Strengthening harm reduction strategies for boys and men in Australia: thinking differently about dominant discourses on gender-based violence

Abstract

In Australia, discussions concerning domestic violence (DFV) and gender-based violence (GBV) frequently depict women and girls as victims and men as perpetrators. While reflecting the reality, this perspective risks marginalising male victims, particularly boys, and infringing upon their rights to safety, dignity, and support. Media stereotypes exacerbate this issue; for instance, violent mothers are often portrayed as mentally ill, male perpetrators are deemed inherently violent, and boy victims are largely ignored. Such erasure violates international human rights standards, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which affirms everyone’s right to protection from violence and discrimination (United Nations [UN], 1998). The concept of the ‘ideal victim,’ typically portrayed as white, young, and female, obscures complex realities and undermines a rights- based approach to violence. Boys experience marginalisation because societal masculine norms deter vulnerability and help- seeking behaviours, thereby infringing upon their rights to health and support. Although harm reduction strategies are widely employed in public health and suicide prevention, their application remains limited in the context of family violence (FV) and GBV. A human rights approach emphasises that harm reduction initiatives should encompass all victims. This discourse advocates for media and institutional advocacy aimed at shifting narratives from pathology and aggression towards promoting healthy masculinities grounded in empathy and caregiving. Drawing upon feminist theory, masculinity studies, and child welfare research, this proposal presents an inclusive model of masculinity founded on ethical intelligence. Men who challenge traditional masculine norms exemplify positive masculinity through engaged parenting and emotional openness. The study encourages collaborative efforts to incorporate male victimisation into education, media, and prevention strategies. Addressing stereotypes and advancing gender equity as fundamental human rights necessitates concerted efforts across education, media, and policy sectors to acknowledge male victimisation. Despite an Australian Government election commitment of $32 million to boys’ and men’s health, additional efforts are essential to integrate these issues within human rights frameworks and public discourse, demonstrating that male victimisation supports, rather than threatens, women’s rights within an inclusive human rights paradigm concerning GBV.

Introduction

In Australia and other Western nations, domestic and family violence (DFV) constitutes a significant issue that remains prominent in social and political discourses [4]. While numerous studies addressing the prevalence of DFV exist, the majority have concentrated on women and girls, as data suggests that men are frequently the users of violence. Australia acknowledges that violence against women and girls represents a significant social concern, with a marked increase in funding and action over the past decade. This has included an increased emphasis on the promotion of healthy masculinities, which has heightened aspects of gender-relations within the context of DFV [32]. However, a contradiction remains within the dominant DFV discourse, in that there is minimal social messaging pertaining to the use of violence by women, particularly that directed towards boys. Indeed, recent research has underscored that boys and men can also experience victimisation within DFV contexts [48, 56, 75]. In particular, there is a conspicuous lack of research concerning DFV used by women against their sons. This topic requires further investigation, discussion and deliberation if society is genuinely committed to mitigating and preventing the harms associated with DFV.

There exists a substantial gap in international empirical research concerning the roles of mothers, in relation to DFV, which prompts reflection on our societal trust in them. Therefore, more comprehensive research is needed to adopt a more holistic and gender-sensitive approach to harm reduction strategy development. While gender has evolved into a culturally universal concept, it is often synonymous with women and girls. Indeed, a new Lancet commission on gender and health reinforced that gender is “often shorthand for women and girls” and calls for an inclusive understanding of gender that recognises the diversity, needs and experiences of all people to achieve gender justice [41]. Furthermore, the report outlined that gender is strategically manipulated and weaponised in ways that influence health outcomes through the realms of health politics and policy [41].

