Tag Archives: equalities

Everyday Victim Blaming – a new campaign

30 May

Reviewing media coverage of violence against women and children, we’ve found an overt victim blaming tone in many of the news reports.  Men are described as being unable to ‘help it’.  They are ‘driven to it’.  They kill their children (and sometimes themselves) and it is a ‘tragic isolated incident’.  They murder their children and it is because of a ‘difficult divorce’.  They rape children because she was ‘drunk’ or ‘out at 4am’ and so ‘asking for it’.  They rape girls who are so drunk that they cannot stand up, yet these men claim sex is consensual.  There are so many excuses that we’ve read recently – none of them considering that the abuser has choices.  All the choices are around women (and children) behaving differently in order to avoid being abused.

The media reports cases of violence against women and children with an almost wilful avoidance of the actual reasons for these acts.  Power, control, women and children being considered ‘possessions’ of men, and avoidance of personal responsibility all contribute to a societal structure that colludes with abusers and facilitates a safe space in which they can operate.

A clear example of this has been the Oxford Gang case.  The victims were cross-examined by a number of barristers (which is to be expected in a fair trial, of course) with repeated accusations of lying or consenting to the rape, sexual assaults and violence.  As we have seen, some of the girls were too young to consent under law and were effectively purchased by their abusers.  Dr Aisha Gill writes an excellent critical analysis of this situation.

Almost immediately after the completion of this trial, we heard of the tragic murder of two children in France by their father, a man who should have protected them from violence.  Julian Stevenson, a British man who has lived in France for approximately 10 years, killed his children on his first unsupervised access visit following a divorce.  His access to the children previously had been in the presence of either his ex-wife, or a social worker due to his violent behaviour.  The prosecutor’s office has released a statement confirming that Stevenson has admitted killing the children, but would ‘not discuss his motive’.  Media reports about this case have been littered with excuses and apparent explanations, including using the issue of child contact being ‘insufficient for his needs’.

In the UK at least, child contact orders under the Children Act 1989 should consider the welfare needs of the child as paramount.  This should mean that the courts consider the emotional and physical safety of the child(ren) when making a decision for a contact order.  If we assume that the law is adhered to and that contact with a non-resident parent is set up in order to meet the needs of the child, being at risk of violence or in this case, murder, is certainly not about the needs of the child(ren).

The combination of these cases, in addition to the almost constant victim blaming in the media, prompted us to set up this campaign.  We regularly discuss issues around child protection, violence against women and children and domestic abuse with other women.  This campaign is about changing the culture and language around violence against women and children.  We aim to challenge the view that men cannot help being violence and abusive towards women and children.  We want to challenge the view that women should attempt to ‘avoid’ abuse in order to not become a victim of it.

We are utterly frustrated.  We know other women and men who feel powerless and voiceless against mainstream media and we are aiming to change that.  We believe that the only people responsible for violence and abuse are violent abusers.  We do not believe that victims are in any way responsible for the choices that are made by those who abuse them.  Societal change is not easy, but it happens.  With persistence and dogged determination, we can succeed.

You can help by submitting your experiences, thoughts or views about victim blaming via our website www.everydayvictimblaming.com.  We will accept submissions that are personal, if you’ve written a critical analysis on gendered violence, written about media coverage of rape, abuse, sexual exploitation or if you just want to have your voice heard.  Submissions can be anonymous and we will soon be able to signpost to organisations offering support around these issues via our website.

Wish us luck!

Follow us on twitter @EVB_Now

Matriarchy – a powerless, meaningless noun.

22 May

By Catherine Brockhurst

Domestic violence, rape, violence against women and girls, sexual assault, sexual abuse, harassment, inequality. When faced with a barrage of reports, articles, testimonials, blogs and actual conversations from women either having their stories told for them, or telling themselves – I am still astounded that there are people who genuinely question that there is a bigger issue at play than these experiences in isolation.

More specifically – take Jack O’Sullivan’s piece in today’s Guardian’s Comment is Free section “The masculinity debate: no wonder men stay out of it” – ignoring the fact that men rarely stay “out of it” and indeed rarely even have to debate given that the odds are already stacked in their favour – I’m struggling to understand what purpose this article fulfils, other than to undermine women and downplay (to the point of ignoring) the stance in society the majority of men enjoy.

The statement that jumped out the most for me was this; “But all this fails to generate male leadership or collective discussion. Each of us is operating in our personal world of change, with little sense of what it’s like for the other guys. The women’s movement produced articulate women to narrate their agenda. Where are the men?” – O’Sullivan was discussing how men are now challenging their perceived gender conformity-lucky them, to have a platform to challenge from at all. I fear he may have missed something.  What world is he inhabiting? Not mine that’s for sure; In the UK where 25% of those residing in Parliament are women, just 20% for the House Of Lords. Where in 2012 the percentage of women on boards of the Fortune 500 companies was just 16.6%. Where according to the IBR (International Business Report);

  • Women hold 24% of senior management roles globally, a three-point increase over the previous year (Yes that’s right, we’re up from 21%)
  • The proportion of businesses employing women as CEOs has risen from 9% to 14% (into double figures here)
  • Just 19% of board roles around the world are held by women although quotas have been put into place

But this is just a set of info to illustrate the inequality that still exists-whether this writer believes that men are failing to generate “male leadership” or not. How about the assertion that;

“…An important factor is that otherwise powerful, educated men – the ones you might expect to speak up – tend to have been raised in, and live in, households where they defer to female decision-making and narrative. The reasons are complicated. Women’s centrality in the private arena is a complex expression of both male power and male impotence, of patriarchy and infantilisation. But a consequence of boys and men living in private matriarchies is that even the most senior male chief executive often lacks confidence in areas that might be defined as personal, private or family”.

