BBC - Language around male violence...again

I seem to be on a mission with the BBC and their reporting at the moment. As with this article, some might call it inevitable. The problem I have with the article is part of a wider pattern of BBC reporting on male violence against women.

Peter Foster murdered his partner. He killed a woman yet the article is framed to seem actually sympathetic with him because he took his own life.

Mr Carver said Foster was "full of remorse" for what had happened, but that his death was "inevitable".

What evidence is there of remorse? So full of remorse that he tried to dispose of evidence and dumped her body. Remember this is a man who killed his partner, who had recently given birth, by "hitting Det Con Cooper over the head 10 times with a baseball bat and stabbing her in the throat." There was no remorse for Heather Cooper. The only remorse was all for himself and the fact he was caught.

The article then goes on to describe some of the trigger points in Foster's life which is understandable as it is an inquest into his suicide. But it is the way these points have been selected and the way they have been described that minimises what he did.

...not being able to see his children after his arrest had a "profound effect on him".

Are we meant to feel sympathy here? He brutally killed their mother. He shouldn't have access to them. He needed to face the consequences of his actions. This was one of them. What about the effect his actions had on his children? Did he think about the profound effect it may have had on them? The self absorption of the man can really be seen in that comment.

He said Foster had been abandoned by his mother and brought up by his grandmother.

The language here is so telling. '[A]bandoned' is such an emotive word. Did she abandon him or did she leave him in the care of his father or grandmother? Fathers who abandon their children are far far more often described as 'absent' or 'not around'.

He also had a difficult relationship with his father and suffered bouts of depression.

What does 'difficult' mean exactly? His mother abandoned him and his father he had a difficult relationship with. A bit of disparity going on there with the wording. Maximising the effect of his mother's actions on his life and minimising the actions of his father who clearly wasn't around much either as he was brought up by his grandmother.

...Foster's father was murdered in January 2009, which he had found hard to cope with.

Later that year, he was found close to death on his father's grave after taking pills and alcohol.

So he had a history of of wanting to take his life. In between which he took someone else's life. Why are we asking the question of why he took his own life but not asking why this man decided to direct his violence outwards on to someone else? And on a wider basis why men so often direct their emotions outward in a violent manner because this is by no means restricted to Foster. And we should remember, from the second BBC article linked to that Heather Cooper wanted to leave him. He promised to go to anger classes. The violence was already there before he murdered her. This was a violent, abusive man.

Prison officer Geoff Gordon described Foster as a pleasant and calm man who was interesting, vulnerable and bright.

I really feel like swearing at this point. This is a total eradication of what he did. He brutally murdered a woman. How come some are so quick to overlook that? Such privilege is rarely offered to female murderers. Would a female murderer's suicide garner this much sympathy? 10 women a week commit suicide due to domestic abuse. They certainly don't garner much sympathy and they didn't kill anyone.

Taking these excerpts that the BBC chose at face value, you would think that Peter Foster was a tragic soul who'd had things happen to him. Not someone who had taken a life incredibly violently and deprived his children of their mother. Language matters. Let's use it correctly around violent and abusive men. He was nasty and brutal.

However I do agree with the BBC and Mr Carver on one point. His suicide was inevitable because here was a man who refused to face up to the responsibility of his actions.

Why I focus on male violence

As most feminists know, the most common response you get when you specifically point out male violence is hat women do it too. I know. I've been a victim of female violence. So why do I focus on male violence?

The quick answer, of course is that male violence is at the root of our oppression as women. It is the tool that maintains that oppression. As a feminist and a woman I'd quite like it to stop. Men, as a class, are the biggest threat to women. If male violence stops, the patriarchy will quickly dismantle. Female oppression and the supporting structures that criss-cross our society won't ever be eradicated without eradicating or at least severely reducing male violence. However there is more to it than that.

Why not focus on all violence?

By focusing on all violence we aren't addressing the gendered nature of violence. Most violence is perpetrated by men and women are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. This massive skew is significant and needs to be named before it can be addressed. If you can't name the problem you can't address it. But female violence gets discussed proportionally more given the relative incidents of female/male violence. Female behaviour in general gets analysed and criticised far more than male behaviour. Focusing on male behaviour redresses that balance and gets straight to the heart of the problem rather than tinkering around the edges.

