The petrol fire attack highlights a major double standard

News.com.au

23-05-2025

OPINION
A woman was sentenced on Thursday to seven-and-a-half years prison for setting her friend alight after a night of partying in Howlong, a town in southern New South Wales.
The decision handed down yesterday triggered a strong reaction in me, but not in the way you might expect.
In the early hours of January 2024, Corbie Jean Walpole, 25, poured petrol and set her friend, Jake Loader, on fire, after he made a sexist remark about how Walpole should go to the kitchen and make scones instead of drinking with the boys, the court was told.
In the moments beforehand, Mr Loader is said to have goaded her, telling her to, 'Go on, do it,' which she did.
His friends heard his screams and tried to extinguish the flames using a dog bed, before throwing him into a pool, according to the ABC.
Despite their efforts, he suffered third-degree burns to over half his body.
He has since been diagnosed with PTSD and is unable to expose his skin to sunlight.
After reporting on Walpole's sentencing yesterday, I noticed a recurring theme in the public's reaction online.
They were using this opportunity – the rare occurrence of a female inflicting violence against a man – to bring awareness to another issue … the way that violence against women is often minimised and justified by society.
And to be honest, I completely get where the frustration comes from.
How many times have you read a news article or a comment section that tries to excuse male violence?
If you flip the script and use these same excuses for a case of woman-inflicted violence, such as this, it can really highlight just how absurd they sound.
For example, could you imagine anyone suggesting this man was 'asking for it' by wearing something flammable, or asking why he didn't say 'no' more forcefully?
You'd never see a headline that questioned whether or not he consented to this, or whether he changed his mind halfway through.
Because of course, these are all utterly ridiculous questions to ask in the face of such a horrifying crime.
People also love to use the 'bright future' defence, where offenders will appeal for leniency based on their youth or their athletic or academic achievements.
This happened during the 2016 Brock Turner trial in the US, where former Stanford University swimmer Turner was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman, Chanel Miller, outside of a fraternity party.
His legal team, and supporters online, tried to gain sympathy for him by drawing on his career as a promising athlete.
Could you imagine someone saying, 'Walpole's future is ruined because of one man', or 'She's too young to understand what she did'?
Don't forget about good character references, which are often used to tell a court that a convicted rapist is in fact, a decent human being.
Do you remember the 2024 trial where a group of three men in Newcastle were found guilty of gang-raping teenagers during a bucks party?
The victims provided harrowing evidence of what was perpetrated against them in their victim impact statements.
Yet the convicted rapists were allowed to provide the court with 20 good character references that spoke to the men's caring nature and their respect for women.
What about when high profile referees submitted good character references for Luke Lazarus, when he was found guilty, and later acquitted of the 2013 rape of 18-year-old Saxon Mullins behind a Kings Cross nightclub?
It would feel highly irrelevant, given Walpole's crimes, to hear comments like, 'I know her personally and she'd never do something like that' or, 'She's such a nice girl, she wouldn't hurt a fly'.
The point is, if men feel uncomfortable with women jokingly asking things like, 'Was he asking for it?' – it's because they know deep down how irrelevant they are.
It's time that a mirror be held up and the double standard exposed.
These lines of questioning need to stop, against any victim, regardless of gender.