The social norms that govern discussions surrounding gender-based violence (GBV) have become so deeply entrenched that they tend to overlook experiences that do not involve women and girls, including instances where females use violence. The media, including television programs and films, frequently depict narratives of abusive fathers and those who commit violence against or murder their children, perpetuating the misconception that fathers pose a more significant threat to their children than mothers. However, from January to May 2025, in Australia, one woman has been charged with the torture of an infant in Queensland [71], and another woman has been convicted of murdering her two grandsons in New South Wales [70]. Additionally, two girls and one boy were stabbed by their mother in an attempted murder in Sydney [88]. Another woman has been charged with murder following the act of setting fire to her residence in Toowoomba, which led to the tragic deaths of three of her children, and a further woman from NSW was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for setting her male friend on fire [18, 79]. Additionally, a 46-year-old woman has been accused of stabbing her male partner in Adelaide [85]. According to a report by the Australian Associated Press, another woman faces charges related to the sexual assault of seven aged care residents [36]. In a separate incident, a woman from Wyndham has been charged with murdering her partner in what is believed to be an act of domestic violence [44]. Furthermore, another woman has been charged with manslaughter following the death of her infant child [52]. According to 7 News Australia (2025), a woman has also been accused of murder for administering a fatal dosage of painkillers to her partner, and another individual faces charges related to domestic violence after committing acts of assault and torture against her four-year-old daughter [64]. Tragically, another woman was charged with murder by her three-year-old daughter in Bundaberg, Queensland, in May [37]. Two young boys were sadly murdered by their mother in Faulconbridge, NSW [39]. These scenarios are clearly not isolated incidents and demand a more assertive gender-sensitive harm reduction response.

In order to comprehensively address the issue of DFV, it is essential to cultivate a more nuanced understanding that acknowledges that boys can also be victims at the hands of their mothers (as well as their fathers), sisters, or within same-sex households, a reality that is less frequently recognised. Yet, why is it that boys’ voices often remain conspicuously absent in the discourse surrounding violence? The absence of most boys’ voices is primarily due to the tendency of discussions to concentrate on girls and women, as statistics indicate that a greater number of women and girls are victims of DFV. We do not want to trivialise this issue, rather advocated for a more comprehensive and holistic response. However, this focus can inadvertently overshadow the experiences of boys as victims and redirect attention towards deficits in men’s behaviour, rather than illuminating their strengths. There is a paucity of academic research addressing the plight of boys as victims of DFV, particularly in instances involving female perpetrators. By critically examining the intersectionality of this issue, we can attain a deeper understanding of the roles women occupy within the context of gender-based violence (GBV).

Background

Australian society, in conjunction with various international organisations such as the World Health Organization [WHO] [91] and the United Nations [UN] (2024), seldom acknowledges the full spectrum of experiences related to gender-based violence despite its recognition as a significant health issue. For example, the WHO and UN fail to encompass men and boys, women with disabilities and older groups of women and admit that these groups are underrepresented in global data, which undermines comprehensive responses to GBV [91].

Gender serves as a critical lens through which social problems are analysed, with violence remaining at the forefront of these issues. Bell hooks’ (1981) insightful analysis of the civil rights feminist movement underscores a persistent tendency to marginalise Black women, indicating that within these movements, it is equally essential to advocate for the struggles of other marginalised groups. In the past decade, there has been increased scrutiny of male violence through feminist frameworks [25], resulting in notable incursions into mainstream spaces such as policy-making [77], public discourse, and media representation [2]. These approaches have had mixed consequences. Yet, feminist perspectives on women’s use of violence have been less pronounced in scholarly discussions [14]. Nonetheless, violence research indicates that those who experience abuse may themselves become abusers, making it plausible to assert that women can also use violence, particularly given the high rates of victimisation among women and girls [40].

The body of research concerning women’s violence underscores its construction as an “outcome of failed femininity” [14, 76]. Women are generally depicted in two primary ways: as deviant individuals who fail to conform to feminine gender expectations or as irrational mothers burdened by the characteristics of the female body [14], p. 345). The theme of mental illness has emerged as a significant aspect in the interpretation of women’s violence through the pathologisation of the female body [76]. Furthermore, maternal-child abuse is extensively documented on a global scale, contributing to the development of prevention strategies aimed at reducing child mortality rates [13, 76, 84]. Yet, there exists a notable deficiency in information regarding the perpetrator-victim relationship, which limits the evidence necessary for the formulation of comprehensive gender-based prevention strategies [84].