OK, let’s talk about that oppression of men in their own home. Let’s look at what that means for the millions of women also residing in those households that they apparently have control and autonomy over;

Domestic Violence is insidious, here are just a few stats to back up the assertion that this is far more prevalent that people appreciate and far from being about men lacking the confidence to challenge the women in their lives, the opposite is far more likely and is not mentioned at all in this article by O’Sullivan;

  • Domestic violence accounts for between 16% and one quarter of all recorded violent crime
  • One incident is reported to the police every minute
  • 45% women and 26% men had experienced at least one incident of inter-personal violence in their lifetimes. However when there were more than 4 incidents (i.e. ongoing domestic or sexual abuse) 89% of victims were women.
  • In any one year, there are 13 million separate incidents of physical violence or threats of violence against women from partners or former partners
  • Women are much more likely than men to be the victim of multiple incidents of abuse and of sexual violence: 32% of women who had ever experienced domestic violence did so four or five (or more) times, compared with 11% of the (smaller number) of men who had ever experienced domestic violence; and women constituted 89% of all those who had experienced 4 or more incidents of domestic violence
  • Women are more likely than men to have experienced all types of intimate violence (partner abuse, family abuse, sexual assault and stalking) since the ages of 16. And nearly half the woman who had experienced intimate violence of any kind, were likely to have been victims of more than one kind of intimate abuse
  • 54% of UK rapes are committed by a woman’s current or former partner
  • On average 2 women a week are killed by a male partner or former partner: this constitutes around one-third of all female homicide victims

Time and time again we are told what a raw deal men are getting, having to fight to be heard, being “emasculated” by women, being pushed out by career women who play the “sex card” or sleep with the boss to get ahead. All the while we are expected to ignore the fact that in virtually every walk of life women are treated as secondary, they don’t even get a platform to debate from let alone get listened to. If only a quarter of the policy makers are women it’s not a big stretch to imagine there will be a weighted view of the law in favour of men. Caroline Criado-Perez has been campaigning for equality in the representation and visibility of women as experts in the media, as co-founder of The Women’s Room, an online database of expert and experienced women in their field. More recently she has been challenging the Bank Of England for their decision to remove the only female representative on our UK Bank Notes, Elizabeth Fry. And you know what the most common challenge to her campaign is? What about the Queen? Her answer, a thousands times by now I would imagine, “What about the monarch?”. Once the queen is gone we are left with an entirely male cast. You can see the petition here.

Everywhere you go, every direction you turn you will be faced with an example of women being treated unfairly, unequally and in many instances in truly awful ways. Please stop telling us that men have the raw deal here, we have our eyes and ears open, we believe her, we hear her, we’re listening and we will not be silenced.

Means-tested Child Benefit? You’re picking the wrong fight.

8 Jan

By Catherine Brockhurst

Before I launch into this post headfirst, please let me caveat what I am about to say;

  • I am not an expert in the benefits system, nor government public and social expenditure
  • I am not poor, nor am I destitute or about to be thrown into a horrendous spiral of poverty by the proposed and ongoing changes
  • I am not going to back up my assertions with a raft of stats.

Child Benefit and Winter Fuel Allowance should not be means tested. That’s it, no ifs ands or maybes. Want to know why? It does no good to anyone who actually receives these benefits. If you’re poor- i.e. you struggle to feed your family, clothe your kids, keep your home warm, would never be able to run a car, probably don’t have any luxuries like mobile phones, holidays (or any other thing that the Daily Mail derides you for having if you’re poor)-then you need Child Benefit. If you’re not poor, you don’t need Child Benefit, but many on the periphery of struggling to make ends meet rely on it.

If you’re not in the first two camps and wealthy, then OK, you might spend it on frivolous things like spa treatments, fox furs and fancy cigars (again, thanks Daily Mail). These things the people who don’t need Child Benefit and Winter Fuel Allowance payouts spend their money on are taxed. The money goes straight back in to the economy.

And here’s the crux of it;

There are way more people in this country who need these benefits than don’t. There are substantially more poor than wealthy people in this country.

Means testing these universal benefits is a logistical and administratively expensive nightmare and I want us all to be under no illusion, the money ‘saved’ by not paying out Child Benefit and Winter Fuel Allowance will not be ploughed back into the pot of money set aside with a big sign on it saying ‘For the poor and needy. It is just another number on a balance sheet to this government, where those in need get squeezed and those who are not don’t. We’ve all seen the nonsense in the limits for individuals vs. couples on the Child Benefit restrictions structure. It’s like a woefully mis-informed child came up with the idea. No wait, it’s like someone with no social conscience came up with it…Ah, wait, hang on a sec… Sorry if I sound sarcastic and angry. It’s because I am. Very.

I said I’d not provide a raft of stats, so just 1. In 2012 the entire welfare bill, including family and children, unemployment, housing, social exclusion, protection and other vital services made up 12% of the entire government expenditure. Given that people are all this country actually has it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that my tax pennies should go towards helping and supporting them. All of them.

Yet again, this government who we did not vote in, have hammered another nail in the coffin that is social welfare and yet again, we’re all arguing about who does and does not deserve to get their meagre hand outs. They knew we would, they knew these decisions would create infighting. It just serves to draw our eyes away from the genuine tragedies of a chopped up health service,  reduced family support services, reduced income support and housing benefit, increased student fees, massively reduced disability allowance, reduced rape advisory services. The list goes on and on, as long as your arm. And then the next person’s arm too.

Please step away from the smoking gun that is means tested Child Benefit and Winter Fuel Allowance, your argument is not with those earning £50k or more a year. It’s with those who are tricking you into thinking everyone has it better than you and has grabbed your cash. They haven’t, we’re all just trying to manage the best way we can while the rug gets pulled out from under us, just like you. So many of us, just like you.

%d bloggers like this: