When ‘poor mental health’ is used by men to excuse violence towards women, what does this teach young people?

On Saturday the 3^rd of October 2026, a young woman made a call to triple zero to report a domestic violence incident between her mother and step-father.

It has been alleged that the incident involved a physical assault, including strangulation. The man identified as the alleged perpetrator is ex-Bachelor turned fitness influencer Sam Wood.

Wood’s defence attorney has claimed that Wood’s depression is “extremely severe.” He has asked that Wood be released on bail to “engage with mental health professionals” and has also appealed to Wood’s career and reputation, “which is taking a hell of a beating.”

What does it teach young people when mental ill-health is used to excuse or downplay gendered violence?

We teach and research gender and gender-based violence (GBV) in schools, universities, and the broader lives of young people. The research scholarship clarifies that GBV is “violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately,” and may include acts of physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats, coercion or “other deprivations of liberty.”

It also clarifies the key drivers of GBV, which include: 1) the condoning (or excusing) of violence against women, 2) men’s control over decision-making and limits to women’s agency, 3) rigid gender stereotyping and dominant forms of masculinity, and 4) male peer relations that emphasise aggression, dominance, and control.

By claiming a ‘mental health’ argument for bail, there is a suggestion in Wood’s case that mental ill-health is a driver, or at least a legitimate explanation for GBV. It also implies that the priority and safety of one man is more significant than his victim.

Such statements are problematic because they reinforce gendered power and teach young people that men, particularly in this case a white, cis-gendered man of status, hold inherently more value than women.

Men’s mental health is important. But it should not be used to excuse gendered violence. In fact, research demonstrates that adherence to rigid norms around masculinity underpin men’s mental illness and suicidality. So, a strategic focus for educators is transforming gender norms.

But what about men’s careers or rights to self-defence?

As part of the request for bail, Sam Wood’s defence attorney introduced mitigating circumstances; Wood’s successful career that has “taken a beating” and that this is Wood’s first offence. We hear such arguments frequently. A man’s career prospects or social standing are frequently used in appeals for leniency. Yet, victims’ lives and prospects are far less frequently considered.

Philosopher Kate Manne coins this ‘himpathy’; how disproportionate sympathy is extended to male perpetrators of gendered violence. Himpathy works to restore the normative (patriarchal) order by centring the perpetrator and erasing the victim. Such arguments also reduce the severity of the offense and make it ‘individual’ rather than ‘systemic’.

Individual understandings of GBV are widespread. We hear this logic when attention is drawn to ‘what she wore’, her ‘failure to leave’, his ‘use of substances’ or his ‘mental ill-health’. Individualistic explanations view abuse as one-off incidents while systemic explanations highlight social power imbalances and inequalities, which drive GBV.

When stories like Wood’s saturate social media, they can send the message to young people that violence is permissible if you are a man who is perceived to be successful, who made a ‘one-off’ mistake.

Sam Wood’s defence attorney has also raised the potential for a self-defence argument when the matter is heard in court on November 23. While this defence has not been confirmed, it draws on a persistent victim-blaming discourse, where women are blamed in some way for their own experiences of GBV.

Victim-blaming discourses displace responsibility for GBV onto women. They obscure the role of gendered-power imbalances and bracket the widespread issue of misogyny from view.

What is the concern for educators?

Sexism, misogyny and GBV are on the rise in Australian schools and universities. The most recent data from The 8^th Australian Survey of Secondary Students and Sexual Health reported that 61 per cent of young people who had ever been in a sexual or romantic relationship had experienced intimate partner violence (defined broadly as any behaviour within a current or previous intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm).

Moreover, girls and women report higher levels of verbal abuse, being frightened of a partner, experiencing technology-based harassment and physical abuse.

The recent Duty of Care report into gendered violence in schooling documents that 78 per cent of teachers surveyed had observed or experienced gendered violence in their school, with 77 per cent believing this had a negative impact on teachers’ wellbeing and 80 per cent believing it had a negative impact on student wellbeing.

Sam Wood’s case – like others in the news right now – is a reminder that gendered violence is not an anomaly; it is common, it cuts across socio-economic and other social divides, and extends into the lives of all young people to shape their thinking, norms, and interactional tendencies.

While programmes designed for boys and young men may be engaging to some extent with gender norms and mental health, more needs to be done to redress persistent power imbalances that underpin violence against women, and its normalisation in the media.

Challenging myths around GBV – including the ways in which male loneliness or mental ill-health are leveraged to condone violence – is part of this work and must involve all young people.

Such work is about going beyond surface level messaging of media and public commentary to actively shift the conditions that sustain inequality, aiming for lasting social change.