WHO [91] defines child abuse and neglect as encompassing "all types of physical and/or emotional abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect or negligent treatment, as well as commercial and other forms of exploitation that result in actual or potential harm to a child’s health, survival, development, or dignity, particularly within a context of responsibility, trust, or power.” Both male and female children are subjected to the psychological, physical, and social repercussions of GBV. Male children may fall victim to physical abuse [42], including corporal punishment disguised as discipline [1, 90], or emotional abuse that perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes [43], such as the notions of ‘toughening up’ and that ‘real boys do not cry’ [78, 90]. Additionally, they may experience emotional insecurity if mothers withhold affection and love as a means of control [58, 90]. Furthermore, boys may encounter coercive control, which deprives them of autonomy, undermines their masculine identity, and challenges their perceptions of manhood [89].

Child abuse, girl abuse, boy abuse, why categories are ignored?

Recent research regarding child abuse and neglect suggests that “individuals from all races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups are susceptible to child abuse, with boys and adolescents being disproportionately affected” ([33], p. 1). It is a profoundly saddening and heartbreaking situation to observe the death or abuse of children under any circumstances. In instances of filicide, both males and females present a risk to children, although distinct differences in motivations exist between male and female perpetrators [13, 60]. Filicide, defined as the act of a biological parent executing the killing of their child, occurs with greater frequency in Australia than previously assumed, with an average of one child being killed by a parent every fortnight [13]. According to recent research conducted by the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, filicide has now become the second leading cause of death from violence, following intimate partner violence [3].

Furthermore, a longitudinal study conducted by Monash University, with findings published in 2019, indicated that a greater number of boys (156) were victims compared to girls (125), with both male and female individuals representing a similar proportion of offenders. The study further disclosed that 133 victims were deceased as a result of actions taken by custodial mothers, while 82 were killed by custodial fathers during the same timeframe [13]. The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOSAR] (2024) asserts that over the past decade, a significant area in which female offending has escalated is in DFV-related assaults [27]. Among the adult DFV homicides committed by family members, 58% involved male victims. In other documented domestic relationships, which included caregivers, persons of authority, housemates, partners, or ex-partners, male victims predominated, accounting for 83% of the total, while 73% of individuals identified in cases of male victimisation were female (Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOSAR], 2024). Additionally, trends in BOSCAR research up to December 2024 indicate that 41% of family homicides involved children, with fourteen boys versus nine girls affected. There were seven male offenders and nine female offenders (BOSCAR 2024).

A study by Stöckl et al. [84] covering 33 countries found that parents committed more than half of child homicides under 18, with a median rate of 56.5%. Data from these countries indicated that mothers were the perpetrators in slightly over half the cases. In high-income countries, the median percentage was 44.4%, while in the East Asia and Pacific region it was 64.6%. The Americas had a rate of 15.4%, Africa 88.6%, low- and middle-income European countries 60.4%, and the Mediterranean region 7.4%. However, research from the Statista Research Department [83] in the US reports that in 2022, mothers caused 473 child deaths and fathers 226, although victims are not broken down by sex. In Turkey’s latest data, mothers were responsible for 34 deaths and fathers for 17 (36 males, 21 females) [69]. Likewise, in Japan, mothers were responsible for 938 (63.9%) cases, while fathers were responsible for 349 (23.8%). Of the victims with known gender, 914 (53.3%) were boys and 800 (46.7%) girls [92]. In Finland, 117 cases involved mothers and 75 fathers, with 58% of victims being male [50]. However, information on victims’ sex and age remains limited or underreported in many countries.

