I was going to write a big long piece today about it being the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I was going to write about what an important day this is, and about how we marched again on Saturday night to Reclaim the Night and called for an end to violence against women and girls. I was going to write about how the blogger Noble Savage had been sexually assaulted during the march, and about the candlelit vigil tonight in Trafalgar Square that’s been called in remembrance of all women who have been murdered and affected by male violence. And I was going to write about the government’s new strategy, announced today, on ending violence against women: Together We Can End Violence against Women and Girls
And then my daughter rang me, and told me about how she’d been physically assaulted last night. My daughter rang me and told me about the man who suddenly came from nowhere while she was busy working away in a public library: about the man who grabbed her by the throat, headbutted her, flung her on the floor, and chased after her once she’d managed to struggle free. She told me about how he’d chased her and tried to get behind the library counter where she’d run to for safety, and about how other library staff had had to restrain him. This man. This man she’s never met before. This man she doesn’t even know.
And while she was telling me all this I know I made all the right noises and said all the right things. I know that my voice didn’t catch in my throat the way it has been doing ever since. I know that I checked with her, again and again, that she was really as all right as she said she was. And I told her I was so so glad she hadn’t been seriously hurt. And I told her of course I understood now why she hadn’t phoned last night to wish her dad a happy birthday. And I told her that I loved her.
And then I put the phone down.
And then I cried.
Because do you know what? It wasn’t meant to be like this.
We were supposed to build a better world for our daughters. A safer world. A nicer world. For fuck’s sake we were supposed to change the world, so that when our daughters stepped out into it they wouldn’t have to be afraid. They wouldn’t have to know the fear that so many of us have known.
We were supposed to stop the rape and the murders and the sexual assaults and the physical assaults and the forced marriages and the sexual exploitation and the domestic violence and the FGM and the so-called honour crimes. We were supposed to make it right for all the women and girls who came after us.
On days like these, it really does come home to me, literally, just how badly we’ve failed.
On days like these, all I can say is, I’m sorry.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Cath
I am so very sorry to hear what has happened to your daughter. Bastard man.
But I dont get who exactly you are saying sorry to. If it is to your daughter then I understand it in part but I dont think you, or any other feminist has anything to apologise for. The apology that is needed is from the perpetrator (not that that would be enough), and from all the men who have stood idly by doing nothing to campaign amongst their peers, those men with institutional power who do nothing but maintain the status quo. Those are the men who need to be on their knees apologising for this happening to your daughter.
You have nothing to apologise for – to anyone about this. That your daughter is ok, coping with what has happened to her, is testament to your excellent parenting of her. She is her mothers daughter.
I know what you mean. Some days indeed.
Some days when you think what was all that effort I made for the past two decades for if it doesn’t protect (at best) all women or (worst) at the very least those who I love?
For almost a quarter of a century I have devoted my career to eliminating violence aginst women, given up huge amounts of my free time, sacrificed weekends, annual leave, endangered friendships and relationships in my quest to prevent and reduce violence against women and the rape of my sister made me feel more hopeless than anything. I very very nearly gave up.
That was four years ago and it still has the capacity to floor me – so I get what you’re saying and have no words of transformation to help – only an offer of understanding and the proffering of the knowledge that you are not alone in what you are feeling. Stay strong.
Cath,
Absolutely shocked and outraged – and why am I surprised? How the fucking hell can I be surprised when this is what we hear every day? Mostly, though, just wanted to say I hope your daughter and you are both ok and know that I will never stop working or fighting against this
shit & all that gives rise to it. Thinking of you both.
Cath this is not about blaming you but unfortunately you have fallen into the trap neatly set by patriarchy. The one responsible for physically assaulting your daughter is the male perpetrator – not you and certainly not feminism in general.
One of the reasons why feminists have still not succeeded in reducing everyday male sexual and physical violence against women is because we are fighting male power and because male power is commonly invisible it is always very difficult to pinpoint. Not forgetting of course, holding men accountable for their misogynistic male privileges immediately causes a huge male backlash since we are effectively attempting to take something away from men as a group.
What we are trying to take away is pseudo male privilege and male power over women and girls.
Institutionally and individually male perpetrators of violence against women commonly have their crimes against women and girls excused/minimalised and even justified, because as we routinely hear/read it is always womens’/girls’ fault for supposedly provoking innocent men into committing male violence against women and girls.
Nothing you could have done would have prevented this violent misogynistic man from attacking your daughter, but sadly our society continues to bury its head in the sand and claim such male acts of violence are individual ones and have no relation whatsoever to the now routine women-hating we see being perpetrated in popular culture.
Why did this man commit physical violence against your daughter? Because he could and he knew the likelihood of his being caught and charged with serious assault was minimal. Where did this man receive messages it is acceptable to dehumanise women and treat women as disposable objects and things men can use as punch bags? Why our society of course because women-hating messages are everywhere and these messages normalise women-hating and male contempt for women and girls.
Earlier today I heard first hand of yet more acts of male physical and sexual violence against women and girls.
The struggle for women and girls to be seen and actually treated as full human beings has been going on for centuries and yes it is men’s war against women and yes until such time as the majority of men refuse to remain bystanders and ignore violent men’s crimes against women, sadly nothing will change.
What can we do? We have to continue the struggle because silencing women’s voices is the aim of men who use violence against women but the good news is – they will never suceed because there will always be women and girls who will continue to challenge men’s pseudo claims to power and ownership of women and girls.
Woman-hating messages. What can we do against these? Anything? Anything concerted, focused and all-encompassing?
