Bear with me here, I am not entirely sure of the structure that the following will have. The subject is on my mind cos I saw a poster advertising the charity "End Violence Against Women". This charity uses the UN definition of violence against women, which is "Violence that is directed at a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately".
Personally I like the idea of upholding traditional chivalric attitudes - holding doors open, responding to a female scream and when the situation allows, taking responsibility of physical labour from a female (only with consent of course). I am aware of the ironies that these values have in this post-modern, (post) feminist age, but this is a personal preference, not something I believe everyone everywhere should follow.
I am not particularly in favour of any violence aimed at anybody and I know that violence happens everywhere, all the time. But why is this a gender issue? Why not just "End Violence"? My immediate response to this is that (a) this is an unrealistic goal (b) it is too unspecific to tackle with any success and (c) violence against women is worse/more desperate than violence towards the alternative i.e. men. Is this true?
(a) and (b) are clearly true, but what of (c)? As is clear from my personal preference, I would believe that violence towards women is worse than violence towards men. This opinion is shared by many societies and is expressed in their treatment of women, for example, excluding them from military service, excluding them from the most dangerous jobs and treating them in times of crisis and danger equal to children summed up in the phrase "women and children first".
In religion and art women are often seen to be the 'superior' gender. In popular culture, there are countless films where a male (often the greater asset i.e. a spy or king) will risk death in order to save the woman - so much so in fact that to ignore this duty the male would lose support from both the male and female audience members. And even today, when females are among the male soldiers in our western armies, the image of a female bearing arms is associated with a decadent and desperate society: a picture of a male soldier in traditional dress wielding a rifle is far less evocative than a female in the same situation.
But isn't that just my personal opinion? To be a soldier in the British Army is no longer a question of gender - one must prove their competance in training and on the field - the contents of the uniform no longer matters.
If a wild animal was attacking a village and several of its members were getting killed or injured, it'd be a crazy person who would set up a lobby that said "Stop Wild Animals Attacking Women!" The people of the village would think that person is crazy. But to reply to this (rather shoddy) analogy and say "but it is men who are committing the violence against women" is again missing the point . It doesn't matter who is doing that attacking, the charity is there to support those being hurt by it; and two, there is the assumption that the violence conducted by men is inexplicable. Men don't attack women because they're women - if that were true there'd be a lot more instances of that kind of violence - and men would stop hurting each other (which actually the vast majority of violent acts consist of). Women might need more protection than men (maybe), but to say it is simply a case of men acting violently towards women is a superficial assumption.
My point is (I'll try to get back there) is that the charity should not be calling for and end to violence against women, but an end to 'gender specific' violence. Because if we're going to be totally honest here, males also undergo violence as a result of their gender. In fact, males recieve a lot more violence because of their gender than women do.
The kind of violence that we associate with being against women is rape and domestic violence, conducted of course by men. But do men have acts of violence against them because of their gender (much of it self-inflicted)? Of course, lets look at some facts.
- The British Army will only accept males into infantry positions. The same applies to the Royal Marines and Submariners. Women are capable of keeping up with men in training, so why this discrepancy? Are men more disposable? (Conversely, women are able to join 'frontline' air force units, where the risk of death or injury is significantly lower).
- 94% of all prisoners in Britain are male. The fact that men commit more crime does not allow for this discrepency. If the number of female inmates began to take a sharp rise, there would be investigations into what was provoking this. The fact that men commit crime is taken for granted without looking into the the reason men, more than women are driven to such measures.
- The suicide rate among men is much greater than that of women at all ages. Why are men driven to commit suicide? Does this not count as violence against men?
Isn't this violence that affects men disproportionately?
There is also the issue that men are much more likely to die or get injured at work than women. This is because men make up the vast majority of numbers of those doing the most dangerous jobs such as working on a building site, electrician, policeman, waste disposal, factories etc. Is this not classed as violence against men? Why not?
I am all for gender equality, of course. But equality is the point here. Women do not suffer more than men overall, and to dwell on the weight of 'pain' on either side of the gender fence is not helpful. Of course violence against women should stop, but so should violence against men. It is not a gender issue, it is a human issue.
MonkeyPie
"Men don't attack women because they're women" Ah but they do- they're sometimes rooted from a deep hatred of women- or to be able to control something vulnerable. Domestic violence is just that, the man controlling the woman. And what about men raping women? Surely it's an attack against their gender. They're weaker physically, so easier to prey on and there's an aggressive possessiveness to a male/female rape which is absent from male/male rape. (The latter being, in my mind, more of an act of humiliation as opposed to marking territory).
Men attack women, knowing it's wrong and in some ways because it's taboo. If you attack your wife it's because you've subsumed her into your life- she's become yours so you feel you can treat her as you want. It's difficult for balanced, healthy men to understnad that these things happen because they are so disgusting. But there's a surprising amount of hardcore violence against women.
In terms of domestic violence- it exists against men as well. But because men are seen as less vulnerable and able to defend themselves it's even more taboo. So I agree it's a gender issue as opposed to a human issue.
With respect to your point about women on the front line- I think it's a far more basic issue than it seems. It takes only one man to father a few hundred (or thousand??) children whereas a woman can only comfortably bring a few children to term (one, usually) at a time. So they're seen as a more precious asset?
Good post though, I'll think about it some more..