Why Don't Perpetrators have Agency?

[Reblogged from the Everyday Victim Blaming Project]

This week, I’ve been watching discussions on Facebook and Twitter talk about the “agency” of a teenage girl in her grooming, kidnapping, and rape by her teacher Jeremy Forrest.

A 15 year old girl was groomed, kidnapped and raped by her teacher; a man she was supposed to be able to trust. Instead of discussing the horrific abuse of power by Jeremy Forrest, people are talking about the “agency” of a 15 year old girl in her own abuse. Instead of using the term sexual predator or rapist to describe Forrest, we are discussing the “agency” of his victim.

Where are the discussions about Forrest’s agency? Why are we discussing the “agency” of a teenage girl and not the agency of the man who chose to kidnap and rape her. Why aren’t we focussing on the choices made by an adult? Why are we trying to cast a teenage girl as responsible for her own rape?

We need to stop using the term agency when talking about sexual abuse. Agency implies that the victims were in some way responsible for their own abuse. The only person who has “agency” in this situation is Jeremy Forrest.

Jeremy Forrest groomed a child. He chose to groom a child. He chose to rape a child.

Jeremy Forrest is a sexual predator. That is the story.

Read More

Apparently, murdering your wife is not a sufficient reason to lose custody of your children.

Neil Ellerbeck murdered his wife Kate Ellerbeck on November 14th, 2008. Kate received 43 separate injuries in the attack before being strangled to death. Neil was sentenced to 8 years in prison for "manslaughter".  The jury cleared him of murder "on the basis of lack of intent to cause serious harm"; 43 separate injuries which lead to her death but it was still judged a "lack of intent to cause serious harm". How did we get to a point where 43 separate injuries leading to death aren't considered intent to cause serious harm? 

Neil's responsibility for the murder of Kate was minimised by the press in a myriad of ways, with their obsession over Kate's affairs whilst simultaneously downplaying Neil's own affair. The Telegraph and Daily Mail were both obsessed with how much money Neil earned as an investment banker, as if being a rich white man was more important than his status as a murderer. The very obvious  signs of domestic violence were ignored and the quite clear indicator of Neil's potential to physical violence downplayed. Neil was tracking his wife's movements. He was recording her conversations. Jealously and controlling behaviour are obvious indicators of a propensity to violence, yet these were minimised in the media. 

This is, apparently, part of the Judge's statement at sentencing: 

'We have studied and dissected a marriage which was obviously in terminal decline. It should have ended in separation and divorce. Tragically it ended in death. 

'The jury have found that you did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm during the long eruption of violence which ended in her death. 

'You achieved a great deal in your life, but it is plain to me there was a darker side of your character - the secretive obsessively jealous husband who spied on his wife, invaded her privacy and contributed to the unhappiness in the final months and years of her life. 

'A husband who knew divorce was coming and would go to almost any length to prevent that from happening.  

'You squirreled money away intending to keep it from your wife. It was the darker side to your character that boiled over. 

'I am sure you intended some harm to your wife albeit not serious harm. I am sure your anger and frustration erupted that morning when it became clear your wife was serious about divorce and it was then you applied constant and deliberate pressure to her neck.'

Neil was sentenced to eight years for the murder of his wife. He served four before being released. He is now living in his former home with his two children. He murdered their mother and only spent 4 years in prison. He now has access to his million dollar home. He has custody of his children. A man who brutally murdered his wife because she asked for a divorce is now living in their former home with their children. 

Because, murdering their mother in anger doesn't constitute a significant risk to the children's lives. 

Because, a middle class white man who violently murdered a woman shouldn't lose custody of his children. 

Because, a middle class white man couldn't possibly be a risk to his children. After all, no middle class white man has ever murdered his children.

Because, a middle class white man with a clear history of domestic violence against his partner couldn't possibly be a risk to his children. 

The facts that he has already abused the children by forcing them to live in the house where he was abusing their mother, that he has already committed child abuse by killing their mother, and the fact that he is continuing to abuse his children by forcing them to live in the house where he killed their mother with him are all, well, just irrelevant really. 

Instead, he gets to move back into his expensive house and pretend that he hasn't already destroyed the lives of his children. 

Welcome to the Patriarchy: where women and children don't matter. 

Read More

Tiptoeing Around the Dinosaur

Elaine Charkowski wrote this as her FB status. The entirety of the document below is her work. It is cross-posted with permission.

In response to my statement “male violence is the worst problem in the world,” a woman emailed me and wrote: "I do not believe that male violence is the cause of the world's problems but a symptom of a very sick system that produces violent men and submissive women. If you say that violent men are the problem, then what is the solution short of suppressing or eliminating them?"

So I wrote:

Violent men created the "very sick system that produces violent men and submissive women," which is patriarchy. Thus, I stand by my statement that male violence is the worst problem in the world. Further, I trace the source of all the isms and oppressions. These include racism, sexism and colonization, both external and internal. Internal colonization is seeing one’s self through the eyes of the oppressor.

Male violence is also the source of genocide, war, homophobia, nationalism, cruelty to animals, slavery, economic oppression, prostitution and all sexual slavery, child abuse and the systematic murder of the Living World.

How can we solve the problem of male violence, the worst problem in the world? Where do we begin? Men control all the power institutions. These include the military, education, technology, law, the economy, media and male-god religions (spiritual back up for their earthly atrocities).