So sorry to hear about this. I second #1
how utterly terrifying. i am so very, very relieved that your daughter is okay.
but the only “sorry” in this scenario is the sorry excuse for a human being that attacked her.
or on preview: ditto what msvirago said.
Cath,
I am terribly sorry to hear about your daughter. While it’s good she escaped mostly unharmed, it has to be a terrifying experience. Yes, it wasn’t supposed to be like this. The world was supposed to have changed by now. But, of course, the sad truth is not that feminists have failed but that the problems we face are deeply rooted in society. We can push, we can highlight, we can change ourselves, but we can only influence others. That’s not your failure, that’s not feminism’s failure, but it is our limitation.
Jennifer,
There is a time and a place. If Cath wants to vent her frustration by apologising to her daughter, that’s how she chooses to do it.
I was so sorry to read this Cath. I hope your daughter is ok, and you too.
I first read this yesterday and I couldn’t comment then as it made me think about all the violence against the women that I personally know, the ones that have told me that is. And tbh, I feel similar to you. Women are 50% of the population, yet the majority of the women that I know have been assualted by men in different ways, including three out of the four of me and my sisters. It makes me so angry!!!!!
(Lucy – JD’s comment may not seem appropriate to you, but it was her response, her valid response and I strongly feel that it is not our place to criticise any woman’s reaction to VAW)
I’m so, so sorry Cath. When my little sister had a similar experience at her place of work, I felt a lot the same – why couldn;t I have protected her? Why wasn’t I there to defend her? What’s the point of being a feminist all these years if this can happen to someone I love and cherish so dearly?
That’s the biggest headfuck about patriarchy, I guess. It gets internalised by its victims to the point where even the ones who’ve had their eyes opened, in moments of emotional vulnerability, forget to blame the actual perpetrators.
As devastating and discouraging as it is for you right now, I hope I’m not out of line when I say: take heart from the fact that the rest of us see your pain and become even more determined to go on.
I’m really glad your daughter is okay, Cath.
It’s not supposed to be like this. Most of us have faced male violence or threatening behaviour at some point. But the fault is in the patriarchy and men’s unwillingless to let go of their privilege. WE will keep fighting.
I’m sorry to hear that, Cath. My sympathy to you and your daughter, and I hope she’s okay.
Holy shit, Cath. That’s terrible. I’m sorry for your daughter. And in a public library? What is wrong with men? I’m glad she’s OK.
Cath I’m really sorry to hear about what happened to your daughter- hopefully (as is often the case with children) she’s less shaken up about it that you are.
I have to say though that I don’t see this as a feminist issue. More men are attacked than women. And it’s taken less seriously. Both of my sons have had aggro, one seriously. The police were involved in the second case and the whole thing was played down.
Ok, your daughter is a woman and the attacker is a man. But he could just as well have attacked your son (well, if you have one 🙂 ). And I’m sure your son (if you have one 🙂 ) has little in common with a man who would attack another individual. I am a man and the guy who attacked your daughter is- but I’ve got as little in common with him as you or your daughter have.
Non-sexual violence like that is far more common and far more acceptable when it happens to men, as far as most people are concerned.
I’m not saying this to pick a fight, more because you seem to relate your daughter being attacked to your work as a feminist, and I don’t see the link.
Again, I hope your daughter is ok and that you feel better about things.
FFS! I hope Cath deletes your comment El Guapo. You just don’t get it!!!
earwicga, why do you want my comment deleted?
I wasn’t rude (I don’t think, I hope not anyway and if I was I’m truly sorry).
El Guapo
You werent rude, but insensitive and completely unaware of the privilege you hold as a man. You just dont get it. The man that attacked Caths daughter chose to attack her, not some other random bloke, but a young woman going about her work, not causing a problem to anyone.
Men choose to be violent to women, that man chose Caths daughter.
You dont see this as a feminist issue – because you are not a feminist.
violence is never acceptable and you trivialise all violence against women when you say the things you do.
Go away now, walk away.
msvirago
No, I don’t get it. You say
“the man that attacked Caths daughter chose to attack her, not some other random bloke, but a young woman going about her work, not causing a problem to anyone.”
Yes- and that is downright awful, no one would deny it. Would it be better if the idiot had attacked another man? Would it still be a feminist issue?
You do make it sound like you consider it to be worse that he attacked a woman. In doing so, are you not trivialising violence I have suffered and that my sons have suffered?
And please don’t accuse me of trivialising violence against women unless you can explain how you think I do that.
You say violence is never acceptable. You’re right. Even if it is against “some random bloke”
I’m sorry Cath if this post seems a bit snappy but I don’t see why I should get comments like the two I’ve just had- is it because I said I was a man or because I disagreed with someone?
Cath I’m sorry, what an utterly terrifying thing to happen.
Lucy, wind your neck in. Yes there is a time and a place, maybe you should take your own advice.
“You just dont get it. The man that attacked Caths daughter chose to attack her, not some other random bloke, but a young woman going about her work, not causing a problem to anyone.”
Perhaps I’m unaware of my privilege too. If it was domestic violence or sexual violence I’d agree – there’s no question, men do deliberately attack women because they’re women in those situations. But this situation, a random violent assault against a stranger, it’s just doesn’t strike me as the sort of thing targeted against women – I know loads of men that it’s happened to but no women. I don’t think it’s that controversial that most men who commit that sort of crime choose to attack other men, and it’s uncommon for it to happen to a woman.
