MDIA2002 – View Journalism Analysis Claire Keenan z5117630

Eurydice Dixon: Who is at fault?

By Claire Keenan

The death of Eurydice Dixon is a story that Australia won’t forget. It’s a story that
newsrooms will have saved in the archives and is now permanently attached to the
news reel of murdered women at the hands of a male. Sexism; abuse; assault; murder
have been topics stirring in the media circuit for decades now, however it was not until
recently this year that something disturbing became the topic on everyone’s lips in
Australia. Victoria Police Superintendent David Clayton, announced earlier this year, of
the rape and murder of a young woman while she walked home through a park, after
her own comedy gig. Journalists captured the moment Officer Clayton reminded women
of the importance of “staying safe”, and the need to take “protective” precautions. What
was to follow became the timeless news story, after Eurydice’s perpetrator, nineteen-
year-old Jaymes Todd, turned himself into police. Two opinion pieces, one by The
Conversation writer Bianca Fileborn, Eurydice Dixon murder: why women are sick of
being told to 'stay safe' and the other by prominent writer Claire Lehmann entitled
“Eurydice Dixon: ‘Rape Culture’ facts just don’t fit”, present opposing reactions, just a
week after the horrific event. While both writers deal with a proximate and current
issue for the foreground of their pieces, they inevitably delve into a much broader
discussion over the ethical issue of rape culture. What is most interesting, perhaps, is
that while Fileborn’s article assumes a like-minded audience, Lehmann’s piece
addresses itself to an audience that have presumably read articles like Fileborn’s - more
opinionated than fact-based - and offers an alternative argument to the perceived public
opinion.

Both articles decide to provide a perspective on the culture of rape in Australian society
– however, how they do this, differs greatly. After studying, Fileborn’s article, her style
of personal, anecdotal writing lends itself to the status of her piece which is highly
opinionated. Fileborn’s explicit use of pronouns such as “we” and “us”, ‘flag waves’ her
assumed audience to be likeminded women, and those who believe in her central claim.
This claim is largely feminist, where she calls out the blame for men’s violence always
falling back onto women. On the contrary, Lehmann’s article presents itself as more

1
MDIA2002 – View Journalism Analysis Claire Keenan z5117630

formal, with less anecdotal comments and a focus on providing scientific evidence to
prove her central claim that ‘rape culture’ is not the reason for violence against women,
it is mentally-ill individuals that cause harm. Thus, Lehmann’s writing exists more
argumentative as she attempts to prove her point, tailored to an audience she presumes
is educated on the public debate but is somewhat ‘sitting on the fence’ when it comes to
pointing the finger. These two articles are arguably polar opposites; however, they
attract through such an interesting comparison. It is almost as if one article would not
exist if the other was not written.

Appearing in the more recent google searches of the death of Eurydice Dixon, I
originally read Fileborn’s article first. At first glance, the article is visually set up with
social media posts, snippets of tweets and interesting inserts of ‘Women safekeeping
strategies’. This material serves to undermine what Police Superintendent David
Clayton advice to women, needing to take priority of their safety, especially when alone
at night in public. It quickly becomes clear that Fileborn strongly defends the women,
especially Eurydice, who all did and do partake in these embedded safekeeping
routines. She posits that it is in fact the men who need to change, and that “deep-seated
cultural, social and structural changes need to happen to truly prevent this violence
from occurring in the first place”. Fileborn’s casual claim – “we deflect the blame for
men’s violence back onto women” – draws connections between Eurydice’s death and
the issue at hand and thus as the article progresses it becomes more recommendatory
in nature.

Fileborn warrants that women, universally, are being mistreated, seeking confirmation
through her appeal to ethics and emotions that she presents as completely rational and
viable. She uses her own personal experiences as a woman, for evidence to align her
view with what she perceives as most women’s views, on this topic –
“…as I walked home that night, I found myself questioning whether I should take
my usual route home through the park…twilight dissipated into darkness…my
world instantly becoming a little smaller”
Fileborn’s use of evocative language here, evokes a relatable and personable tone to the
piece which harnesses her readers to her side. This personal tone also exists to support
Fileborn’s appeal to emotion, explicitly in her series of rhetoric questions that follow,

2
MDIA2002 – View Journalism Analysis Claire Keenan z5117630

“What if this happens to me? Am I being reckless?”. Fileborn is quick to serve a problem
of injustice towards women, with strong evidence that women face an “impossible
double bind” in engaging in “safety routines”.
“we restrict our worlds…yet if we don’t engage in these routines, we are
positioned as being to blame for what happens to us”

However, her piece does not attempt to offer a solution, even though she encourages
women to still walk home at night. This positions her article alongside the many others
that commented on the tragedy of Eurydice’s death. Moreover, Fileborn’s mentions
statistics that “show all too clearly” that feeling safe is different from being safe, without
providing them to back her proposed argument. This choice reflects on Fileborn’s
assumption that her readers are educated on the high rates of abuse, and that they will
follow on with her opinion without second thought.

Further along in the article, Fileborn references counterarguments on the debate over
“advice” women are given to gain a “sense of control” in their own safety. Interestingly,
Fileborn includes claims from feminist researchers, who predict that “random” acts of
violence are rare because of the precautionary measures women take. The author
addresses this argument as “impossible to verify” and proposes yet another rhetorical
question of “how do you measure something that hasn’t happen?”. It is interesting to
note here, that Fileborn, who herself appears quite feminist, is ready to tear down other
feminist views, to propose what is right and wrong. Perhaps this is to highlight, that
Fileborn is not just another feminist writer, and is rather a strong advocate, appealing to
the ethics to answer this the issue at hand.