I can’t solve the problem of male violence single handedly. However, what I can do is name male violence as the worst problem in the world. This is because naming an oppression and the oppresors is the first step toward ending it. I will not be discouraged, deflected or distracted. I hold all men responsible for ending male violence. This includes non-violent men because all men profit from a world in which male violence exists, especially male violence against women.

As more and more women and men take up the cry and shout from the rooftops that male violence is the worst problem in the world, more and more people can offer their solutions. We can learn from each other and create the synergy necessary to end this horror. Hopefully hundreds of millions of women and men will soon be joining this discussion.

Questions to Ask Ourselves

Is naming male violence as the worst problem in the world a serious threat to patriarchy, the social structure of violent male power? I believe it is. The linguistic contortions, generalizations, obfuscations and denials are incredibly numerous and varied. Their endless repetition reveals that male violence must never be named as the worst problem in the world. This would threaten the power of violent men.

These evasions include: "Not all men are violent," “It’s capitalism,” "Women are violent too," "It’s racism,” “It’s colonization," “It’s genocide,” "Women collude with men against women," "Women profit from male violence," "It’s gun violence," "Men also suffer under patriarchy," "Violent society creates violent men," "What about Margaret Thatcher?" "Women also oppress women," "I love the men in my life who are not violent," etc.

What is the source of our resistance to naming male violence? Is it original thoughts from our own minds or, has this resistance been internalized by us after being inflicted from the patriarchy to protect itself? Have we been mentally colonized to avoid naming male violence so we won’t wake up and end its 6,000 years of carnage?

In the article "What is it About Men That They're Committing These Horrible Massacres?" by Meghan Murphy, she writes,

“‘But what about the men?’” It’s a question that’s been avoided by the mainstream within the context of mass shootings. The recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut sparked thousands of conversations across the continent about gun laws, mental illness, and violence. And sadly, we’ve been here before."

She adds, "In the midst of all this horror, we are, understandably, up in arms, demanding change, grieving all the while. But within all this righteous anger, we are very carefully tiptoeing around the common denominator. In 31 of the school shootings that have taken place since 1999, the murderers were all men."

Why do we flinch away from speaking the truth? Are we afraid that naming male violence will make men kill us? They already are. Are we afraid the men in our lives will stop loving us? If they love us, they will understand. Are we afraid that we won’t know how to build a new world based on kindness and respect? Are we afraid of the responsibility for creating such a world?

Violent men are already killing the Living World and humanity! So, what do we have to lose by naming male violence as the worst problem in the world and addressing it?

Read More

2 More Family Annihilators Being Glorified in the Press

There have been two murder-suicides this weekend: Jovan Belcher killed his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins before killing himself.  Keith Johnson killed his wife Andrea before killing himself. Today, two sets of families on two different continents are mourning the loss of their daughters; both murdered by their partners. Two women a week in the UK are murdered by the men who claimed to love them. Despite this fact, press coverage is always about what "nice" men they were. The coverage does not focus on the women murdered but on the careers and personal characteristics of the murderers. The coverage of the deaths of Kasandra Perkins and Andrea Johnson are no different.

The BBC coverage of the murder-suicide in Cromer includes these statements:     

Mr Johnson, a former mayor of Cromer, became Conservative leader of North Norfolk District Council in May.

Fellow Conservative councillor Trevor Ivory, a friend of the couple, said: "It's a complete shock. I last saw them both on Thursday evening and they were both very happy and seemed to be enjoying life.  

"The words Cromer and Keith Johnson are synonymous. He typified what's good about the town and the district of North Norfolk." 

In a statement, North Norfolk Labour Party paid tribute to Mr Johnson. Chairwoman Denise Burke said: "The death of Keith is a tragedy and a massive loss to Cromer and North Norfolk, too.

"Keith has been a real public servant throughout his life and will be sorely missed by the whole community. He was much respected across the political spectrum.

"Our thoughts are with Keith's friends and family at this time."

If Johnson typified all that was good about Cromer, then they have some serious problems. This man murdered his wife and he will be sorely missed? What about his wife Andrea? Will she be sorely missed? Andrea barely gets a mention in the article. We know that the man who murdered her was a well-respected career politician but, his wife, just an addendum to the story. Was Andrea's death not a tragedy? Just the death of her murderer? 

Jovan Belcher shot his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins before shooting himself in front of the coach and general manager of his football team, yet this story focuses on the fans and the team:

Although the game was unimportant -- especially with neither the Chiefs (2-10) nor the Panthers (3-9) bound the playoffs -- it did provide some relief for the team and community. 

Kasandra is just as absent from this article as Andrea. There is no discussion of the grief of her family and friends. There is no mention of her life at all. Both Andrea and Kasandra are being written out of the story of their murder whilst the eulogies of their murderers begins.

This is the War on Women. Not only do we pay for the hyper-masculinity within the Patriarchy with our bodies through rape, torture and our deaths but we are also written out of the stories of our own lives.

I await with sadness the inevitable stories to follow which will blame the women for their own murders.

UPDATE: This is an excellent article by Heather Harvey on the issue of male violence within patriarchal family structures.