It’s obviously not much comfort to the victim that she’s unlucky and most the time this happens to men. Reading the RTN/IDEVAW/TWCEVAWG sites they’re rightly focused on rape/domestic violence/FMG/honour crime/harrassment. The sort of crime she’s been a victim of – random stranger assault – isn’t mentioned at all as far as I can see. It’s not really the VAW sort of violence, if you get what I’m saying. Reading the post I was quite surprised when the attack was described, I was expecting her to have been beaten by her boyfriend or something, it was a bit of a shock that she was attacked by a random stranger.
I’m not trying to be disrespectful here – I’m not a women and perhaps I misunderstand things – I’m just trying to explain why I had the same sort of reaction as El Guapo.
I’m so sorry to hear that happened to your daughter, Cath. How awful. Bastard.
Awful , just terrible , did this happen in Norwich then? Always thought that Norwich was some quiet backwater. Did the Police get him , and is there a link to the newspaper story which there undoubtedly was about this? Too much of this sort of thing , but public libraries are now default receptacles for the inadequacies of the mental health system . Hope , he sent back to wherever he escaped from.
El Guapo
I think all violence is wrong, who ever it is perpetrated against. But I am a woman and as a woman I know women and girls are assaulted and abused by men routinely. You are right, I do think its worse that he attacked a woman. He is likely to have had height, weight and muscle strength superiority over her. It is a feminist issue and will be until violence against women is eradicated.
Wearing a white ribbon this month are you? signed the white ribbon pledge? Talked to your peers about how wrong violence against women is, that there never is any justification.
You see I think if men campaigned on eradicating violence against women, using peer influence, it might work. I think a world where there was no violence against women might actually benefit men too, less violence all round, and so reduce mens violence towards other men.
James, the thing you are not getting is the difference in the reasons behind men’s violence against men, and men’s violence against women.
Men fighting for dominance with other men is *not* the same, either in meaning, motivation, or effect, as men trying to dominate or harm women. And this is quite aside from the size/strength discrepancy.
Somehow I don’t think assaults of this nature *do* happen to men (assuming no racist or homophobic dimension). It may be a stranger, but between males there is usually a verbal engagement that precipitates the violence. Spilling a pint, you-lookin-at-me, etc etc. I don’t see what happened here as anywhere near that scenario.
This is not a competition about which violence is worse, or more frequent; But this is *not* the same as violence between males. And yes, it is a feminist issue, by virtue of a man attacking a woman with no warning, and by virtue of the cultural context of men’s violence against women being sexualised and served up as arousing and entertaining. Why don’t you get this? It’s not rocket science.
Dan is right. And El Guapo is right of course, men are much more likely to be the victims of street violence than women. But as Dan points out this isn’t usually just a random attack, but follows some kind of confrontation. Which is not to say the victims are to blame, they’re often entirely innocent, like the man who was recently killed for remonstrating with some youths who snatched his girlfriend’s hat.
Random attacks, as Dan points out aren’t random. The attacker is attacking something about that person they consider ‘justifies’ attack. People that society at large tells them it is ok to attack. Whether it is the fact that the person is disabled, black, lesbian or gay, or, as in this case, female. When society says violence against women is sexually arousing, disturbed men are going to take that message on board.
msvirago
Men and boys are assaulted too.
You don’t know that he was taller or stronger. If some maniac randomly attacked me without warning I don’t think my, what, 10% greater muscle strength and 4″ extra height compared to the average woman would really help me much.
If a woman gets mugged by a man, is it a feminist issue? I’d love to hear your answer to this…
I’m not actively campaigning to prevent violence against women. But by bringing gender into the issue of violence against people and against our childen, by acting like this kind of assault is worse when a woman is the victim- well, you’re actively campaigning to trivialise violence against boys and men. Not intentionally, of course, but that’s the end result.
James, re: verbal engagement, I still don’t really see a difference. “What you looking at” is more often than not an excuse to randomly attack someone. What’s the difference really? 5 seconds warning that you’re going to take a beating (that most people will probably stand around and watch, unlike if it was a woman on the receiving end).
You go on to say
“And yes, it is a feminist issue, by virtue of a man attacking a woman with no warning, and by virtue of the cultural context of men’s violence against women being sexualised and served up as arousing and entertaining. Why don’t you get this? It’s not rocket science.”
So if a black person attacks a white person without warning, is that racism?
Where, oh where have you seen violence against women in a sexual context? Violence against men is far more prevalent in culture and in entertainment. In fact it’s probably because it’s so common and so accepted that you don’t even see it any more.
I think it does everyone a disservice to put all kinds of violence against women in the same category.
It’s a disservice against men because we certainly don’t need to send the message that violence against men and boys (*regardless of the gender of the perpetrator!!*) is in any way acceptable.
It’s a disservice to a lot of women, because visible violence is overwhelmingly against men, so these claims impact the credibility of VAW awareness raising.
Hi polly,
“When society says violence against women is sexually arousing, disturbed men are going to take that message on board.”
I must have missed something here… are we talking about extreme porn or something?
Thanks for all your comments and good wishes everyone, and yes, of course you’re all right, feminism isn’t to blame for this, only the men who assault and abuse others are responsible for their actions. Let’s just call this a howl of rage and frustration…
And rest assured, I’m not about to give up the fight. Like many people who have contacted me in the past few days, this kind of event makes me all the more determined to try and do something about it, to effect change, albeit in my own small, often-times impotent, way.
Micky d – Yes, this was sleepy old Norwich. There hasn’t been any local coverage as far as I can tell, but then our local press tends to report things like this after the case has come to court: I’ll keep you updated of any developments on that front.
