Women's Views on News |
- Femicide – men’s fatal violence against women
- Can Europe make it three in a row?
- Women continue to pay for austerity
| Femicide – men’s fatal violence against women Posted: 05 Jun 2015 05:36 AM PDT
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) released findings from the 2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales earlier this year. Men continue to be more likely to be killed than women, there were 343 male victims compared to 183 female victims (of all ages including children and babies). Court proceedings had concluded for 355 (55 per cent) of 649 suspects relating to 536 homicides. For those suspects where proceedings had concluded, 90 per cent (338 suspects) were male and 10 per cent were female (38 suspects). Men are more likely to be killed, but their killers are overwhelmingly men. Women are less likely to be killed, when they are, they are overwhelmingly killed by a man. When we're talking about fatal violence, we are almost always talking about men's violence. The words homicide, from homo "man" and cidium "act of killing", and manslaughter "ma" and "slæht or slieht" "the act of killing" are identical etymologically but have developed different legal meanings. Like the word "murder" both could be described as being 'gender neutral', but they are not, both render the killing of women invisible. The word femicide seeks to address this. The first modern and feminist definition of 'Femicide' is attributed to Jill Radford and Diana Russell (1991). They used it in the context of feminist analysis of men's violence against women to address the sex-specific killings of women. Whilst some contentions remain over a definition, the definition 'the killings of women because they are women' is most frequently used. As well as women killed through intimate partner violence, femicide includes (but is not limited to): women killed by other family members, the torture and misogynist slaying of women including serial killings, the killing of women and girls in the name of " honour", targeted killing of women and girls in the context of armed conflict, dowry-related killings of women, female infanticide and gender-based sex selection feticide, killings of women due to accusations of sorcery and/or witchcraft, the deaths of women associated with gangs, organised crime, drug dealers, human trafficking and the proliferation of small arms, the killing of women and girls because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and FGM related deaths. Femicide can include women killed by women if the motive is associated with sexist or misogynistic patriarchal values, but is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. Femicide is a global issue. About 66,000 women and girls are violently killed every year, according to a 2012 report by the Small Arms Survey. But comparing county-by-county data is challenging, partly because there isn't a globally accepted definition, or even a globally agreed need for a definition, but also because most countries' data-collection systems do not record the necessary information, whether that is the sex of the victim and perpetrator, their relationship or any known motives for the killing. The data that is available suggests that countries with the highest femicide levels correspond to those with the highest rates of fatal violence. El Salvador has the highest femicide rate (12.0 per 100,000 female population), followed by Jamaica (10.9), Guatemala (9.7), and South Africa (9.6). Half of the countries with the top highest estimated femicide rates are in Latin America, with South Africa and Russian and Eastern European countries having disproportionately high rates. It should be noted that high rates of female infanticide, sex-selective and forced abortion challenge the absence of countries including India and China from this data. England and Wales' femicide rate, by comparison, was 0.66 per 100,000 female population for 2013/14. The ONS findings for 2013/14, consistent with previous years, found that women were far more likely than men to be killed by partners or ex-partners than men. 84 women, around 53 per cent of female homicide victims (over 16) had been killed by their current or a former partner, compared to 23 men (7 per cent of male victims over 16). The ONS definition of partner/ex-partner homicide includes killings by a "spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, ex-spouse/ex-cohabiting partner/ex-boyfriend/girlfriend and adulterous relationship" but also "lover's spouse and emotional rival". Combining data for 2011/12 and 2013/14, the ONS tell us that of 57 men killed in partner/ex-partner homicides, 21 of them, over a third, were killed by a man. Of these 21 men killed by men in the context of partner/ex-partner homicides, 14 of them were killed by a lover's spouse/love rival. Of 249 women killed in partner/ex-partner homicides over the same 3 years, 247 were killed by a man, one by a woman (in one case the primary suspect is listed as unknown). None of the female victims of partner/ex-partner homicide were killed by the spouse of their lover or an emotional rival. Similarly, no male victims of partner/ex-partner homicide were killed by a female spouse of their lover or a female emotional rival. Not only are men killed in the context of an intimate relationship less likely to be killed by their actual partner or ex-partner, they are much more likely than women to be killed by someone of the same sex. Another important difference between women and men killed in the context of intimate partner violence is the history of the relationship. When