Read More

Reddit: Free Speech is the Privilege of Men

I promised myself I wouldn't write about this case. There is nothing I can say that a thousand other Feminists haven't been saying for years about Reddit's stance on misogyny. They are all for it. I mean, I've never used Reddit but it's a social media platform. It doesn't matter which one you mention, they all support misogyny [and racism, disablism and homophobia]. They all hide behind the construct of "free speech" to protect the right of men to say and do what they want without any thought to the harm their actions/ speech cause. It is the very essence of male entitlement and privilege. As I've said elsewhere, publishing photos, nude or otherwise sexualised, without consent is sexualised violence. This is an issue of consent and of the right to privacy. It is not something that should be covered under the construct of "free speech". Free speech is the legal protection for the right to critique the government and other political/ cultural structures. The right to free speech is not the same as the right to be a jackass. The fact that a large number of men are confused by this is their problem. We shouldn't indulge their desire to allowed to be as violent as possible just because they want to. There is no right to "Free speech" for those who are actively harmed in the perpetuation and perpetration of rape culture. We need to stop pretending that the right to free speech is more important than anything else. 

It is the issue of "creepshots" which has brought Reddit to the attention of mainstream press but not because rendering women into objects by uploading photos their sexualised bodies without consent is wrong. Nor is it because the issue of creepshots creates some serious legal implications in terms of the right to privacy and what constitutes a criminal offence. Nor is it because of questions the the construction of "sexuality, entitlement and public consumption."  That's not why men are having whiny-arsed tantrums and the media is running stories on it.* Nope, the issue has come up because Feminists have taken the step to publicly out the men perpetrating sexualised violence.

The hypocrisy of these men whining about their right to privacy having been violated by being named online when they have deliberately and maliciously participated in the sexualised violence of women by posted "creep" shots of them without consent is unbelievable. I am so very glad that someone with the computer skills tracked them down and named them. Yes, the expectation of privacy whilst in public is non-existent but that's but that's because we perceive women's bodies as public objects. Women have as much right to privacy as does the statue of Nelson in Trafalgar Square. The level of male entitlement to women's bodies of which they should have no access is unbelievable. If we complain about being objectified, then we are abused and humiliated; labelled whores and fat and ugly and stupid and frigid.

We need to hold these men accountable for their sexual predation. If the law won't support us in criminalising these forms of sexualised violence, then we too should have the right to free speech without limit. We should be legally entitled to name and shame these men as they have named and shamed us. Michael Brutsch didn't want to be publicly identified as Violentacrez because of his family. Yet, he did not care about publicly humiliating women or perpetrating rape culture. If he did not want his real life name attached to Reddit sites  publishing photos under the terms: jailbait, rapebait, incest and misogyny, then he shouldn't have put them up in the first place. His behaviour is the problem. Not the Feminist activists who are holding him publicly accountable for the sexualised violence he perpetrated. If James Silverwood and Dominic Terry were actually concerned about their right to privacy, they shouldn't have started a Facebook page called "12 year old sluts". These men need to be held accountable for the harm caused by their behaviour and we should have the right to call them on it. Otherwise, free speech is nothing more than a joke; a privilege of men denied to all others. 

So, a huge thank you to my Feminist sisters who have called these violent sexual predators out.

This is nothing less than a War on Women.

It is a war whose battlefields are women's bodies.

We have every right to fight back with every piece of technology available; after all, men are using the same technology to destroy us.

*The vast majority of news stories I've come across have been written by Feminists like Kira Cochrane. However, I do not believe the media would be running these stories in mainstream press if it weren't for the fact that Feminist activists have started outed the sexual predators involved in taking and distributing the photos. These sites have been running for years without any real comment on the level of misogyny they perpetuate. 

Read More

Justin Lee Collins: Just Another Right-On Dude But One Who Inspired the #dickheaddetox

Another day; another abusive man is basically forgiven for being a violent thug. I'm getting bored of writing about all these arseholes. I'm beyond fucking angry at them continuing to be feted and forgiven for the abuse. 

Justin Lee Collins is a vicious, violent thug and it is an absolute fucking disgrace that he only got 140 hours community service for harassing, stalking, and scaring the ever-loving shit out of his ex-partner. He deserves to be in jail but he is not because the judge bought into every myth about domestic violence possible.

There is nothing I can say about Collins that the Fleet Street Fox has not already said more eloquently here: 

Judges know the power of words. They know that hearing "140 hours community service" is not as frightening as "six months' jail", and they also know that stealing a case of mineral water in a riot is not as serious as assaulting your partner over a period of seven months.
They also know, because the High Court ruled on this in July, that only words which contain a genuine and intended threat can be considered criminal. The judge in that case said people "are free to speak not what they ought to say, but what they feel".

So idiots who write unfunny jokes about murdered five-year-old April Jones, set up silly Facebook pages mocking the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, complain about British soldiers in Afghanistan or upset the grieving by writing about having sex with the dead are - and this is important - not criminals. They're idiots, they're offensive, but they cannot in law reasonably be thrown in jail.
But they were. 

A man, famous or otherwise, who reduces his partner to a constant state of fear, who assaults her, bullies her and admits only the part of her story she was canny enough to catch on tape IS a criminal. Justin Lee Collins is a thug, a bully, and a liar. He CAN be reasonably jailed.
But he wasn't. 