I saw my daughter yesterday evening and gave her a big hug. She’s fine, and determined to take this as far as she can. Apparently the man turned up in her workplace again the following day. Thankfully she wasn’t there, but other members of staff recognised him, and once management had finished wringing their hands and wondering what they should do, he was escorted from the building by police community support officers. Let’s hope he gets the message and stays away from now on.
Terrible and terribly upsetting. Sounds like the assailant has a mental health problem.
And as crime runs out of control, psychos and thugs take control of our streets, coppers spend their days totting up diversity reports, schools abandon discipline becasue they think it’s authoritarian, the welfare state propels millions into life with expectations of plenty and no means to pay for it, alcholics and addicts are *paid* to be alcoholics and addicts…. you will continue to think “it’s not my fault” And you’ll go out and vote Labour, again. And the country will continue it’s slide down the shitter. You think a girlwould have been attacked in a 1950s public library, and the assailant would have walked off scot-free?
You lot did this. You wrecked this country. Enjoy it.
Shame on you Frank Fisher for all the assumptions you make about the voting record and intentions of readers and commenters here.
And she is not a ‘girl’
cath so sorry to hear this happened to your daughter and i totally understand your “howl” – whenever i hear about a friend who was attacked or another friend is attacked, whenever i listen to the stories of the women in my discussion group, whenever i read the daily mail i verge into the “argh what is the point why isn’t it working” despair.
but as you say, and as many other commenters have said, it was the fault of the perpetrator and the fault of those who excuse this violence, and we do need to continue to fight because this isn’t something hypothetical or something theroetical to be argued about, this is something real that happens to the women we know and love.
i’m glad your daughter is ok and that she is taking this further, the best of luck and support to her.
xx
Dan, the bit about verbal engagement is a really valuable addition to the conversation, and it got me thinking about the qualitative difference between VAW and violence among men.
I’m sort of thinking out loud here so don’t expect too much rigour, but it would be interesting to test the hypothesis that while VAW is purely an expression of violent urges/hate (and you could probably make the case that racist attacks also have this component), made possible by the perpetrator’s dehumanisation of the victim, violence among men is in fact mostly defensive.
What I mean, to take the “are you looking at my girlfriend” scenario here for a moment, is that the person under attack (or who perceives themselves to be under attack) is actually the guy whose girlfriend it is; feeling threatened and as if some basic component of his status and masculinity are being put into question, he retaliates defensively by escalating to violence.
In essense he is the weaker – or more precisely more vulnerable – party in the confrontation.
This ties in with a conversation we were having about street harrassement on the Fugitivus blog a while back; I observed that when I get belligerent and react confrontationally to street harrassers, they suprisingly almost always back off and even apologise. A few other commenters theorised that this is a reaction that men don’t expect from women – they expect fear, appeasement etc., but not “I’m gonna cut you, you son of a bitch, how dare you talk to me like that” – and that it snaps them out of the “easy victim” paradigm and puts them more in the beer-spilling mindset.
Which coupld potentially lead to the very dangerous (and I really don’t support it!!) conclusion that men respond better to threats of violence than to appeasement and politeness. So this theory obviously needs more thought. But, interesting.
Oi vey, what an essay. Abject apologies for the highjack, Cath!
TheLady –
I think you make an interesting point, though I’m not sure the situations are necessarily that different. Impossible to generalise too much, of course, as violence can have a number of causes, but a lot of male on male violence is an expression of powerlessness, frustration, and so on. It isn’t a personal thing against the victim, whom the attacker doesn’t know, but a way of striking out in general. The ‘are you looking at me?’ situation is so, so common for men. I can’t remember the exact quote, but it’s a very common attitude amongst serious self-defence instructors: Its not personal; the guy provoking you doesn’t know you; he’s not angry with you; he’s not really insulting you. To put it bluntly, he’s had a bad day, possibly every day, and you’re a substitute for all the things he’s unable to assert himself over.
And I’m not sure that, in the case of, say, domestic violence, you’re always looking at very different explanations.
Hi Dan, TheLady
“Which coupld potentially lead to the very dangerous (and I really don’t support it!!) conclusion that men respond better to threats of violence than to appeasement and politeness.”
I’d say that’s generally true of bullies. Of course it’s a bit of a leap to say that it applies to all men 😉
Apologies for the second post – what I was tring to say is it’s the same impulse: I think the kind of man who ‘needs’ to assert himself through violence will generally do so against other men in public and his partner in private.
That’s a good and helpful distinction, damagedoor; perhaps it would be more helpful to say that public VAW and violence among men shake down roughly according to my two models? Like I say, further thinking is in order!
El Guapo: You had me confused with James.
There is a 16 billion dollar industry called porn. And then there are the likes of Marilyn Manson, whose recent tasty offering was picked up on on this very blog. Deny the sexualisation of violence against women if you like, but you’ll be wrong, and you’ll look pretty stupid.
In this country, if a black person attacks a white person without warning, there may or may not be a racial motivator, but it will not be part of a broader pattern of endemic physical and political violence against the white people by black people.
It seems as well as wishing to deny the victimisation of women by men, you also wish to deny the victimisation of black people by white people. Your dismissal of what women and black people say about their experiences is pretty objectionable. Why does it make you so uncomfortable to face the reality? Your state of denial is tantamount to an endorsement of perpetuating the state of affairs. You and people like you are part of the problem.