But no violence should be ignored surely?

No violence should be ignored. Female violence is an issue, albeit on a much smaller scale than male violence. It can also affect women in different ways to male violence. Portia Smart illustrates this very well in her blog post We Need To Talk About Women. Women can be violent for different reasons to men and have been subjected to different experiences.

These differences could be one reason why it is so important to make a split according to sex. However, male violence is at the root of female violence. Violence exists because men perpetuate it. They perpetuate it in order to continue the hierarchy of violence in their favour. As such there is an underlying assumption and expectation that men have the potential to be violent. Authorities like to remind women at regular intervals that men can and will be violent towards them and it is used to restrict their actions. Male violence is so pervasive and linked to society it almost goes unnoticed. It is certainly unchecked. Just look at the recent examples of violence and threats through social media. No violence should be ignored. Yet here we are and such a quantity of male violence is accepted, unrecognised or disregarded.

Female violence is a reaction to male violence, not only because a significant amount of female perpetrators of violence will have been abused themselves but because they are acting within a framework of a society underpinned by male violence. Women see men being violent, experience it and know they get away with it. That threat is always there. It stands to reason that those without power (and I don't just mean physical power) will learn the tools of their oppressors are a way of gaining power. Add to that when what little power you have is even further removed by direct violence is it any wonder that you try to act in the same manner as your oppressors to get it back.

Ultimately it boils down to this: Women are scared of men. Men are scared of men. Men are not scared of women. If female violence were completely eradicated then male violence would still exist. It is just too prevalent to be any other way. However, if male violence were eradicated then female violence would be illogical and odd. There would be no need for it. It makes sense to target male violence.

 

Hate Crimes: What about crimes against women?

The tragic and horrific murder of Sophie Lancaster has been in the news again today because the constabulary responsible for investigating the crime (Greater Manchester Police) have added subcultures such as emos, punks and goths to the list of groups affected by hate crimes. This I have no problem with. What I do have an issue with is the list of current hate crimes.

From the article, Lord MacDonald said "People's racial origins, their religion, their sexual orientation, people's dignity in the face of disability - these have been lines in the sand with the law saying, look, these are crimes that threaten social cohesion as a whole and therefore national life." Again I have no problem with this statement, as it is, and have no doubt of its veracity.

He then went on to say "I'm a little cautious about watering down this concept." Clearly he is so worried about watering down this concept he hasn't even considered that crimes against your sex would "threaten social cohesion as a whole and therefore national life." That is crimes against over 50% of the population. The implication by omission that crimes against women doesn't threaten social cohesion (whatever that may mean) is a complete denial of what women experience every single day. Just look at sites such as Everyday Sexism or Hollaback! to see how social cohesion is being disrupted on a daily basis for women everywhere.

So what are the many thousands of rapes reported as? What about the sexual assaults, the domestic abuse/violence, FGM (although no-one has actually been convicted for that in the UK), honour killings, serial killings against women? What are they all counted as? All those crimes are perpetrated against women just because they are women. Why are these crimes not being counted as hate crimes, they surely fit the definition?

Well the reason probably lies in the results if they were counted as hate crimes. It would bust the myth in cloud cuckoo land that women are being treated equally and would highlight that in fact we are still oppressed. The overwhelming problem of male violence against women would then become massively apparent and something would have to be done about it. In addition patterns which are currently denied would also become apparent. Patterns such as controlling and abusive behaviour and how this manifests itself throughout a range of crimes and behaviours. There is also a reluctance to name male violence for what it is. By not including crimes against women, such as rape, as hate crimes then the perpetrators of hate crimes can be hidden behind vaguer language such as "people", "groups" etc. But hate crimes against women could really only be down to the opposite sex i.e. men.

This reluctance to name and see male violence as the problem ties in with the truly desperate and awful deaths of the six children, Jade, John, Jack, Jesse, Jayden, and Duwayne, killed by their father Mick Philpott. His previous behaviour seemed to offer no red flags to social workers. No pattern has been identified in the media or in the courts with other family annihilators even though the similarities are there. The Tories would rather put this down to child benefit than male violence. I mean, how much more sleight of hand, misdirection and just basic lies do we have to put up with?

