This article contains references to domestic violence and murder.
Editor's note: On 10th February, the Daily Mail published a headline that read, “Did living in the shadow of his high achieving wife lead to unthinkable tragedy?” in reference to the killing of the suspecting killing of Emma Pattinson and her daughter by their husband and father, George Pattinson.
The headline was one of many that appeared to find justifications for a man allegedly murdering his wife, contributing to the lethal narrative that blames women for their own murders. In an essay for GLAMOUR, originally published on 20 January this year, Laura Bates examines the systemic misogyny within reporting around domestic violence – and why it urgently needs to change.
Again and again, media outlets report on sexual and domestic violence in terms that either sensationalise and romanticise crimes or implicitly blame victims for their own attacks.
“Husband jailed after he ‘snapped’ and smothered ‘nagging’ wife to death with pillow”.
“Atlanta spa shootings: Suspect had sex addiction and was attempting to take out temptation, police say”.
“Hen-pecked husband killed wife who called him 'limp and useless' over his erectile dysfunction”.
“BBQ Dad ‘killed six over wife’s affair’”.
“Wife jibes about penis size and lesbian tryst ‘drove hubby to murder’”.
“Life for husband driven to double murder by jealousy”.
These headlines are not relics of the past. Most are from the last few years. Earlier this month, a man who had murdered his ex-partner by stabbing her repeatedly and then left her bleeding to death while he went to the pub was described like this in a mainstream newspaper headline: “Scorned toyboy murderer jailed for 17 years for slicing his ex-lover's throat was star at his local tennis club.”
Talking about misogyny is important, but how we talk about it is even more so.
The article read: “Yesterday, Jessop, from Newark, Notts, was jailed for life with a minimum term of 17 years and eight months at Nottinghamshire Crown Court following the 'persistent and brutal' attack. Now the killer's prowess at a very different kind of court has come to light after photos emerged of him playing for Newark Tennis Club.”
In January 2023, a local US newspaper ran an obituary for a man accused of shooting dead his wife, five children and mother-in-law before taking his own life. The obituary described him as a man who “lived a life of service”, “excelled at everything he did”, and “made it a point to spend quality time with” his “cherished children”.
Over the last decade, we have seen even the most high-profile cases covered in this way in national and international media.
An extensive New York Times profile of Elliot Rodger, written by four men and published little over a week after his misogynistic Santa Barbara massacre, was illustrated with a sepia photograph of an angelic-looking Rodger in the fifth grade. In a series of quotes from people who knew him, Rodger was variously described as “smart”, “liked” and “very innocent, very soft-spoken”. The piece even quoted passages from Rodger’s manifesto about being bullied at school, but failed to mention that in the same manifesto he had described women as “beasts,” “twisted” and “the ultimate evil” and argued that they should have all rights removed. The words “sexism”, “misogyny”, “extremism” or “terrorism” are never used.
In the UK, an article about Lance Hart’s murder of his wife and daughter read: “Of course, such men are often motivated by anger and a desire to punish the spouse. But, while killing their partner as an act of revenge may be understandable, for a man to kill his children (who are innocent bystanders in a marital breakdown) is a very different matter. I believe it is often a twisted act of love, as the man crassly believes that the crisis in their lives is so great that the children would be better off dead.”
Why aren't misogynists held accountable for their harmful actions?
The use of the words “of course” and “understandable” to describe a man’s murder of his wife, and the term “act of love” to describe the killing of his own child, is symptomatic of how far into victim-blaming our news coverage of domestic violence has spiralled.
Other UK newspapers painted a sympathetic picture of Hart, focusing on his “struggle” to cope with marital breakdown. The Daily Mail quoted acquaintances who said he was “always caring”, and the Telegraph ran testimonials from neighbours, who described Hart as a “very, very nice guy”, as well as including irrelevant details about his DIY skills.
Charlotte’s brothers, Luke and Ryan Hart, have since described their sister and mother in interviews as “selfless, caring” animal lovers, “obsessed with dogs”. Sporty Charlotte loved horse riding and volunteered to help the elderly. Claire adored her children and liked to grow her own vegetables. None of these details were included in the mainstream media articles that waxed lyrical about Hart’s DIY skills and good nature.
This systemic misogyny in news reporting isn’t just about the devastating injustice of such coverage for the victims and their loved ones. It also matters because of its significant wider impact on our cultural understanding of abuse and attitudes towards perpetrators, victims and survivors.
“You can be kind but strong, empathetic but decisive, optimistic but focused...that you can be your own kind of leader.”
We already live in a society in which people are willing to go to great lengths to make excuses for perpetrators, where they struggle to believe a “nice guy” could really be an abuser behind closed doors, where women are repeatedly blamed and shamed for their own attacks and asked “why didn’t you just leave”?
Our public misconceptions about abuse take a devastating toll: such attitudes make it less likely that victims will feel able to report or reach out for help, for fear of being disbelieved or blamed. They make it less likely that survivors will receive an adequate response from law enforcement and the criminal justice system. And they embolden abusers to believe they can continue to act with impunity.
When our police forces, juries and judges are drawn from the same society exposed to these outdated, damaging portrayals of domestic violence, the damage is clear. There is a connection between these kinds of attitudes and the rhetoric of Metropolitan police officers who joked in a group chat that “DV [domestic violence] victims love it… that’s why they are repeat victims more often than not.” And for those who might ask what the real-life impact of such ideas and attitudes are, look no further than one member of that WhatsApp group, Wayne Couzens, who went on to rape and murder Sarah Everard.
Of course, there are some media outlets working hard to report responsibly, and of course, the media are not exclusively responsible for societal attitudes, but they undoubtedly have an enormous amount of influence. Imagine if they used that power to raise awareness about the epidemic of male violence, to honour victims and survivors or to correct common misconceptions, instead of fuelling them further.
For more information about emotional abuse and domestic violence, you can call The Freephone National Domestic Abuse Helpline, run by Refuge on 0808 2000 247.