The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC] has been ratified by 196 countries. CRC obliges State parties to ensure that no child is left behind in progress, that every child is supported to realise their rights and development potential, has a supportive family environment, access to justice, and is protected from violence, abuse, and exploitation (UN 1989). Alongside fulfilling international commitments, tackling violence against children is also a fundamental part of the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child [29]. One of the issues the strategy aims to address is the lack of comparable, age- and sex-disaggregated data on violence against children [87]. Data and evidence are vital for progress and government accountability in ending violence against children. Effective solutions rely on substantial evidence, which requires comprehensive and high-quality data from diverse sources. This data should include statistics, details on affected children, and support services for at-risk children and victims [87].

In Australia, there exists a substantial deficit in the understanding of GBV with respect to the experiences of men and boys who are affected by violence used by women and girls. Public discussions frequently overlook these narratives, thereby undermining the validation and acknowledgment of such GBV. Burton et al. [16] highlight Johan Gultang’s concept of cultural violence, which illustrates this phenomenon: when prevailing attitudes remain unchallenged, they can inflict harm by marginalising individuals and causing damage. For example, a recent analysis of the Australian National Men’s Health Policy (2020–2030) has identified a notable absence of dialogue regarding how DFV constitutes a significant health issue for men and boys, despite existing research indicating that the victimisation of men and boys is on the rise [45, 75]. As victims of violence, boys have historically received considerably less attention in academic research, resulting in a significant gap in understanding prevalent trends, particularly as boys are often active participants in violence prevention programs [10]. One contributing factor may be the underreporting of incidents by boys. This perspective is often corroborated in cases of men’s victimisation, which are influenced by societal constructs of masculinity that depict men as strong, in control, and less susceptible to domination by women [63]. Another contributing factor is the political palatability of accepting GBV from a male victim perspective, because of dominant gender-based public discourses that position boys and men negatively. The intention here is not to (re)create an unproductive gender binary, rather to open discussions about an important, yet remarkably silent, public health issue.

Ideal victim

Understanding the relationship between violence and gender significantly influences societal responses to violence and its associated consequences. Research examining male experiences in GBV remains relatively limited [75]. Nonetheless, boys constitute a demographic that frequently remains underrepresented as victims in various contexts, including refugee situations, conflict environments, educational institutions, and instances of sexual exploitation, as well as within the framework of DFV [51]. This oversight primarily stems from prevailing assumptions regarding the archetypal victim and user roles. Crenshaw [22] posits that the stigma and labelling connected to this binary perception of victim and user impede identifying individuals as potential victims or being at risk.

Furthermore, societal gender norms significantly influence social behaviours, typically portraying boys as resilient and devoid of vulnerability, thereby undermining the concept of victimhood. In media representations and policy frameworks, the predominant emphasis tends to be placed on the elderly woman or innocent girl being assaulted by a stranger, thus epitomising the archetype of the ideal victim [19]. Conversely, violence is often interpreted as a manifestation of hegemonic or toxic forms of masculinity, which further impedes the acknowledgment of boys as potential victims [12]. It is essential to recognise that although occurrences of GBV among boys may be relatively infrequent, their presence as victims is not inconsequential [73]. Social norms and expectations regarding masculinity frequently discourage boys from reporting or admitting to experiences of GBV [24]. Consequently, it can be contended that the attitudes of men and boys toward their experiences of violence, along with their hesitation to report such incidents, stemming from the belief that doing so denotes weakness, reflect an outcome of historical societal constructions of masculinity [12]. It is often observed that the victim is depicted as weak and helpless, evoking pity for their defenselessness. This notion of victimhood can trigger ideas of femininity and subordination, resulting in a loss of respect and reputation, which starkly contrasts with the image of a ‘real man’ [15].