I don't think that was because he was famous, or because he could afford a good lawyer. I think it was because a change in the law recognising that words said by a partner are part of domestic abuse, and equally as if not more damaging than a punch or a smack, will not be in force until next March so it was impossible to prosecute this little toad as he should have been. 

And it's also because we get incredibly angry about the words we see written down, forgetting that means we can tear them up, delete them or burn them, and not about the words we hear which wriggle into our heads and stay there until we are able to shake them out.
The most important words in your whole life are not the ones you see but what you hear - hello, goodbye, I do, I'm pregnant, it's bad news I'm afraid. You might forget precisely what was said, but they change your life one way or the other and you never forget where you were, and what you were doing when you heard them. 

If only judges heard what everyone else does.

If you haven't already clicked the link to Fleet Street Fox's article, do so. Now.

Then, read Eva Wiseman's Naming and Shaming article in the Guardian. We need to start naming and shaming these violent misogynists. It's a disgrace that Charlie Sheen who has got form for domestic violence against more than one partner, "accidentally" shooting then girlfriend Kelly Preston in the arm, as well as the abuse of prostitutes now has another hit television series.

I'm sick of Chris Brown who violently assaulted his partner Rihanna.

I'm sick of Mike Tyson who has a conviction for rape and a history of domestic violence. I'm sick of the rape apologists who've financially supported Tyson's new career as a "motivational speaker". I'm pissed off at Spike Lee for directing Tyson in a one-man play which whitewashed Tyson's violent history. I'm pissed off at the rape apologists wearing Tyson's branded clothes.

I'm sick of the child rape apologists claiming that Roman Polanski's status as an "artiste" is more important than the child he drugged and sodomised. I'm pissed off at every child rape apologist who stood up and gave the man a standing ovation at the Oscars.

So, I'm with Eva Wiseman. Let's start calling these "men" out for what they really are: violent misogynistic thugs who deserve our contempt and our hatred. Let's do her dickhead detox.

James Brown: domestic violence*
Hugh Grant: abusing a prostitute
Ched Evans: rapist
Sean Connery: domestic violence
Ike Turner: domestic violence
Mel Gibson: probation for domestic violence [not to mention the issue of racism]
Harry Morgan: domestic violence
Tupac Shakur: sexual abuse
Richard Hatch: domestic assault
Tracy Lawrence: domestic abuse
Dennis Rodman: domestic abuse
Mickey Rourke: domestic abuse
Sean Penn: domestic abuse
Paul Gascoigne: domestic violence
Stan Collymore: domestic violence
Bill Wyman: child rape**
R. Kelly: domestic abuse [amongst some other horrifying accusations]
Micheal Lohan: domestic violence
Larry Fitzgerald: restraining order for domestic violence
Santonia Holmes: multiple arrests for domestic violence
Tommy Lee: domestic violence
Alec Baldwin: emotional abuse
Steven Tyler: child rape**
Iggy Pop: child rape**
Jerry Lee Lewis: child rape**
John Peel: child rape**
Jonathon King: child rape
Gary Glitter: possessing child pornography and child rape**
Johnny Thunders: child rape**
David Bowie: child rape**
Jimmy Page: child rape**

*I'm using both domestic abuse and domestic violence because the terms reflect the legal status of the crime in the jurisdictions in which the men were charged. 

** None of these men were convicted of child rape. But, that's because we live in a society that celebrates male violence and doesn't give a shit about children.

Read More

The Offensive Product One

This rocked up on my FB news feed via the group Feminism! [who are definitely worth following. Just so you get the privilege of seeing this image with your coffee first thing.] I'm not sure what I can say about this that Feminists haven't already said in the comments section but, seriously, what kind of sick fuck buys shit like this? Because, I'm struggling to see how anyone who isn't a sociopath or a rapist would find this funny. 

The only possible benefit would be to spot a misogynist at 500 yards but I'd rather go with not triggering victims of sexualised violence at the luggage carousel. Maybe that's just the weird feminist in me: the whole not doing anything to deliberately hurt others thing. But, this, this is why free speech is only the privilege of already privileged men. No one who actually cared about the right to free speech for everyone who defend this shit.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Apparently, Rape is Funny via MyCheck

I'd like to think this is a joke. That no one would be so utterly stupid as to think rape and murder are acceptable advertising campaigns but we all know that's precisely the kind of shit that gets advertising execs all hot and horny. After all, MAC only pulled the Ciudad Juarez limited edition make-up line after customers complained. Apparently, no one at MAC quite understood that naming make-up after a Mexican border town imploding due to drug violence and the systemic mass murder of women might be considered, well, in poor taste. Probably they all failed kindergarten or never saw Sesame Street. Even Oscar the Grouch could have worked out that naming make up after systemic VAW was just a little bit rude.

A campaign for an App, of all the stupid shit possible, which includes the use of a date rape drug and ends with the a man sharpening a knife in a room full of unconscious [or already dead] tied up women really is scrapping the barrel of indecency. Jezebel has already called MyCheck on its misogyny; as has the Israeli Times but do we really need advertising campaigns to get to this point before they are pulled. Surely, someone in advertising somewhere gets that systemic VAW isn't funny or clever. 