 

I don't know if Sophie's death was as a result of being a woman or a goth or a combination of both but really lets call a spade a fucking spade. Sophie, Jade, John, Jack, Jesse, Jayden and Duwayne all died at the hands of men. That is the problem. How many thousands of other victims do there have to be before this is dealt with head-on?

Retribution or Justice?

Part of my feminist discovery journey has been to question my previous steadfastly held beliefs and look at them through a feminist lens in the context that we live in a patriarchy. One of these closely held beliefs is the abolition of the death penalty. All the usual reasons apply:

I couldn't kill someone, why should I expect others to do it for me?

It could be a mistake.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Civilised society shouldn't be killing people.

The distastefulness of an eye for an eye type mentality i.e. lowering ourselves to the criminal's level.

The inhumanity and torture of keeping someone locked up only until it is time to kill them (and them knowing that).

In my lofty, privileged position I also felt that I had to make this decision for myself before anything awful happened to my family or someone I loved as obviously raw emotions would kick in then and death to the perpetrators may look very appealing. And that would be seen as revenge, which, of course is very wrong. We are also told that raw emotions are never a good foundation on which to base a decision.

And then we come to the horrific rape and murder of Jyoti in Delhi, India. The perpetrators of this crime are facing the death penalty if found guilty. Immediately I felt my conditioning kick in. My first thought was who are we to execute these men, no matter what they did?

This thread on Mumsnet, however, prompted me to have a rethink about where these beliefs are coming from. On the thread, a couple of people were quite vociferous in stating that we couldn't be feminists if we didn't think these men should have the death penalty. Now there are only a handful of reasons why I think a person can't be a feminist and opposing the death penalty isn't one of them. But it did get me thinking as to why I almost unthinkingly accept that the death penalty is wrong in all circumstances and whether that was a feminist stance or an anti-feminist stance in the wake of extreme violence against women.

I did realise quite early on in reading the thread that I just don't care what happens to these men. Not at all. Which was uncomfortable. I would prefer it if they could just slink away and die without me having to think about it emotionally or critically, but that won't happen, so here we are. How real are my convictions about capital punishment and how much is social construction? Well I'll probably never know the answer to that. But I do wonder whether the resistance to capital punishment is gendered. Women are socially constructed to be less violent so it would make sense that we would oppose other forms of violence more than men. Which then led to the thought that is this a trick of the patriarchy to keep us submissive. Engender in us this hatred of violence so that we won't use it against men. Could violence against men in particular circumstances be exactly what is required to gain freedom from oppression? If women were to start killing their rapists and abusers would that actually stem and even stop male violence? And if it did then capital punishment would seem to be more like justice, not revenge.

Then I think, am I being hypocritical rethinking this subject in light of the monstrous attack on Jyoti? Is it the nature of the attack that makes me have less care about the fate of the perpetrators? I mean it was so brutal and as a fellow woman I am frightened to the core by how much pain and suffering this woman went through. Would I feel this way about a brutal murder of a man? Possibly not, although I was highly disturbed when the BBC aired the depiction of the murder of a man in very similar circumstances. But the investigation into a similar crime on a man would not be scattered with victim-blaming and man-hating (instead of the misogyny seen in this case).

I know I would feel the same about a similar crime committed against children though. So, are crimes against women & children special? Yes, I think they are. Children for obvious reasons - their size, age, vulnerability and general innocence. Women because we are still oppressed and it is male violence keeping us oppressed. The oppression keeps happening and people, more specifically men, seem unwilling to do anything about it. And not only that we get blamed for the crimes against us. That feeling of impotence is rage inducing.

Would my feelings be different if violence against women were actually dealt with properly on any level? Very probably. If I felt justice was being served to women who were being raped and murdered; if I felt that we were winning the war against male violence then yes I would care about being humane towards the perpetrators of this terrible crime. But justice isn't being served and we aren't winning the war at the moment. These men thought that Jyoti didn't matter, that nobody would make them be responsible for their actions because they see women being treated appallingly everywhere and nobody does anything about it. That is why they felt it was OK to do this, in plain view. They thought they would get away with it. Surely justice in this case would be to send out a message to deter other men from casually raping and murdering women. Draw the line in the sand. Except of course it isn't a line in the sand. Because there are so many fronts to fight on. And is capital punishment even a deterrent?