It is not women (or black people, or gay people) that are bringing the issue of gender (or race, or sexuality) into discussions of violence. It is the people who choose their victims in a systematic way along these lines. Blaming people for stating the facts about this, however unpalatable you find them, seems a little bit…childish, if you don’t mind me saying.
I think the Lady makes some very good points. While you could psychologically characterise all violence as defensive, I do think that some violence is purely or largely sadistic (which is why we call such things hate crimes). The majority of violence between men does not constitute a hate crime. It is not done because of the victim’s gender, but because of some threat or slight perceived by the perpetrator to be committed by the victim.
On the subject of mugging, the violence is done for financial gain, rather than hatred against a particular group per se. It may be that females are perceived as easier targets, or it may be that males (who are less likely to be in low-paid or part-time employment) are more frequently perceived to be lucrative victims. I would have to know the data on the gender patterns of victims and perpetrators to be able to comment further, but I’d be surprised if gender didn’t come into it indirectly.
Where you are getting the message that anyone is saying that violence against men is acceptable, I cannot imagine. We are simply objecting to hate crimes. That doesn’t mean we endorse other crimes. Seriously, what planet are you *on*??
TheLady –
I *think* so. 🙂 Obviously, there are shades to all this. And there can’t be enough thinking!
Dan –
“the majority of violence between men does not constitute a hate crime. It is not done because of the victim’s gender.”
Ignoring the “between”, which is surely victim-blaming, I still think you’re wrong. It is entirely gender based. Have you ever heard a man in a pub ask a woman what the fuck she thinks she’s looking at? It’s totally gender based. It’s an attempt for that man to have a fight and prove himself. To be dominant and alpha on at least *some* scale. You have to beat men to be an alpha male.
Hiya Dan
“There is a 16 billion dollar industry called porn. And then there are the likes of Marilyn Manson, whose recent tasty offering was picked up on on this very blog. Deny the sexualisation of violence against women if you like, but you’ll be wrong, and you’ll look pretty stupid.”
Well, porn as violence against women… that’s a complex one, but I’d say there’s surely a big difference between “vanilla” porn and random man attacks random woman… unless we’re talking about violent porn.
The marilyn manson thing- i don’t see it like that. I think it’s precisely *because* violence against women is traditionally seen as less acceptable that MM chose to do that- to shock. If in his vid he’d beaten some man to death no one would have even mentioned it.
“It seems as well as wishing to deny the victimisation of women by men, you also wish to deny the victimisation of black people by white people. Your dismissal of what women and black people say about their experiences is pretty objectionable. Why does it make you so uncomfortable to face the reality? Your state of denial is tantamount to an endorsement of perpetuating the state of affairs. You and people like you are part of the problem.”
Well I’m not denying that women are victimised by men. But there are cases when they are victims because they are women, and there are cases when they are just… victims.
“It is not women (or black people, or gay people) that are bringing the issue of gender (or race, or sexuality) into discussions of violence. It is the people who choose their victims in a systematic way along these lines. Blaming people for stating the facts about this, however unpalatable you find them, seems a little bit…childish, if you don’t mind me saying.”
Easy tiger- who am I blaming for anything. And if we’re going to look at it that way, more men are victims of violence than women. So yes, I’m happy to talk about those cases where the assault was motivated by gender in terms of gender, but where it’s because of some other factor (physical strength, situation etc) I don’t see why it’s so relevant.
The point I was trying to make with the black attacks white idea was that just *because* the attacker and victim are in different groups doesn’t mean the attack was due to that.
Male maniac attacks woman -> hate crime? Automatically?
Male maniac attacks man -> violence among men… hmm… boys will be boys… eh?
“Where you are getting the message that anyone is saying that violence against men is acceptable, I cannot imagine. We are simply objecting to hate crimes. That doesn’t mean we endorse other crimes.”
I think that’s my point- not all crimes against women are hate crimes. And I don’t see, on the little I know about the case, why this should be considered one.
damagedoor:
Referring to violence between men is just that. it’s not victim-blaming at all! What a load of rubbish!
Also I think you’ve misunderstood me. The alpha-male type of violence may be indirectly gender-based, but that is not the same as gender-hatred. Do you see the difference? It’s not done purely because the victim’s gender in some way offends the person, but because the victim’s gender lends them the opportunity to prove themself.
The only way you could think that male-male violence is motivationally equivalent to male-female violence, would be if you thought that a man can “prove himself” by assaulting a woman. Is that a masculinity you really want to argue for? Men don’t attack women because they want a good old fight, do they?
Men attacking men (barring racism and homophobia) is not a hate crime. Men attacking women very often is.
Dan
Actually I see where damagedoor is coming from.
when you say “violence *against* women” and then “violence *among” men” or “violence *between* men” all of a sudden there’s no victim any more…
Dan, I took what damagedoor said to mean that using the word “between” implies equivalence between attacker and attacked, and I actually kind of see how that could be victim blaming, functionally (it’s reasonable to suppose that in many incidents of violence where the two sides are men, one nevertheless is a victim of the other’s aggression).
It’s tricky to find a better term though, because “man-on-man violence” is too reminiscent of teh hateful phrase “lack-on-black violence”, which is redolent of othering and has some very racist undertones. Hmm. “Violence among men” seemed pretty neutral to me when I chose it after some consideration, but perhaps we could come up with a more appropriate phrase?..
I’d like to see some figures backing that up please – ones that take into account domestic abuse and sexual assault figures, please, not just police statistics. Until then your argument is meaningless I’m afraid.
TheLady,
Sorry, you’re right I wasnt very clear on that.