This is "edited version" of the video. The article in Jezebel contains a link to the original video in its entirety: 

I'm sure someone will be along soon to inform me that I can just not purchase the App but that really isn't the point. I'd like the entire advertising industry to remove their collective brains from wherever they have stored them and just stop making this shit. Is that really too much to ask?

Read More

Today, I Came Out as a "Privileged" Feminst. And, Not For the Reason You'd Think

I was having an online chat with some lovely friends yesterday about Misogynist Rights Activists [MRAs] and their silencing techniques. I came out with this gem:

I don't get anywhere near the shit that or some of the other feminist bloggers get. I'm actually really privileged in that I have a good number of people reading and commenting on my blog in a positive manner and only had 4 nasty comments on the blog itself.

I wrote this and then promptly realised just how stupid it sounds. I'm privileged because the MRAs aren't targeting my blog for abuse. I'm privileged because I've only been stalked online by a few, not very bright, MRAs. I'm privileged because I've only received two real threats of physical violence to my body. That doesn't count all the insults, condescension and arrogant hypocrisy I've personally experienced on Mumsnet from MRA trolls, certain male posters and their handmaidens. I've become so, I'm not sure here, immune to the threats? So, I think only two threats, one to shoot me in the face and a threat of gang-rape, makes me "privileged" as a feminist.

Just how seriously fucked up is that?

I am a feminist with privilege. I am visibly white in a deeply racist culture. I am heterosexual in a homophobic society. Despite being disabled, it's not "visible" so I don't endure street harassment from disablists. I have a very good university education, a niceish home, lovely children and some brilliant friends. If we're playing Intersectionality bingo, I'd lose. Every time. But, yesterday, I decided I was "privileged" only to be threatened with male violence twice. Online. I never even thought about the street harassment I've received. Being pregnant as a teenager is like having a giant neon sign above your head for disgusting men to perve after you. Or, the small scale sexual assaults I've experienced. Nope, I decided I was privileged because only two men threatened me with physical violence online.

Two Men. One who threatened to shoot me. The other threatened me with gang-rape. And, I'm "privileged".

I genuinely don't know quite where to go with this blogpost. I wrote the first part last night just after I made the comment. I've been pondering my statement on and off all night. Why would I use the privilege? I'm not sure. But, it does make me incredibly sad that I have become so immune to male violence that I measure "privilege" according to how few threats I receive rather than "privileged" by never having experienced male violence. Because, the truth is, I don't know a single woman who hasn't experienced male violence of some sort.

Read More

Amazon: Supporting Child Rape or Just Really, Really Lazy?

So, apparently whilst I was asleep the other night, some brilliant Feminist activists managed to get Amazon to withdraw a book which advocates child rape through that lovely construction of "sex tourism". You know, that thing which is actually illegal in the UK because it's travelling for the express purpose of rape. Now, I don't really care whether or not Amazon apologises for this [although, they'd have to be pretty freaking stupid not to]. Frankly, I'm disgusted they allowed it to be put for sale in the first place. There is no way an organisation as large as Amazon does not have an approval policy for which products they do or do not sell and its Amazon's approval policies which piss me off.

My lovely friend Frothy Dragon wrote this several days ago:

Through providing such a product, Amazon has not only promoted the Sex Tourism trade, but it has told rapists of children where they could potentially escape charges for child sex offences. Amazon has, in one publication, minimised child sex abuse, and normalised it, implying that not only is it legal in some countries, but “Hey! Other men are doing it too, y’know!” 

I further call on all relevant agencies, INCLUDING AMAZON, to work together to prosecute the people who have purchased, produced and distributed this publication. As outlined by the Foreign And Commonwealth Office, British citizens and residents can be prosecuted for having sex with a child whilst out of the country. Tourism is no excuse to allow the rape of children.

I agree with every word. Amazon is minimising and legitimising the rape of children with the sale of these products. We should be pushing for more prosecutions of men, and it is always men, who travel for the express purpose of raping children and vulnerable women. It's not like we need to invent a new law for this. It's already illegal in the UK to travel for the express purposes of sex tourism.

But, this isn't just about prosecuting individual men. We need a full cultural change in order to protect vulnerable children and women. That requires multi-national corporations like Amazon taking responsibility for the products that they sell. It doesn't matter whether or not the information in the book was freely available on the internet [and Wikipedia might want to start deleting that information too]. Amazon should have an approval policy in place which expressly prohibits this kind of material from being sold by them. The fact that they put profit before any moral or ethical obligation [like, say, actually paying taxes] will only change if people start boycotting them. And, telling Amazon they are boycotting because of Amazon's refusal to deal properly with products which advocate sexualised violence.

Read More

A Bunch of Men Got Together to Pretend that Domestic Violence Rates are Falling

And, guess what, they were lying through the teeth. Or, are complete nincompoops with no understanding of statistics which seems a bit far-fetched considering their various academic credentials. Now, when I read Alan Travis's article in the Guardian, I did think the whole thing smelled fishy. I haven't actually read the Office for National Statistics report but the idea that domestic violence is decreasing would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. I had planned to read the report myself to discover just how wrong the Guardian report is but, helpfully, the Liberal Conspiracy has already done that for me.