Although some argumentative techniques are employed, Fileborn’s piece is

characteristically more opinionated. From her assumptions, there is no need to
convince an audience that she perceives to already be on her side, thus as it progresses
the article becomes more of a war cry or protest for all women who have felt unsafe at
the hands of men. This is evident in the final pars of the article, wherein Fileborn’s voice
turns highly persuasive and strong in articulating her opinion, using phrases such as
“we need” and “happens to us”. Laden with powerful, emotive language, the author ends
the article with a personal anecdote that evocatively gives a ‘shout out’ to all the women

3
MDIA2002 – View Journalism Analysis Claire Keenan z5117630

who are sick of being told to stay safe – the premise and title of the article. Thus, the
sentence of “I did walk home through the park alone in the end: a small act of feminist
resistance in honour of all the women who should have made it home safely” is
Fileborn’s strongest appeal to both emotion and ethical reasoning. It follows on from
her first indication of walking home through the park earlier on in the article, and is a
final meaningful return to Eurydice’s death that sparked the whole debate.

A dichotomy is at hand, when one sequentially reads Lehmann’s article. At first read of
the article, Lehmann’s style of writing could exist as hard news, highlighted through her
strong appeal to facts. These scientific facts, survive on their own without cohesive
devices to dampen the weight of what Lehmann is trying to prove. In her central claim,
Lehmann theorizes that all men are not at fault for the rape and murder of Eurydice
Dixon and other similar victims - it is in fact the singular mentally-ill male. This claim is
filtered prominently throughout the piece:
“All the high-minded efforts to get men to “change” aren’t going to rid the world
of psychopaths, unless one believes psychopaths don’t exist in the first place”.
While the author acknowledges that her words exist in the aftermath of a crime, her
argument is based on a broader perspective, that views public conversations often rely
on emotion to persist through tragedy. Thus, Lehmann calls out that “data is overlooked
in favour of appeals to emotions”, quoting authoritative figures, such as Prime Minister
Malcom Turnbull, and his call to action to “change the hearts of men”. While this reaction
is an attempt to comfort the distressed, Lehmann mocks these statements as “such
utterances” and “such broadness” – a linguistic decision that builds up her own
repertoire.

Lehmann’s strong appeal to facts appears right at the onset of the piece, wherein she
begins to persuade her readers of the biological reasoning behind men that ultimately
rape and kill their victims. Unlike Fileborn, Lehmann includes only one personal anecdote
about her experience as a graduate student of forensic psychology, to clearly state to her
readers, her expertise in the scientific field. The use of personal pronoun “I” draws her
readers in, who based on assumption, know of Eurydice’s death and the reaction of
outrage, but are “sitting on the fence” when it comes to who to blame. These assumptions
are addressed in the authors inclusion of the rhetorical question “But what about

4
MDIA2002 – View Journalism Analysis Claire Keenan z5117630

domestic violence? One may ask.” recognising majority of her readers’ uncertainty.
Lehmann answers the perceived doubts of her theory, by including worldly evidence of
the Nordic paradox and the higher rate of abuse in lesbian relationships (41%) than gay
men.
“The fashionable idea that all men are somehow responsible for a culture of rape
and violence is not supported by evidence…”
Moreover, Lehmann’s use of words such as “fashionable”, “farcical” and a “cultural
phenomenon” throughout the piece, tear down the legitimacy of opposing claims of rape
culture, and give weight to the worth and length of the facts provided.

The author’s writing works attitudinally to develop from her explicit title of “Rape
culture facts just don’t fit”. At best, Lehmann isn’t blinded by her own perspective, and is
aware that she is against a strong opposing side, that most women and “contemporary
left” citizens stand with. This in fact becomes her unspoken warrant and through an
interesting use of an appeal to analogy, describing politics as a “pie that never grows”,
Lehmann effectively points out that her oppositions aren’t willing to “grow” to look
more deeply at the issue at hand. Moreover, Lehmann is confident including a
counterargument to journalists from the ABC, who believe the violence against women
is so entangled in Western civilisation. Going against such a respected news outlet, is a
risky endeavour that Lehmann somehow pulls off with her blatant fact, that the ABC has
not accounted for the homicide and sexual assaults rates, that have been declining since
the 1970s. Thus, the author’s justification of appeal to facts, drives her piece forward as
a powerful piece of opinion journalism.

Finally, it can be found that the persuasive workings of both texts explored in this
analysis reveals similarities and differences. Some may argue these differences are
dictated by the political stance both newspapers take, The Australian typically right-
winged and The Conversation known to be left-winged journalism. However, both
journalists are similar in that they expect their readers to be well-informed on the
topical debate surrounding Eurydice Dixon’s death. From here, the two pieces separate
as Fileborn’s piece is opinionated in nature, and Lehmann’s as inherently
argumentative; one ultimately becoming the spokesman for women and one giving men

5
MDIA2002 – View Journalism Analysis Claire Keenan z5117630

a fair trial. Both are legitimate perspectives that are expanded upon through their own
strong voices, and effective language devices. Nevertheless, while both author’s views
are valid, it comes down to who argues their point more convincingly, once analysing
both in conjunction.

Links to articles:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-15/why-women-are-sick-of-being-told-to-steer-
clear-of-violent-men/9874742

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/eurydice-dixon-rape-culture-facts-
just-dont-fit/news-story/fdb16c36d04d48889fb4e181fb98e913