I really don't know what my conclusions are on this. I know you can still be a feminist and not believe in the death penalty even for crimes against women. In fact I find that whole argument quite bizarre. And it certainly isn't my place to say who is or isn't a feminist (unless they are actively anti-feminist and then I reserve judgment!). Somehow, I would feel happier if Jyoti had survived, tracked her torturers down and killed them single-handedly. That would seem much more like justice and probably send out a much stronger signal. But it isn't about whether I feel happier and of course Jyoti can't do that. Part of me, a significant part, just doesn't think that the way to handle violence is with state-condoned violence, especially when that state is a patriarchy. It is just more patriarchal, bullshit violence. Whether that is the conditioning kicking in or something else does it even matter? Part of me, though, a small part, would like those men who did this to her and all those other men who torture and kill women and children to die. I can live with being a hypocrite on this.

I started writing this ages ago but it seems appropriate to publish it today in honour of International Women's Day and for the Million Women Rise march, today in London. So this is for all the women fighting the fight against male violence in a peaceful manner.

Posted with Blogsy

Separating art from the artist: Why should we?

Recently there have been two high profile cases of men who have been celebrated and allowed to continue working having committed serious violent crimes against women. In both cases it has been deemed that their work is more important than their crime. Their crimes have either been ignored or not deemed serious enough to interrupt their career.

The BFI had a "two-month retrospective" of Roman Polanski over January and February. Oh joys. On 10 March 1977 Roman Polanski was charged with the rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse but never faced sentencing as he did a runner, to put it bluntly. The BFI didn't even acknowledge the crime in their "retrospective". Conservative with the truth, let's say.

Now, admittedly, I am not an avid "Art" fan. I like some of it, I enjoy watching films, love reading books but I will never be completely immersed in it. Maybe this is why I can't see beyond a man's crimes to appreciate his art, or maybe it is because I am a human being. However, you can see evidence of Polanski's misogyny in his films and his inappropriate fixation on young girls. Chinatown and Tess are particularly problematic in this area, not mention Polanski's relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15. The attitude and sense of entitlement it takes to rape someone doesn't just appear in isolation. It permeates throughout their life including their work.

I may not be an arts fan but I am a sports fan. On 14th February 2013 Oscar Pistorius killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp by shooting her 4 times. This is not in doubt. Following this killing there was a lot of disbelief and misplaced adulation and barely a mention of his victim. This eradication of Reeva and what happened to her has continued now in that Pistorius has been granted leave to compete abroad whilst waiting on bail for his trial (set to be in June). So the judge in South Africa saw fit to prioritise his career above the crime he has been charged with. Again there is a separation of the crime from the work of the man as if the two are not related.

Pistorius showed a glimpse of his sense of entitlement at the London 2012 Paralympics when losing the 200m to Alan Fonteles. Elite sportsmen often have an arrogance and selfishness which gets them to the top. This selfishness is only one step away from feeling entitlement. When all around you tell you how good you are and how you deserve to win, it will have an impact on your mindset. Allowing him to compete whilst waiting for trial is another incident emphasising that he is allowed special and preferential treatment. It does require a sense of entitlement to shoot your girlfriend through a bathroom door, four times.

You can't separate a man and his work. His work is part of him as is his crime. They don't sit in separate compartments. They overlap. Compartmentalising it is very convenient for the men who commit these crimes and for all other men who commit violence, especially against women. Seeing a crime in isolation from the man denies the connection and the pattern that these men follow. It encourages only focussing on the individual and not only the overall problem of male violence. It perpetuates the rape culture we live in, allows male violence to continue and keeps women oppressed. Ignoring men's behaviour when they commit crimes against women and promoting their work really only sends out one message: women and their lives do not matter.

Not only do we we need to name the problem of male violence but punish it and remember what these men did.

Posted with Blogsy