I was right. There has been some rather loosey-goosey playing with statistics to come up with the theory that domestic violence is decreasing. As Ally Fogg writes in her blog:

The whopping great mistake in all these reports (which may or may not originate with the ONS themselves) is to include ‘friends and acquaintances’ as domestic violence casualties. They’re not. Many of these ‘acquaintances’ may be rival drug dealers, for example. In fact, in 2010/11, the “friends and acquaintances” category was by far the largest subset of the group, accounting for 204 murders – more than twice as many as female DV victims. Every previous year shows the same pattern. The full category also includes children killed by parents; parents (including elderly relatives) killed by their children; sibling murders; husbands killed by wives and various ‘other’ combinations. Rather than accounting for over two thirds of murders as Cohen claims, in 2010/11 only 17% of homicides were women being murdered by their partners.

Now, I'm not big into conspiracy theories but I do have ask how a number of highly intelligent men could misread the statistics so appalling. I'd also like to know just what they think domestic violence is because I think the rest of us are working off entirely different definitions of DV. I'm rather fond of the Nia project's definition since it concise, intelligent and doesn't confuse acquaintance murder with systemic VAW:

Domestic/intimate partner violence – a pattern of coercive control, which includes combinations of physical, sexual, psychological and financial abuse by a current or former partner. In extreme cases this includes murder.

I notice none of the articles I've seen on this "trend" reference any organisations working in the field of VAW, like Nia or Women's Aid.

As lovely as the thought is, domestic violence isn't decreasing. It remains a constant statistic with the serious long-term consequences for families. Apparently, services dealing with domestic violence cost England 5.5 billion a year. The Scottish government suggests that domestic violence costs us 2.3 billion a year. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd suggest that the government is deliberately running a campaign to pretend domestic violence is decreasing in order to justify their massive, debilitating cuts to services for women.

But, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I just don't think a lot of people care very much about domestic violence and VAW in general. If they did, journalists wouldn't be writing such poorly researched flights of stupidity.

Read More

Family Annnihilators: Victim Blaming at its Most Offensive [TRIGGER WARNING]

I was saddened to hear of yet another family devastated by the murder of 3 innocent children. I am firmly of the opinion that in these cases the families deserve the right to privacy. I'm not sure quite how to articulate my criticisms of how these cases are portrayed in the media without participating in the same media frenzy around the family. The family deserves privacy and the right to grieve without the BBC writing ridiculous articles like this one.

As a feminist, I find the police and media language around this case, and others of a similar nature, to be extremely insensitive and, effectively, minimising violence against women. The murder of women by their male partners is frequently dismissed as "isolated" incidents despite their being 2 women a week murdered by their partners or ex partners. That isn't an isolated incident. It's systemic violence against women; just as domestic violence and rape. The murder of children by their fathers, and its generally fathers who kill their children and then themselves in order to punish their ex partner for some perceived slight, are referred to as "tragic family situations" or "isolated incidents" by the police; catch phrases which the media repeats without any attempt at political analysis. These aren't "tragedies"; that implies an accident. These are the deliberate murder of children. The perpetrators have clear histories of controlling or violent behaviour and they are preventable.

The reporting of these cases, known as family annihilators, in the media always imply that there was something the mother did to "push" the father into killing his children and then himself. The assumption that the mother brought the crime on herself by having an affair or leaving her husband is constant in news reports. Or, the poor father was stressed at losing his job that he couldn't bear the "dishonour" of public knowledge and therefore had to kill his children and wife as well. It's this kind of victim-blaming which makes it hard for women to seek help in leaving violent or controlling partners. It's this kind of victim-blaming which minimises male violence and further punishes women. We need to start changing the language around how we report these stories. We need to stop blaming the victims and putting the blame squarely where it belongs: on those fathers who think they have the right to kill their children and/or current or former partners. We need to stop pretending these men have histories of mental illness because they don't. They have histories of domestic violence and controlling behaviour but those aren't signs of mental illness and its incredibly offensive to those who suffer from mental illness to pretend otherwise.

My friend Kritique is far more eloquent on this issue than I. This is her response to the case on this Mumsnet thread.

Family annihilators don't always have a history of mental illness. Many have been abusive towards their partners or at least have had quite "controlling" tendencies related to their families. Sometimes, they have careers where they are required to compete and/or are in positions of power and status. Conversely, they are in jobs of a lower status, but play out their need for power and control in the domestic sphere. 

It seems they are most likely to kill if they feel their control over their partner and family is at risk. For example, they might have lost their job or been convicted of a crime or something else that means they feel they can no longer be the "provider." Most commonly, however, it happens when the relationship is breaking down or has ended, which signals to them that they are losing control of their family. Some will kill the children as the ultimate punishment for an ex partner, but it has also been suggested that those who kill their children and not their ex partner may do so simply because it is easier to get the opportunity to do so. 

Once their family are dead, the man then literally has no purpose in life, if his obsession in life was to control them, so that's when he commits or attempts suicide. Basically, the phenomenon seems to stem from a belief in male entitlement taken to an extreme. Although there are often signs that something could happen (e.g. man with history of abuse and/or control, experiences sudden change in his position and/or end of relationship, etc.) which agencies could pick up on, they are rarely noticed until after the incident. Even where the woman, a relative or friend reports concerns to the police, these concerns are rarely acted upon. Lives could be saved if there was greater awareness of the problem and a commitment to intervention to protect women and children at risk.