The media as a social actor: How problems are constructed through representation

In the realm of both DFV and GBV, children frequently remain marginalised, as media narratives predominantly emphasise the violent actions perpetrated by adults. Media reporting typically incorporates gender-based tropes for elucidation [60]. Although the media plays a crucial role in shaping the public’s understanding, it often plays an inequitable role in highlighting children as victims. The press rarely acknowledges the experiences of children, or overlooks the cases of DFV or GBV, particularly those who belong to intersectional categories such as those from culturally diverse backgrounds, individuals with disabilities, or First Nations Children. Despite the apparent relevance of research that employs an intersectional lens, it is often insufficient in the context of filicide studies. For example, children with disabilities face a considerably heightened risk of being lethally harmed by their parents, particularly those diagnosed with autism [23, 60].

Furthermore, mainstream media frequently perpetuates prevailing stereotypical norms in their coverage of GBV. Although (un)intentionally positioning boys and men in problematic ways, especially for those from disadvantaged, marginalised, or vulnerable backgrounds. The media and the public frequently attribute excessive importance to cases involving the archetypal victim, commonly referred to as the ‘missing white woman or girl syndrome’ [34]. This phenomenon highlights the substantial focus directed towards cases involving young, white, middle-class females who have disappeared [62]. In the case of mothers who kill, the label of mental illness is applied not only as a justification but also as a defence to evade accountability and prosecution [8]. As such, preventative measures reinforce the importance of seeking mental health support, in turn, and depoliticising women’s violence against children, particularly boys.

Popular media frequently adopts dominant stereotypical norms when reporting GBV. For example, male users of violence are usually labelled ‘perpetrators’ and are portrayed as monstrous men who exploit the vulnerabilities of women [66]. In addition, men often conform to what Flood [31] describes as the ‘Man Box’. For instance, men and boys are less likely to express emotions, including empathy,they are more often depicted as muscular, less likely to be shown as engaged, active parents, and more likely to be portrayed as violent [53]. The media plays a crucial role in shaping societal perceptions of prominent issues such as GBV and reinforcing beliefs about gender stereotyping and the enforcement of dominant gender roles [74]. There is a pressing need for the media to challenge stereotypes of hegemonic masculinity to create a path towards positive and healthy representations of men and boys—increasingly referred to as healthy masculinities.

Changing the narrative: recognising harm reduction as a human rights necessity

Harm reduction involves the pursuit of solutions to various societal issues. It is typically a collection of practical strategies aimed at mitigating negative outcomes within a movement for social justice founded on respect, belief in, and the rights of individuals. The approach ensures that individuals have a voice in the development of programmes and policies intended to serve them, recognising client autonomy in risk reduction and maximising benefits from personal life choices [11, 38]. Similar to how harm reduction for substance abuse does not necessitate complete abstinence, it instead promotes positive identity development and healing. This methodology contrasts with societal expectations for boys and men to embody an idealised, emotionally distant masculinity. Furthermore, harm reduction acknowledges the impact of social structures such as gender norms, which often marginalise boys, increase their vulnerability, and discourage help-seeking behaviour. Strategies including inclusive education, media reform, and policy development exemplify the multidisciplinary, evidence-based focus of harm reduction on inclusion rather than moral judgement.

The CRC (1998) advocates for equality and non-discrimination across gender and age groups. It is essential to challenge the limited binary perspective of gender in victimhood and to promote the inclusion of boys as victims, in accordance with the principle that every individual warrants protection and access to services irrespective of gender. Empathy-based masculinities and comprehensive mental health support uphold this fundamental right by championing boys as victims and fostering emotional literacy. Such an approach can contribute to preventing suicide, violence, and trauma, thereby aligning with the core protections enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [86]. Neglecting male victims or perceiving them through a deficit masculine lens undermines this objective.