When I said violence I meant attacks by a stranger, in a public place etc. And I’m pretty sure the police figures do indicate that young men are more likely to be victims of such crimes than anyone else.
I don’t think such crimes belong in the same category as sexual assault and DV.
I don’t see why not. Bruises are bruises.
But it is a convenient way of cooking the numbers into a nice sexist casserole: “men suffer more violence than women because it’s what happens to men that is “real” violence”.
That’s a very, very old-fashioned patriarchal way of excluding the experiences of women from the conversation, and I think you’ll find people get upset with you for positing that logic at least as much because it’s hackneyed and stale as because it’s offensive and callous.
TheLady
I’m sorry that’s really not how I meant it but I can see why it came across that way.
I’m in no way commenting on the seriousness of these “categories” I’m not trying to exlude anyone’s experiences.
What I said was just following on from the discussion on gendered violence and… err… regular violence.
My original comment was in response to the perception of this as a feminist issue. I didn’t (and still don’t) see it that way. For me, this falls into “regular” violence. DV, sexual assault etc don’t.
Do you see what I mean? I’m not downplaying the experiences of anyone who has suffered any of these crimes and I’m sorry if my clumsiness expressing myself made it seem that way.
To explain a bit further, the reason I think this is relevant is because campaigning to end violence against women, then including any violent crime that has a woman as the victim, including non-gendered violence, downplays the non-gendered violence that men and boys feel.
“bruises are bruises” you say. What’s the solution? A campaign to stop women and only women getting bruised? Fine, of course I won’t obstruct that.
But when those bruises are not due to gendered violence, you *are* forgetting about half the population. And ironically it’s the half that suffer most from that type of violence.
You’re free to do that. Of course you are, I can’t stop you, nor would I. Less violence is less violence. Great.
But it is sexist, and exclusive and doesn’t make much sense to me.
El Guapo, I do see what you mean and thank you for the clarification, but I still think that you are mistaken. Or rather I think there is a logical fallacy here that you are not aware of.
It’s kind of late on a Friday and frankly the pub is calling my name, so I’ll summarise this really briefly and trust to you being able to find lots of stuff on this online, cause it’s all there:
The whole concept of “women’s issues” and “not women’s issues” is a rhetorical weapon to disappear women from public discourse. First you compartmentalise women’s issues into separate boxes that don’t intersect: abuse, rape, pay discrimination etc. Then you sideline them by saying that because they only apply to women, they’re not important, and we should be concentrating on the issues that affect “everybody”.
This is what’s behind the thinking of people who say things like “don’t you have *real* problems to talk about, instead of rape/advertising/porn/prostitution/whatever? What about poverty/climate change/the economy/whatever??”.
Problem is of course that by that point you have created a discourse wherein women are segregated into their own “issues” (kind of like they are into their own Guardian supplement – under “Life and Style”), so they’re not counted towards “everybody”. Everybody is not women, which means it’s only men, which is what feminism is all about, which is why pretty much anything that affects society is a feminist issue. We may look at it through a specific lens etc., but it still is.
Back to the issue at hand then – women suffer more violence of all kinds than men do, so violence of all kinds is very high on hte list of feminist issues. We bring our own lens to bear on it, but that doesn’t make the issue marginal or irrelevant to us.
Right, that’s it. It’s Beer O’Clock!
OK sorry, I lied, one last thing: men are a gender too. Violence against them is also, quite often if not always, gendered. Gendered doesn’t mean “between opposite genders”.
el guapo i think i see what you mean – young men are more likely to randomly attacked by a stranger in a public place. not that this is “worse” or more “serious” than DV or sexual assault.
i think there would have been an uproar if marilyn manson beat up a man in his video. we need to get away from this us and them attitude. violence is violence is violence in many ways, but there is a difference between violence against men than violence against women. when a man harrasses me on the street, when this group of men chanted “bitch bitch bitch” at me after demanding i dropped my knickers, i felt like a victim of hate. i don’t think when a man yells “what you looking at” at another man in a bar the same levle of hate is there. frustration, drunkenness, anger yes but not hate.
Thanks for your answer TheLady.
Just a couple of other points I wanted to make.
I’d donate to a charity to help women who suffer DV. But a charity that helps female (and only) female victims of, say, mugging or just assault on the street- why is that fair? See why I consider the “categorisation” important. Choosing *not* to help a group of victims wouldn’t be fair.
Nor would it be fair to ignore them when raising awareness.
One last point, i’m pretty sure that men in general suffer more violence than women, at least in attacks by strangers etc. But, not important really.
Have fun at the pub! 🙂
Hi sianushka,
Yes, exactly. Which happens more often is not really important (just an interesting aside), and of course to compare some bloke punching me in the pub with 30 years of controlling DV would make no sense. Equally there will be opposite cases where the non-gendered violence will be more serious.
But it’s possible that there are times that a man will do something bad to a woman and it isn’t a hate crime. And I think it’s unfortunate that this distinction gets lost sometimes.
That’s all I’ve really been trying to say, and I think unfortunately I’ve expressed it badly and annoyed a few people. I’m sorry about that, not least to Cath.
Sorry Cath, I hope you and your daughter are doing well.
Yes, that’s what I meant – just that saying “between” implies there isn’t an attacker and a victim, which there often is. In the face of an angry man, intent on fighting, I would put down my pint and go somewhere else. But should I have to do that? Is it my fault if I tell the guy to just leave me alone and that provokes him further? Gender-reversed equivalents would – rightly – provoke outrage.