The media tend to be very, very coy in describing incidents where women are killed by their partners. Quite frequently it will be something very brief like, "A man and a woman in their mid 30's were found dead in Acacia Avenue this morning. The incident is being regarded as unexplained but no one else is being sought in connection with the killings." If you aren't paying attention and don't read between the lines, you won't "get" that it was probably a man who killed his partner then himself. While tabloids will splash lurid headlines about murder and violence, particularly where the perpetrators fit the model of "villain" quite neatly, it's as though hacks are afraid to frighten the horses if they more than whisper that a man has killed his partner in cold blood. 

But, sometimes the stories break big, particularly where there are children killed. Then something of a "formula" is followed for reporting. Lots of photos of cute children, children smiling with their dad and happy family shots. Statements from friends, neighbours, teachers, etc. about how happy/pretty/clever the children were. Statements from co-workers, neighbours, friends about what a loving/caring/hardworking/committed father the killer was, with much hand wringing about what would "drive" him to do this. Comments about him being under pressure/depressed/stressed/worried generally follow.

Then there are almost always insinuations about the dead woman. She left him/was threatening to leave/was restricting access to the children/was having an affair/he thought she was having an affair/he was worried she would have an affair/she was demanding/she spent too much money, etc. Dead women tell no tales but there are always plenty of people willing to tell tales about them, whether there is any truth or not.

The goal of such reports really seems to tug the heartstrings over the loss of "innocent" children's lives, attempts to excuse or justify the man's actions and efforts to demonise the dead woman. If they succeed in this goal, then we can swiftly forget that women are far more at risk of being killed by a partner than a stranger. This stops us worrying about the inequity in many male / female relationships and the serious risks many women face from their partners.
It's late and I don't have time to look up more links, but most of the literature suggests that women who kill their children are more likely to have a previously diagnosed mental illness than men who kill their children. Women very, very rarely kill their partners then kill or attempt to kill themselves.

We owe it to the children who are murdered and their mothers who have to live with the grief to start taking this crime seriously. We need to stop blaming the victims of violence and place the blame squarely where it belongs: on the men who perpetrate domestic violence or who decide to kill their children.

Some links to research and news reports on Family Annihilators:

This 2008 report on murder-suicides in the US, found that only about 5% of murder victims of murder-suicides are male and 74% were murdered by an intimate partner (who then committed suicide.)

This File on 4 programme from March of this year discusses similar features of cases where men kill their families and then themselves.

BBC: What Drives a Father to Kill His Children?

Newsweek: Inside the Minds of Family Annihilators

Guardian: Leave the Children Out of It

Marie Claire: Why Men Kill Their Own Children

Read More

Women Power: Family Planning Saves Lives

The lack of access women, all over the world, have to birth control and abortion directly impacts on family and community structures. Where there is little or no access, there is an increase in maternal and infant mortality with the practise of unsafe abortions, occasionally infanticide, or the birth of unwanted children [particularly due to economics] causing untold problems in communities. There are cultural prohibitions against some forms of birth control but the lack of access to basic medical care [or even clean water] means that too many women are suffering from unwanted pregnancies and too many children are being born into families that can not support them. This is without getting into the issue of women being allowed to control what happens to their own bodies by having the power to control whether or not they conceive without being coerced via government policy or economics. Even ignoring the US governments cowardly policy, during the Bush administration, of not funding any family planning clinic that mentioned abortion, the impact on women's lives has been horrendous.

There have been several high profile campaigns bringing media and world attention to this issue; notably the White Ribbon Alliance on Maternal Mortality whose global patron is Sarah Brown. Their information page contains numerous links to important research into maternal mortality, including the research into feeding infants during emergencies; a piece of information that the large multi-national corporations like Nestle like to pretend doesn't exist. It might sound counter-intuitive but donations of formula and baby-food in disaster zones, particularly where access to clean water is non-existant, lead to increases in infant mortality. It is much safer for infants to be breastfed and any woman who has previously lactated can feed an infant as the female body is designed to respond to the nutritional needs of an infant. The White Ribbon Alliance works in partnership with other organisations in a variety of nations to advocate for safe motherhood as a basic human right.

The newest campaign on safe motherhood and reproductive rights kicked off with the International Reporting Project sending 11 bloggers to Kenya to report on reproductive health and population issues. The bloggers, including the very lovely Lynn Schreiber, spent the first day in Kibera, one of the largest slums in East Africa where population estimates range up to 3 million [although this generally considered too high]. This is part of the lead-up to The London Summit on Family Planning held jointly by the Gates Foundation and the UK government in July [with any luck Melinda Gates will shame Cameron into at least pretending to be human].

There are some obvious questions which need to raised when dealing with the issue of family planning, particularly in relation to issues of coercion and the, quite violent, history of population control polices such as those enacted in Nazi Germany and China not to mention places like California which had enforced sterilisation programs for those deemed unfit. Dorothy Roberts' Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty lists some of the coercive policies enacted in the US to prevent poor African-Americans from having children. It included the use of mandatory birth control in New Jersey in order to receive public benefits. In the 1990s. We may think of Nazi Germany and China when thinking of coercive population control but they are by no means the only guilty party and it isn't "history". Coercive reproductive measures happen everyday anywhere that access to birth control, abortion and medical facilities are not present [and this is without getting into the issue of rape and sexual violence which severely impact on women's health, particularly in war and disaster zones].