A notable issue identified within harm reduction strategies is the assumption that hegemonic forms of masculinity are inherently detrimental and should be diminished in value. As posited by Barry ([5], p. 30), numerous researchers examining the forms of masculinity find themselves limited by a phenomenon referred to as ‘paradigm fixation,’ which implies that masculinity is fundamentally flawed. This perspective, in turn, cultivates a ‘deficit model’ of masculinity [5, 26]. This deficit model, characterised by notions of toxic masculinity or dominant negative gender traits, has infiltrated media outlets and several other institutions on a global scale [6], and has largely ignored the broader field of research on alternative, progressive and healthy forms of masculinities. This concept has been raised for nearly two decades in men’s health promotion scholarship—as an alternative mechanism to reduce harm—but has seldom been adopted in policy and practice [30, 80, 81]. Nonetheless, the ongoing unfavourable narratives surrounding hegemonic masculinity have detrimental effects on men and boys, resulting in skewed representations of toxic individuals and aggressive abusers and thereby alienating them from both their identity and societal connections [7]. Furthermore, the mental health of men and boys may be jeopardised by the shame associated with essential elements of their identity, such as gender [82].

It is imperative to transcend traditional and outdated stereotypes as a pivotal approach to diminishing harm and transitioning away from restrictive definitions of manhood in order to foster healthy masculinities. Kiselica and Englar-Carlson [55], Smith [80], and Fleming et al. [30] as well as Reeser [72], emphasise the significance of confronting the detrimental aspects of masculinity while simultaneously highlighting positive masculinity and men’s strengths, thereby identifying various traits associated with healthy masculinities. The absence of inclusive advocacy creates barriers to awareness regarding positive masculinity. Research reveals a deficiency in diverse representation regarding various social issues, leading the general population to assume that others do not encounter social injustices [47, 57]. Furthermore, additional research has determined that single fathers and men who engage in co-parenting exhibit behaviours akin to those of conventional mothers by interacting equally with their children irrespective of gender, thus eschewing the ‘rough-and-tumble’ play associated with stereotypical masculinity [59]. Understanding hegemonic masculinity through a prosocial lens is essential, as it provides attributes common to humanity regardless of gender, in addition to embracing the emerging positive dimensions of healthy masculinities.

The conceptualisation of hegemonic masculinity through dated stereotypes no longer resonates with numerous men. For example, Connor et al. [21] found that men engage in emotional intimacy, inclusivity, and physicality that is not solely about being dominant, and many men were resisting traditional masculine norms. Connell’s [20] notion of hegemonic masculinity appears to be at odds with the contemporary lived experiences and values of numerous men. Similarly, Kimmel’s [54] claim that the performance of masculinity is influenced by societal expectations fails to address ethical, emotional, and relational needs adequately. Bell hooks (2004) critiques in her feminist writing the detrimental impact that patriarchal discourse imposes on men, positing that it renounces vulnerability and alienates men from their emotional selves. hooks advocates for a model of masculinity grounded in empathy, love, and relational accountability. These theories illustrate that specific constructs of masculinity are increasingly misaligned with the evolving emotional and social landscapes, as many men are adopting emotionally intelligent masculinity that more accurately reflects healthy masculinity. However, a substantial portion of the literature addressing masculinity is centred around violence. Yet, it subsequently fails to adequately explore the reasons why the majority of men do not engage in violent behaviour [65].

Research conducted by Deakin University questions the effectiveness of using masculinity as a behavioural outcome, mainly based on aggression and violence [59]. It concludes that the outdated concept of masculinity should be replaced with more meaningful ideas, as qualities labelled as masculine can be regarded as essential human traits. Therefore, masculinity itself may be irrelevant to the lives of some men [59]. Bates [9] highlight a significant gap in awareness and public education about the victimisation of men and boys by women. Society needs to be better informed about the abusive experiences of men and boys to raise awareness of their victimisation. This is vital for public service providers, lawmakers, and policymakers to work together effectively in advocating for the needs of men and boys. Implementing gender-inclusive educational initiatives is essential to improve prevention and early intervention for male victims and to ensure that appropriate services are available [9].

It is acknowledged that men must support efforts against violence towards women, even if they may feel like outsiders in the collective experience of gender-based violence (GBV). The active participation of men is essential for transforming the discourse and culture surrounding violence. Engaging men as partners in prevention, rather than as perpetrators, is vital for mitigating harm [17, 31, 49, 68]. However, solidarity must be mutual to ensure sustainability. While advocating for male allyship is both necessary and urgent, it must be accompanied by a genuine commitment to recognise, validate, and support men and boys who are victims of GBV. Valuing this support risks creating a paradox of solidarity, implying an intention to defend oneself without extending the same support to others who suffer similar harm. Such an approach not only undermines trust and engagement but also conflicts with the fundamental principles of gender equity and human rights. True gender justice entails including all victims regardless of gender and acknowledging that prevention efforts are more effective when grounded in empathy, inclusion, and shared responsibility. Supporting male victims does not diminish the experiences of female survivors,instead, it reinforces a comprehensive, rights-based framework where no victim remains invisible.

Multiple real-world examples of positive forms of masculinity can now be easily identified to guide the development of harm reduction strategies, such as men engaging in open discussions about their health concerns, articulating their emotions, active fathering, and engaging in proactive consent. Litherland et al. [59] argue that dependability, reliability, the protection of others, and the willingness to risk one’s safety for the benefit of others are regarded as inherently positive aspects of masculinity within contemporary Australian society. In addition, research on masculinity in Australia by Save the Children, State of Australia Fathers, consistently emphasises compassion, caregiving, nurturing relationships, and respect for fatherhood (Wells et al., n.d.). Fathers who engage in activities such as painting their daughters’ nails or participating in their hair and makeup are perceived as exhibiting maturity rather than negativity, in contrast to those who do not engage in fatherhood in a comparable manner [46, 59, 67].

Media outlets have employed harm reduction strategies regarding the reporting of suicide. Numerous guidelines on responsible reporting and best practices for content suitability have been utilised. Irresponsible reporting of suicide is uncaring and unethical, and it can cause potential harm to those who are bereaved. These guidelines minimise harmful content and, at the same time, maximise support and helpful elements that do not sensationalise, stigmatise, glorify or be gratuitous [28, 35]. The same considerations could be applied to the way in which DFV and GBV is reported.

Conclusion

GBV is not exclusive to females. Yet, DFV harm reduction strategies in Australia have seldom included men and boys as victims, and the discussion in this paper outlines why this needs to change. There have, however, been some positive changes that mark an evolution in thought and action. For instance, during the recent national election, both major parties committed $32 million to improve the mental health and wellbeing of boys and men in Australia. The funding aims to address the long-standing and pressing health challenges that boys and men face. As the CEO of Movember recently stated, ‘Australian boys and men are slipping through the cracks of our healthcare system at an alarming rate, and without targeted support, too many are missing out on the care they need’ (Movember 2025, p.1). In many instances within society, health, education, or the criminal justice system, when men face challenges, their claims to men’s human rights or humanity are rarely acknowledged. By moving away from a fixed gender lens, we could view men as humane individuals with positive attributes and as healthy, inclusive people without the need to define them solely by dated masculine norms. Addressing what is considered the masculinity burden could facilitate alternative interpretations of men’s genuine suffering as a human experience, rather than worsening overly resigned ideological views of men’s life experiences [61].

As a society, we have committed to teaching girls that they are equal to boys, and the media have made efforts to elevate female voices, especially the voices of young girls. However, for the goal of promoting gender equality, the same effort should be made for boys. Men and boys deserve to see their full potential as healthy and thriving individuals reflected in the media. By doing so, we can challenge dominant discourses on GBV and work towards enhancing harm reduction strategies while upholding the human rights of men and boys in Australia. This is particularly important as many health and social services are poorly geared towards the needs of boys and young men, and investment in harm reduction strategies targeting this audience needs to be both gender-sensitive and gender-transformative in nature.

Author contributions

SB was responsible for the research and construction of the manuscript, as well as the conception and referencing of the manuscript idea. JS was responsible for revising the manuscript, leading conceptual discussions, and providing mentorship for its creation.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.