Dan –
It’s a generalisation – not all violence is the same – but I kind of do think that. I’m not arguing for it, though.
I just think there’s a certain type of man – perhaps a very common type – who has learned that violence is (contextually) a way of asserting himself. When that man feels small and powerless, he’ll seek a way of making himself feel “bigger” and more powerful. In a pub, that man is unlikely to beat up a woman – that doesn’t make him look big to everyone else present. He’ll attack a man to prove his superiority. And in that sense, he seeks a gendered victim – regardless of any other characteristic. This man is playing to an audience. At home, with his partner, there is no audience; he only has to dominate one person, so his violent outbursts are directed at her.
Yeah, it’s horrible. I’m not arguing for it. I just think that psychologically it’s often true.
To be honest, I feel a little bad talking like this after Cath’s post – especially as the circumstances aren’t really clear. My original intention, really, was just to say “I’m sorry – that’s awful”. As a teenager, I was the victim of an unprovoked GBH, and aside from the physical issues it’s emotionally shattering. I’m glad she’s okay, and I hope the man who did it gets everything coming to him.
El guapo
But it’s possible that there are times that a man will do something bad to a woman and it isn’t a hate crime. And I think it’s unfortunate that this distinction gets lost sometimes.
No-one said it wasn’t possible, that’s just not what we were talking about. I don’t think the distinction was lost, I think it’s a very important distinction. What is unfortunate is that it seems we cannot talk about hate crimes by men against women, without the discussion getting hijacked into a general discussion about violence, because to do otherwise would be sexist against men.
When someone is bemoaning hate-crimes, a response that effectively pipes up with ‘what about non-hate crimes?’ kind of is missing exactly the distinction you mention.
And I think your initial response kind of fell into that category, El guapo.
Hey Dan
“No-one said it wasn’t possible, that’s just not what we were talking about”
The reason I brought it up *here* is because that distinction, imho, has been lost *here*
Does every conversation that is anything other than a load of people agreeing with each other have to be considered a hijacking? Or Silencing?
The original post, and a lot of the following comments cast this incident in the light of a gender-driven hate crime against a woman.
I said that in this case, purely in my opinion, that’s not true. My reasoning is that a lot of these random attacks occur, to women AND MEN. So, knowing what I know about this incident I wouldn’t say it was a hate crime against a woman. Even if, say, the attacker thought ignored the huge rugby lad (“he looks tough”) and waited for someone else to come along (“oh, she doesn’t look too scary…. shorter than me”). That’s a an attack on someone weaker who *happens* to be a woman.
Regardless of whether you agree, do you see my point?
The wider point, the reason one of the reasons it’s important to get these things right, is this:
If this attack could have happened to anyone, but it’s put into a “special category” of Violence Against Women and Girls, and decried as a sign of these terrible times and gets lots of attention, that’s all well and good. Except it could have happened to anyone, it probably is happening to a man as you read this words. But that isn’t as bad, is it? Lessons in schools to teach children that violence against women is bad… what’s the message by omission?
If a woman’s car gets stolen should we campaign to prevent Car Theft Against Women And Girls?
So let’s be sensible about labelling all crimes against women as hate crimes- we’ll understand it better and we won’t send messages about equivalent crimes being more or less acceptable depending on the gender of the victim.
Yes, I do see your point. I don’t agree with it though, and I don’t agree that the fact that people were discussing this incident as a hate crime implies that the distinction to which we have been referring had been lost.
Regardless, I still think you’re ignoring a couple of important factors.
Re. random attacks on someone weaker/smaller (as distinct from hate-crimes): If the attacker is male, on average his victim is more likely to be female, by virtue of the fact that the *average* man is bigger and stronger than the *average* woman. Because of this, the eagerness of some people to point out that “men get attacked too”, when no-one was denying that fact, is a bit irritating. It’s as if they think it’s somehow a relevant thing to point out in a discussion quite specifically bemoaning men’s violence against women. I really don’t get why we aren’t allowed to have a conversation on this topic without this non-sequitur being so predictably trotted out.
I do agree with you that boys should be taught that all violence is wrong, but what I also note is that where women argue for such a thing, very often their thoughts are not welcomed, and they are accused of misandry or similar.
If men (as a group) got sexual or sadistic pleasure from stealing women’s cars as opposed to men’s, then yes, I would say your analogy is quite correct.
No-one is saying that all crimes against women are hate crimes. I in fact specifically introduced the distinction between hate crimes and other crimes into this discussion to highlight that fact that they are not. I was also making the point that violent crimes against men are very often *not* equivalent to violent crimes against women (hence why I brought in the question of context and motive). No-one is arguing about equivalent crimes being more or less acceptable depending on the victim’s gender. We are arguing about the fact that sometimes, the genders involved, and the motives, mean that these are *not* equivalent crimes.
Regardless of whether you think the incident in question was a hate crime, the ensuing discussion about hate crimes against women is still a perfectly legitimate one to have, and I must say I do object to it being hijacked as it has been by people going on about violence against men, and then having to explain to them that we are talking about a different kind of crime, and *then* being told that *I’ve* lost the distinction. It really shouldn’t be this hard.
I say “hi-jacked” because I mean “hi-jacked”. I am not referring to dissent or disagreement, I am referring to the introduction of tiresome and irrelevant (if perfectly true) non-sequiturs that serve to derail and distract from something which is a very real and disturbing problem.
Ok Dan, I don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on this so probably best if we just leave it.
Just one tiny niggling point-
“I do agree with you that boys should be taught that all violence is wrong,”
Actually everyone should be taught that all violence is wrong- boys and girls.
Have a nice weekend.
Fair play
Cath, sorry to hear what happened to your daughter, glad that she is ok.
El Guapo, even though Cath mentioned it in her post, it seems to me that you might have missed the fact that 25th November is designated the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and so many awareness raising events have been held on and around that date.
It is an awful, awful, horrible coincidence that just as Cath was preparing to write about these events and initiatives, she found out that her own daughter had been a victim of a very violent attack. The correctness of categorising that attack as gendered violence or not gendered violence is not remotely the point of her post nor a problem offered for intellectual debate.
Sorry to hear about the assault Cath. No comfort in saying this, but it sounds a highly unusual one. The guy must be ill, especially given he came back.
Anyway your lass is lucky to have you as a mum.
I’m late on this, but Cath, I am so glad to hear your daughter’s recovering from this horrendous attack. This kind of thing makes me terrified about becoming a mother one day. 😦 I would just like to join in with those condemning Frank Fisher on his condescending and subtly self-congratulating comment. Sod off.
I second all of what Edwin Moore says. I know you’re not giving up the fight, but really women like you are superheroes to our younger generation of feminists! Especially me. 😀
Hi polly,
“When society says violence against women is sexually arousing, disturbed men are going to take that message on board.”
I must have missed something here… are we talking about extreme porn or something
No, just walk into WH Smiths El Guapo, look at ‘mainstream’ advertising or go to your local cinema. Plenty of sexxayy violence on display there.
Try these for starters
http://www.genderads.com/Violence.html.
It’s been highly criticised, but I would recommend Norah Vincent’s book ‘Self made man’ where she describes her experiences of passing as male. At the beginning is a description of how she went out on the streets dressed in drag, and noticed the difference in the way men looked at her, in that they wouldn’t meet her gaze.
“We walked by those same groups for men, only this time they didn’t stare. On the contrary when they met my eyes they looked away immediately…To look another male in the eye is to invite conflict, either that or a homosexual encounter. To look away is to accept the status quo”
You are correct that male on male violence is gendered behaviour El Guapo, but it is men doing it. Men – almost always – attack other men for what they perceive as violating their status in some way.
Men attack women, or gay men, because they feel entitled to.
Sorry type – the above should read “those same groups of men”.
That’s an amazing website polly, thanks for the link.
Oh and on the subject of violence against women, I see now that as well as the usual other seasonal annoyances, we have the annual ‘drunken sluts are to blame for rape’ campaign.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8385048.stm
Sorry to hear about what happened to your daughter, Cath. What the fuck is wrong with men?
Have you ever heard a man in a pub ask a woman what the fuck she thinks she’s looking at?
Yes – actually, I’ve been that woman on more than one occasion. I’ve had plenty of abuse shouted at me in the street, and have been physically assaulted by males, in the street, for no reason, also on more than one occasion.
This whole discussion about how it’s worse for men is just pure bullshit. Women live in fear of violence, every day.
Perhaps the reason why there’s more recorded street violence against men is that most women are afraid to leave their houses after dark. Because of male violence.
thebeardedlady
“‘Have you ever heard a man in a pub ask a woman what the fuck she thinks she’s looking at?’
Yes – actually, I’ve been that woman on more than one occasion.”
Could it be because of the beard?
It’s bad enough when men come on to a feminist site and make it all about them, which they do incessantly.
But to cry about how men have it just as bad when it comes to violence in the comments of a post about the blog author’s daughter being attacked? That is so disrespectful, and the complete disregard for Cath and her daughter is just so typical of men and their fucking bloated egos.
So, women can’t even have a wee bit of attention and care? Even when they’re suffering? You men are disgusting, really.
thebeardedlady and veganprimate –
I think my quoted comment there is being taken slightly out of context, but I don’t want to make it about -on-male violence.
But the whole discussion actually is about men, isn’t it? It’s about violent men. I was replying to a point by saying that – in my opinion – the roots of male-on-female and male-on-male violence seem quite similar. Both seem to be about weak, powerless, frustrated men who have learned that violence is a way of imposing their will on the world. Different circumstances and contexts, but with the same scumbag at the heart of it – striking out to make himself feel better.
If you think it’s inappropriate, then I can see that, but at least be fair: it’s not just men who were involved in that discussion. I think everyone here has offered their sympathies to Cath and her daughter, including me.
@The Dude: FUCK YOU DUDE. Trying to minimise male violence against women by saying it’s our fault for looking wrong is just pathetic. Of course if we look like playboy bunnies we still deserve everything we get, right – must be asking for it. There’s always a way to pin the blame on women, isn’t there. Go and fuck yourself.
Reading a lot of the posts here it does seem that the violence and who it is against seems to get put into different catergories when at the end of the day unless it is a sexual assault they are pretty much all the same. Ive worked on the door in the past and seen all sorts of violence erupt but there never seems to be any set pattern its very random. This guy who attacked Caths daughter definately sounds like he has mental health issues but to say that violence against any women is worse than against men is just plain wrong in my opinion. Ive had to drag women off men in the past who have been left cut to shreds as they wouldnt fight back as they were being attacked by a women and thought it was wrong to do such a thing. Most men wouldnt dream of hitting a women no matter what the provocation but believe me the women attacking men statistics are far higher than you would believe but thats only my opinion and im sure people reading this think im wrong and i accept that is your choice but generally nobody is wqrong in this situation everybody is entitled to theyre opinion whether you like it or not