This is why I was glad to see that Amnesty International, the Centre for Reproductive Rights, Action Aid and dozens of other human rights organisations, academics and women's rights activists have signed this declaration:

We, civil society organizations working to promote women’s and young people’s human rights, call on world leaders on the eve of the “Family Planning Summit”, hosted by the UK Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to ensure that sexual and reproductive health and rights are at the centre of all efforts to meet reproductive health needs, including family planning. Contraceptive information and services – “family planning” – form an essential part of the health services that women need throughout their lives. Any steps to increase demand for contraceptives must actively support efforts to improve comprehensive and integrated sexual and reproductive health.  

Contraceptives must be provided through primary healthcare, with full regard for women’s human rights and the specific needs of young and unmarried women and other groups. Our experience, built over decades of work around the world, has taught us that the failure to take actions guided by women’s human rights – to health, to life, to live free from discrimination among others – can have devastating consequences. Policies that accept or tacitly condone forced sterilization, the coercive provision of contraceptives, and the denial of essential services to the young, poor and marginalized women that need them every day have violated, and continue to violate, women’s human rights. 

Nearly twenty years ago, governments at the International Conference on Population and Development agreed that respect for women’s reproductive autonomy is the cornerstone of population policy. Any return to coercive family planning programs where quality of care and informed consent are ignored would be both shocking and retrograde. The Family Planning Summit must ensure that the clocks are not put back on women’s human rights: women’s autonomy and agency to decide freely on matters related to sexual and reproductive health without any discrimination, coercion or violence must be protected under all circumstances. ...

Save the Children are also involved in the Family Planning Summit and have started a petition requesting that the British government make a firm commitment to the issue of family planning and safe motherhood. Please sign this petition to help women around the world give birth and raise their children with access to real health care [and education].

Free access to birth control, family planning and safe motherhood should be a basic human right with every woman having the control over her own body and her own family. Anything less is nothing more than a return to the normal coercive practises but this time tied up in a different fancy box with a UN ribbon on top.

Read More

Shocking Event: Dominic Monaghan Forgets that Hollywood Approves of VAW

Dominic Monaghan appears to have forgotten that Hollywood approves of domestic violence and violence against women in general. Instead of offering Matthew Fox an Academy Award like Roman Polanski or a standing ovation like Chris Brown, Monaghan called Fox out on serial domestic violence. I mean, even Fox News has noticed and they are hardly on the forefront of anything that's not racist or misogynistic or homophobic or disablist. Reece Witherspoon, Christina Aguilera and Patrick Stewart have all spoken publicly on the issue but Hollywood doesn't seem to be listening. Disney's Beauty and the Beast remains one of their "most-loved" films despite clearly being a case of Stockholm syndrome complete with tap-dancing kettle and lecherous candlestick. Belle passes up the local abusive village man for the rich abusive man with a castle. That's not exactly a feminist position. It's certainly not a choice I would want for my daughters.

Frothy Dragon wrote eloquently here about the relationship between Jeremy Kyle, domestic violence and reality television. Making domestic violence the subject of reality television is truly despicable women-hating. The Entertainment Industry, in general, seems rooted in reinforcing and perpetuating domestic violence as "sexy" and "edgy" [and this is without discussing Twilight: A Guide to Finding Dangerous Relationships for Teenagers]. We wonder why the domestic violence rate is so high and, yet, surround teenagers with images of "romantic" stalkers and "bad boys". These images are dangerous and nasty.

So, whilst, this seems ridiculous thing to have to do, I'd like to give recognition to a man standing up against domestic violence [even if I think the Eminem video Monaghan starred in last year fetishised DV].

Here's hoping more male celebrities get off their asses and start standing up for women instead of celebrating the men who abuse them like:

Mike Tyson: rapist and domestic violence
Roman Polanski: child rapist
Chris Brown: domestic violence
Charlie Sheen: domestic violence and abuse of prostitutes
James Brown: domestic violence
Hugh Grant: abusing a prostitute
Ched Evans: rapist
Sean Connery: domestic violence
Ike Turner: domestic violence
Mel Gibson: probation for domestic violence [not to mention the issue of racism]
Harry Morgan: domestic violence
Tupac Shakur: sexual abuse
Richard Hatch: domestic assault
Anthony Kiedis: indecent exposure and sexual battery
Flea: battery
Chad Smith: battery
Tracy Lawrence: domestic abuse
Dennis Rodman: domestic abuse
Mickey Rourke: domestic abuse
Sean Penn: domestic abuse
Paul Gascoigne: domestic violence
Stan Collymore: domestic violence
Bill Wyman: for being a child rapist even if never convicted of it.
R. Kelly: domestic abuse [amongst some other horrifying accusations]
Micheal Lohan: domestic violence
Larry Fitzgerald: restraining order for domestic violence
Santonia Holmes: multiple arrests for domestic violence
Tommy Lee: domestic violence
Alec Baldwin: emotional abuse
Steven Tyler: inappropriate relationship with a minor [which should have resulted in statuatory rape charges like Wyman]

This list is just from a 10 minute search on google.

And, yeah, I've included purchasing women for sexual purposes as violence against women because it is VAW; as is pornography.

Read More