men kill women partners or ex-partners, this usually follows months or years of them abusing her, when women kill male partners or ex-partners, it is usually after months or years of having been abused by the man they have killed. So, there are four important differences when we compare women and men killed in the context of a current or previous intimate partnership (figures from the ONS 2011/12 to 2013/14 data): Far fewer men than women are killed in the context of intimate partner violence (57 v. 249) Men are much more likely to be killed by the spouse of a partner or a love rival (14/57 v 0/249) Men are much more likely than women to have been killed by someone of the same sex (21/57 v 1/249) Men are more likely to have been killed by someone they were abusing, women are more likely to have been killed by someone they were being abused by. If we look at men who kill women (who are not current or ex- intimate partners), it is clear that they have more in common with men who kill female current or former partners, than the much smaller number of women who kill male former partners. The concept of femicide, making connections between all forms of men's fatal violence against women provides a more useful theoretical framework than comparing people killed in the context of intimate partner relationships across the sexes. Sex inequality in patriarchal society cannot be ignored. Since January 2012, I've been recording and commemorating UK women killed by men in a project called Counting Dead Women. Looking at my own records for the same year as the ONS data, the next biggest group of women killed by men was women killed by their sons. Between April 2013 and March 2014, at least 12 women were killed by their sons, two more by their son-in-laws, three by their grandsons and one by her step-grandson. These patterns are not replicated in rates of women killing older male relatives: fathers, fathers-in-law or grandfathers. A further three women were killed by their fathers, and one more by her step-father. Male entitlement is a deadly seam running through male violence against women, whether coercive control, rape, prostitution, trafficking or femicide. Prostitution, pornography and trafficking are forms of violence against women, reducing women to commodities, possessions and objects for market exchange. Men are the purchasers, controllers and profit-makers, this market of women cannot be extricated from a context of inequality between women and men. At least 5 women killed last year (the same year as the ONS data) were women exploited through pornography and/or prostitution. There were over 64,000 sexual offences recorded by police last year, overwhelmingly committed by men, with young women those most likely to have experienced sexual assault. 1.4 million domestic violence assaults against women were recorded. When men kill women, regardless of their relationship or lack of it, they are doing so in the context of a society in which men's violence against women is entrenched and systemic. When misogyny, sexism and the objectification of women are so pervasive that they are all but inescapable, can a man killing a women ever not be a sexist act? In addition to the women killed in partner/ex-partner homicide and those killed by sons or other family members: ‘One woman was found dead, hanging with a tow rope belonging to the man accused of killing her around her neck. She had more than 30 injuries to her face and arms. He was found sleeping on a blood-stained bed beneath her dead naked body by police who had been called by a neighbour who found water dripping through her ceiling. The man, who had been in a relationship with her, claimed not to remember anything that had happened for five hours before police woke him up in bed. In the weeks before her death, he had sent her a text which read "You're getting tied up, I will treat you like a random victim, gonna do you Manchester style." He claimed she had died during a consensual sex-game and was found not guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter. He walked free. The influence of eroticised violence against women cannot be disregarded in this woman's death.’ ‘Glen Nelson murdered Krishnamaya Mabo, the court where he was convicted heard that he had gone out seeking a woman to rape. The sentencing judge commented "He killed her deliberately to prevent her testifying about the attempted rape. The violence and sexual assault were inextricably interwoven".’ ’23-year-old Jamie Reynolds murdered 17-year-old Georgia Williams. During his trial Prosector David Crigman said Reynolds carried out a 'scripted, sadistic and sexually-motivated murder' and described him as 'a sexual deviant' who has had 'a morbid fascination in pornography depicting violence towards young women in a sexual context since at least 2008′. When arrested he had 16,800 images and 72 videos of extreme pornography including digitally modified images of up to eight other women he personally knew in which ropes had been added around their necks. Georgia Williams and Jamie Reynolds were 'friends', they had not been partners.’ Sexual violence runs through these murders and many others that are not men murdering partners or ex-partners. Gender, the social constructs of masculinity and femininity are also integral. One of the significant achievements of feminism is getting male violence against women into the mainstream and onto the policy agenda. One of the threats against this achievement is that those with power take the concepts and under the auspices of dealing with the problem shake some of the most basic elements of feminist understanding right out of them. It is important that we do not allow the connection between the different forms of men's violence against women to be lost. We need to name the problem as men's violence against women and we cannot allow a 'gender'-neutral approach to domestic violence intimate-partner to obscure this. On the same day that the ONS released their data from the 2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales, Women's Aid and myself launched The Femicide Census. The Femicide Census was built with support from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and Deloitte LLP and for the first time will allow detailed tracking and analysis of fatal male violence against women in England. So far data of 694 women killed by men in the years 2009 to 2013 has been collected. It is self-evident that each woman killed by a man is a unique individual, as is each man who kills a woman or women. The circumstances around each killing are never identical. But that doesn't make them isolated incidents. By refusing to see a pattern we are refusing to see the myriad connections between incidents of men's fatal violence against women; and by refusing to see the connections we are closing our eyes to the commonalities in the causes. When we link the killings of women by men and stop thinking about isolated incidents, we begin to see the real scale of the problem. The Femicide Census will contribute to increasing awareness of men's violence and to greater knowledge and analysis of men's violence against women and girls, it is a crucial step towards prevention. We also want The Femicide Census to commemorate women, to remember the women and girls who have been killed and the friends and families that mourn them. To reduce femicide we need to protect the network of specialist services dealing with all forms of men's violence against women. Refuges in particular can provide a crucial place to escape, though given that women killed years after the end of a violent relationship are not rare, it cannot be assumed that women will be safe after leaving a refuge and this may be particularly important in the context of on-going child contact. In addition, community based support, 'Healthy relationships' education, policing, prosecutions, and work with perpetrators are all vitally important, but none of this will tackle the root cause of men's violence against women. Men's violence against women is not natural and it is not inevitable, but it is a cause and consequence of inequality between women and men and underpinned by other manifestations of that inequality: gender and/or sex roles, sexism, misogyny, and the commodification and objectification of women. We need to name men's violence. We need to keep the connections between the different forms of men's violence at the forefront of our analysis. We need to say that all the women killed by men were important. If we don't make the connections and look for the true root causes, we will not reduce the numbers of women being killed by men. By enabling us to record and analyse comprehensive data on women killed by men, the Femicide Census can be a step towards the change that we want to create.  |
| Can Europe make it three in a row? Posted: 05 Jun 2015 05:19 AM PDT
One of the great events still to come this year is golf's ultimate team tournament, the Solheim Cup. The Solheim Cup is a biennial golf tournament for professional women golfers contested by teams representing Europe and the United States. It is named after the Norwegian-American golf club manufacturer Karsten Solheim, who was a driving force behind its creation in 1990. After winning in Ireland in 2011 and for the first time on American soil in 2013, Europe will be trying to make it three wins in a row when the two teams meet at the Golf Club St. Leon-Rot in Heidelberg from 18-20 September. It will be hard to top the record 18-10 win recorded at the Colorado Golf Club, but Europe should be confident. European Team captain, Carin Koch, has already chosen her vice-captains for the tournament; Annika Sörenstam, Sophie Gustafson and Maria McBride. This vastly experienced threesome have played in 21 Solheim Cups between them. The team looks as if it will be truly European, with seven nations currently providing the top eight ranked players. On top of this there will also be the four captain's picks. England's own golfing star, Charley Hull, stands second in the rankings and is surely a cert for the team. The Americans come into the tournament as underdogs, something they are not used to, but which could play to their advantage. Captain Juli Inkster has announced that her vice-captains are Pat Hurst and three-time Solheim Cup participant Wendy Ward. Stacy Lewis and Michelle Wie currently stand top of America's rankings and would both be important members of the team. Paula Creamer, veteran of five Solheim Cups lies in 7th. There are still a number of points to be won, and if Creamer didn't make the team automatically, it would be hard to see Inkster not including her as a Captain's pick. In an intensely individual sport, the Solheim Cup, and its male counterpart, the Ryder Cup, are beacons of team spirit. I personally am not a great golf fan, but nothing beats it for three days of powerful sporting drama. Full coverage will be on Sky Sports with plenty of updates on BBC Radio 5 Live.  |
| Women continue to pay for austerity Posted: 05 Jun 2015 04:57 AM PDT
