In the wake of the horrific alleged attack on Helen Haines, witches, everyone and their dog have quickly jumped to find reasons why this diabolical act occurred. From increasing aggression towards politicians to failures in social media discourse to failures of mental health to a worrying “cooker” mentality in that part of the country, everyone has their theories. Yet except for a few on social media (including MFW), few commenting are willing to look the elephant in the room in the face. Which is this: although the alleged crime in question hasn’t been shown to be an overt act of violence against women, the clear fact is that men who want to harm someone so often choose a woman or women to hurt and few individual men choose to attack either a man or group of men. The reasons are obvious: for aggrieved men, women (and sometimes children) are a soft target for their unbridled fury. And for women, this is in itself … devastating. In last Saturday’s SMH, though, there was a single paragraph which alluded to a possible motive (or part-motive) for alleged attacker Brendan Nugent. It’s this: “Those close to Nugent say he started smoking marijuana in his teens, and his mental health began to unravel in his 20s, but they hadn’t noticed any signs of extremism. Others, including neighbours, have described years of aggression and violence from Nugent, particularly targeted at women. When the Haines attack happened, Wangaratta police were already investigating a report that he had menaced a woman with a claw hammer last month following an alleged road rage incident near the town.” smh.com.au/politics/federal/…? So whether it’s true Nugent is mentally or physically unwell (not a reason for violence) or had some kind of beef with Helen Haines or his family or politicians in general (still not a reason for violence), if any of the above quote is true it would make sense. Because when violent men get out of control, they so often seek to harm those they believe can’t or won’t fight back. We could point to so many crimes both here and overseas to demonstrate this point. There’s an epidemic of violence against women ATM, and most of those in positions of power refuse to name it, let alone fix it. In fact, far from “turning down the temperature”, most of Australia’s politicians and media class STOKE the burning fires, by refusing to condemn the violent slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians, or joyfully sucking up to verbally violent pricks like Sandilands, or taking grinning selfies with endlessly violent Trump, or eagerly broadcasting the misrepresentations of allegedly violent war criminal BRS, or even refusing to prosecute those responsible for thousands of deaths via their criminal incompetence on Robodebt and aged care and restrictions on the healthcare of veterans and NDIS recipients, amongst much other fuckery. THE VIOLENCE IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE FUCKING HOUSE, ALBO. And sure, it’s now replicated and amplified on social media and in people’s everyday lives, but that’s because of the DEVASTATING EXAMPLE SET BY OUR POLITICAL MASTERS. And most of all, all this violence rebounds on women. And on their children. And on those in minority groups who must listen to themselves being endlessly vilified by people like Hanson, with no valid recourse. Because Australia, both politicians and the media REFUSE to do the things which must be done to stop this violence. Since those things are always too scary, too hard, too expensive, or too difficult for those (such as Murdoch, Stokes and others) who don’t WANT women to have more influence so who’ll retain the bloodthirsty power they’ve built up over past decades by any means necessary, violent or otherwise. And who’ve so comprehensively bought or cowed the politicians they own we all pay the fucking price. This is why it’s left to MFW to today say the unsayable. It’s not much, and it’s nowhere near enough, but if we don’t say it loud and clear, who the fuck will? 1/2