The recent death of Eurydice Dixon has sparked a heated debate regarding the ways in which the public has responded to the issue of violence among women, as well as the rationality of their approach to preventing the issue. In response, Jenna Price has written a fervent opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘For Eurydice’s Sake, we need to do more than vigils’, which contends that the public needs to take more action to combat violent acts against women. In contrast, Joe Blow has written a pragmatic comment which contends that men should not be held responsible for violence against women, but instead, this form of violence is a generational issue where both men and women can either be victims or perpetrators.
From the outset, Price alarms the reader by arguing that violence against women is not a novel issue, but rather, one that has been an ongoing detriment to the public on many occasions and is increasingly worsening. Structurally, the portrayal of the deaths of women that have been caused by violence as ‘senseless’ and ‘unexpected’ is placed first to challenge the reader’s view that the deaths of these women can simply be controlled if the victims are more cautious while wandering around in public. This is coupled with the inclusive language which appeals to the reader’s common sense, stating that ‘we see it’s not [Eurydice’s] fault’ that she died, which insinuates that preventing her death is not in her hands. In doing so, the reader is positioned to feel indirectly responsible for her death, as well as are encouraged to take the initiative to address this form of violence more seriously. The public’s refusal to act is further reinforced through Price’s method of listing the victims who have died from violence before Eurydice’s murder, including ‘Anita Cobby, the kind and beautiful nurse’, where ‘kind and beautiful’ have connotations of an innocent woman who did not deserve to be ‘killed by a stranger’. Ultimately, Price appeals to the reader’s empathy while urging them to take more action to prevent more lives from being lost.
Maintaining her assertive tone, Price goes on to argue that although some practices have been taken to spread awareness about the increasing violence against women, many of these approaches have not been effective in combating the issue. In stating that ‘good, small and manageable’ efforts have been taken to ‘gain control’ over the brutality that women face, Price presents herself as someone who is not completely ignorant of the action that has already been taken to resolve the issue of violence against women, thus guiding the reader to view her as someone who is understanding of the public’s awareness of the severity of the issue. Price then employs a first-person register in ‘I challenge you to do more than that…” in order to position the reader to feel as if they are a vital part of making a change. This is followed by a series of command verbs including ‘Insist your local politicians…” or “Ask why they refuse to find the most basic needs…”, which is intended to encourage the reader to become more active in addressing the issue. In doing so, Price also presents herself as someone who is knowledgeable about the steps that need to be taken to address the issue of violence against women, and encourages the reader to have confidence in her resolution of finding ways beyond social media to spread awareness about the issue.
In response to Price’s opinion piece, Blow adopts a reasoned tone in arguing that addressing the issue of violence against women takes time and the immediate blame should not be placed on men alone. By placing both men and women on an equal footing, Blow establishes his rationality by emphasising that this form of violence is a ‘generational issue’, where no minority are at fault for such violence. Blow’s logic is further endorsed through his use of scientific knowledge, which suggests that ‘Eurydice’s killer and Jill Meagher’s killer have both a psychological tendency to violence and upbringing’, which echoes Price’s proposal to teach children about ‘safe societies in school’ and to teach these values in ‘childcare and preschool…’. While Blow criticises the ‘continuous decrying of men as the problem’, Price stays true to her position as a woman by asserting the need to ‘save the lives of women and girls’. This appeal to the reader’s empathy positions them to regard women and girls as the main victims. Price’s urgent tone is reinforced at the conclusion of her piece, where she highlights the dire consequences of the refusal to take more action towards combating these crimes, including ‘more rapes and more murders’, which instils a sense of fear in readers. In contrast, Blow calms the reader through his composed tone as he refers to historical events including the ‘allowing of women to vote’ which took ‘more than a generation’. Not only does he assure readers that change will come with patience, he ends with a rhetorical question which asks ‘how is this any different?”, further encouraging the reader to seriously consider the gradual steps that must be taken in order to achieve equitable treatment of women, as opposed to the need for immediate action as Price suggests.
In both pieces, Price and BLow acknowledge that violence against women must be addressed. Yet, whilst price urges readers to go beyond the actions already taken to spread awareness about violence against women, Blow postulates that there are many complexities involved in working towards an end to violence against women, and these nuances must be addressed. Both writers establish their rationality through their use of pre-existing knowledge, but both ultimately do so to bolster different views on how the issue of violence against women should be addressed.