Women have had to and will continue to pay the price for austerity measures, as the new governments proposed cuts threaten to perpetuate gender inequality. Earlier this year it was revealed that 85 per cent of the government’s income from direct taxes and cuts to social security spending over the last five years came from women. This analysis, from the independent House of Commons library, showed that £8.3 billion of the money garnered from cutting tax credits came from women, compared to the £2.3 billion which came from men. Of this, the cuts made to the childcare aspect of the Working Tax Credit saw women deprived of £1.2 billion compared to a more modest £170 million loss for men – despite childcare costs rising by over 30 per cent in this period. In addition, Fawcett Society figures found that, since the start of the 2008 economic crisis, 826,000 women have moved into insecure and low-paid work. And the number of women working part-time who would like to be working full-time has also doubled in the same period to 789,000. Job cuts in the public sector where women made up the majority of the workforce has meant many women moving to work in the private sector, where the pay gap is 8 per cent higher according to the Office of National Statistics. And an Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report in 2011 suggested that there are at least 5,400 women 'missing' from the highest ranking jobs in the UK. 'We are missing out on talent and denying half the population equal opportunity to contribute to the economy,’ Vicky Pryce, chief economic adviser at the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr), wrote in the Guardian. 'Much of the work women do is poorly valued and poorly paid as many find themselves in low-paid professions such as social care and nursing.' As the country prepares for the next round of cuts planned by the new Conservative government, a umbrella group of women’s rights charities has spoken out about the threat of widening gender inequality even further. The group, calling themselves A Fair Deal for Women, consists of 11 women's rights charities, including Women's Aid, the Fawcett Society, Rape Crisis and the Women's Resource Centre. They argue that the proposed cuts to social security, legal aid and the public sector – combined with a five-year tax lock which will primarily benefit men – will mean women 'bear the brunt' of efforts to what the government presents as an attempt to pay off the deficit and risk worsening women's position in society. "Putting a five-year lock on raising taxes is a policy that benefits men over women, whilst further austerity measures – like cutting benefits – are detrimental to women and their children, placing them in high risk of poverty," Florence Burton, a spokeswoman for the group, said. "Choosing to repay the deficit from cutting spending, rather than increasing taxation, serves to further entrench inequality. ‘[Ithas already] led to women paying off 79 per cent of the deficit in the previous government," she added. Professor Danny Dorling, whose work at Oxford University includes research on inequality, agreed that women are footing the majority of the bill, saying; "The pain has not been spread evenly and the pain to come will not be. Women suffer disproportionately from the way the cuts have been chosen." "What we are increasingly seeing is that austerity perpetuates gender inequality," Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP for Brighton Pavilion, said in the Guardian. "Nobody who advocates the kinds of public-spending cuts we've been served up, with their disproportionately negative impact on women in particular, can justifiably claim to be an advocate of equal rights for men and women or of an economy that works for all," she added. A government spokesperson questioned on the issue directed attention away from the costs women have had to bear: "As part of our long-term economic plan we are taking difficult decisions in the fairest way possible, protecting services for the most vulnerable and focusing resources where they are most needed and most effective." "Doubling the amount of free childcare available to working parents will help more women back into work while four million couples will benefit from a £1,000 transferable tax allowance from 2015, with stay-at-home mothers and women who work part-time being the main beneficiaries," the spokesperson added. However A Fair Deal for Women pointed out that Britain fell from 18th place to 26th place on the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Index last year because of a falling score on 'economic participation'. That does not fit with the government's claim to be 'eradicating gender inequality'. And a Fair Deal has even greater concerns about the future under this Conservative government. "We worry that freezing child benefit, tax credits, and lowering the household cap on benefits will further cement women's poverty – especially as there was no commitment to instate a living wage," Burton said. She warned that these economic measures will mean that gender inequality will be self-perpetuating. "Perhaps it is women's woefully low representation in the top positions in our society that means they have become the load bearers of austerity." Pryce agreed that the inequality is being perpetuated: "[T]he persistent wage gap shows something still isn't working. "We are not a meritocratic society as we move up the career ladder – in fact, we prevent a large section of the population from competing on equal terms as they have long exited the race in the absence of encouragement and a lack of role models." It does not need to be so. For, as Dorling pointed out: "Other choices could have been made and still could be made."  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |