, really hard to get someone into treatment if they are not willing to go. I don't think we can discount the question of mental illness as a real factor here.

I realise it is not popular to express opinions that are other than compassionate towards people with mental illnesses, but in custody and visitation cases the issue needs to be given far more weight. Couple the sense of being the victim of an anti-father, ball-breaking court system with anger at being rejected by a woman and add severe depression or suicidal fixation and you have a recipe for the sort of murder that happened here.

Of course on top of all that you have a police department that doesn't keep track of warrants and places a low priority on domestic cases, and nobody paying enough attention when a man with apparently nothing to lose makes threats about his family.

mathanxiety · 16/02/2014 02:05

WilsonFrickett This also feeds into the 'mental illness = crazy psychopath' meme which is equally damaging.

Yes, it is damaging. But so also is the view that people who are mentally ill are not capable of domestic abuse -- damaging to people who try to argue in court that an exP has a MH condition that could lead to danger for defenceless people. Some people who abuse are mentally ill and some are not. It is too hard for women to make headway in custody and visitation cases no matter what the issues are.

mathanxiety · 16/02/2014 02:09

There seems to be a willful disregard in all these cases of:
a) The link between being an abusive partner and an abusive father
and
b) That male violence never happens in a vacuum. These men are always always always violent or abusive prior to them committing murder.
In fact disregard is probably too polite a word. Obfuscation, cover-up, denial are all better and more accurate. [Scallopsrgreat]

I agree 100% with this.
But whether the MH issue is disproportionately focused on or not is not the issue. The issue is that whether someone has a MH issue or not, it is far too difficult to get a court to stop access to children. If someone does have a MH issue that fact is ignored out of fear of discriminating.

Dervel · 16/02/2014 04:48

I'm not sure I entirely agree, although that was a very articulate OP and it opens a very important discussion. Wether or not the OP is right my thoughts lead me to the same conclusion. If for whatever reason a parent is in a supervised or only in public places contact situation there has to be more legwork done on assessment of that individual. Wether they are mentally ill (and with the caveat of suffering from mental health issues that are likely to result in violent behaviour, there is no need to stigmatise all people with conditions), or simply cruel and vindictive a child must be protected.

If someone refuses to get treatment and support if they suffer from something, then I'm afraid until such time as they do they cannot have contact with their children. Same goes if they are violent, but suffer no mental health problems. Additionally that treatment/assessment has to actually be followed up and maintained, it wouldn't be enough to simply attend.

The scariest part in stories like these is that it is remarkably hard to stop one determined individual hellbent on causing a tragedy. I'm not entirely sure how you can stop someone in situations like these, although doubtless if there were measures of anonymity for the other parent and child that would afford some level of protection.

msrisotto · 16/02/2014 08:12

Horrible incident, I wasn't aware of it.

It has made me think though, that what is it, one or two women a week are killed at the moment? A lot by abusive partners and we don't say they have mental health problems do we? By we I mean the papers. They are just 'bad', it seems in circumstances like this where it was his child and in public that it is so incomprehensible that killers are labelled 'mad'. If this is correct, is the logical conclusion of this, that it is understandable when women are killed in abusive relationships? Or maybe we are just incredibly desensitised by the frequency?

scallopsrgreat · 16/02/2014 08:12

"I'm not entirely sure how you can stop someone in situations like these" I think the stopping of situations like this happens way way before i.e. the man faces consequences for his actions and is not supported and enabled by society to the point where it gets to the stage where he feels entitled to kill his child.

Anniegoestotown · 16/02/2014 08:24

With my limited knowledge of the law I always thought you could not plead mental illness if a criminal act was premeditated. From what has been reported the fact he had a knife on him and had planned the whole thing the if this case had come to court he could not have said he was mentally ill.

scallopsrgreat · 16/02/2014 08:33

Oh I don't know msrisotto there are lots of excuses made for men who kill their partners. They were provoked or it was a moment of madness or diminished responsibility is used as a defense. And this all ignores the fact that the vast vast majority of them were abusive before hand.

And that's kind of why I disagree with mathanxiety. I agree with what your saying but I think in practice using MH issues in access battles will work far more often against a woman.
Women are more often diagnosed with MH issues.
Women are far more often disbelieved about abuse from a partner (which is probably contributing greatly to her mental state).
MH issues are not understood in great detail by the justice system. So the nuances of whether a particular MH issue is likely to have a significantly detrimental affect on parenting.
We live in a misogynistic society who are just lapping up opportunities to blame women and punish them.

DonkeySkin · 16/02/2014 11:26

Dervel, you said: 'it is remarkably hard to stop one determined individual hellbent on causing a tragedy'.

There's that word 'tragedy' again.

More accurately, I would say, it is remarkably hard to stop one determined individual hellbent on committing a crime.

A tragedy is usually understood to be an awful event that was not deliberately caused and happened out of everyone's control - a plane crash, a boating accident, a tsunami. When someone plans and succeeds in carrying out a murder, as in this case, it is a crime. Why is that so difficult for everyone to say?

OP posts:
FairPhyllis · 16/02/2014 12:07

Shocking that his history of violence and abuse was not reported more widely.

However when I see a case about a man killing his children I now automatically assume he is/was an abusive twat, so I did suspect that was probably the case here too when I read about it.

Donkey Because the whole world is frightened of naming male violence. Because if it does, that will be the first step in overturning patriarchy.

mathanxiety · 16/02/2014 19:48

I think you are right there Scallopsrgreat. It's all part of the picture of the system being loaded against women because the whole world is frightened of naming male violence. Because if it does, that will be the first step in overturning patriarchy.. [FairPhyllis]

Women who can't pay for the sort of litigation it takes to get this sort of man out of their lives and away from their children are silenced.

Skybore · 19/02/2014 19:32

Well F**r, mum really cares that he had a problem with his mental health... What a stupid troll comment to make on such a story.

"What triggered this was a case of his dad having mental health issues," Ms Batty told Channel Nine.

"He was in a homelessness situation for many years, his life was failing, everything was becoming worse in his life, and Luke was the only bright light in his life.

"No one loved Luke more than his father. No one loved Luke more than me - we both loved him", she told the broadcaster.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/father-stabs-son-then-beats-him-to-death-with-cricket-bat-in-front-of-horrified-children-9125157.html

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 19/02/2014 19:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

scallopsrgreat · 19/02/2014 20:52

You don't stab and kill someone you love. In front of his classmates. You just don't. This man was violent and abusive. He didn't know how to love. His version of love was so far from love it doesn't bear thinking about.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page