History of Feminism
Related: About this forumRemember Reeva Steenkamp, and the thousands of other women killed by men every year
(UK Blog)
The Independent
Karen Ingala Smith
Thursday 11 September 2014
Remember Reeva Steenkamp, and the thousands of other women killed by men every year
Two women a week are killed by a partner or former partner in England and Wales. We should be horrified by all the deaths of all women killed through male violence, regardless of who committed the crime
Fatal male violence against women is a worldwide problem, yet it is rarely headline news, like it is today. As we wait to find out whether Oscar Pistorius will be convicted of culpable homicide for shooting Reeva Steenkamp dead, Im reminded of last week when news of the beheading of 82-year-old Palmira Silva was met with horror, yet very few people were aware that she was the third woman in London to have been beheaded in less than six months.
In South Africa, in 2009, 1024 women were killed through intimate partner violence, thats one woman dead at the hands of her partner or former partner every 8 hours. You wont hear about most of them. Yet last year Reeva Steenkamps death was news across the world within hours, because the man who killed her was an internationally famous athlete...
...The statistic that two women a week are killed by a partner or former partner in England and Wales is so well known that it rarely shocks. It should. Since January 2012, when eight women were killed through male violence in the first three days of the year alone - three shot, two stabbed, one strangled, one smothered and one beaten to death through 15 blunt force trauma injuries - Ive been counting and naming the women in the UK killed through suspected male violence. This year, by September 4, at least 100 women had been killed. Thats one woman dead every 2.36 days. Few of their names are known outside their immediate circles.
There should not be a hierarchy of dead women. Male violence against women is an issue that should concern us all, and we must be more vocal in talking about it. Most women who are killed are killed by men. Most men who are killed are killed by men. Women make up around 32 per cent of murder victims in the UK but only six per cent of killers. Almost 94 per cent of murderers in the UK are men. We will never end male violence if we cannot name it.... MORE at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/remember-reeva-steenkamp-and-the-thousands-of-other-women-killed-by-men-every-year-9727469.html
brer cat
(26,131 posts)"There should not be a hierarchy of dead women." So true, but most are unknown except to friends and family unless killed by a celebrity male or in a manner that makes the "news" organization salivate at the prospect of sensational headlines.
littlemissmartypants
(25,187 posts)I am so glad I got out.
I have no doubt my abuser was and may still be capable of murder.
A very thoughtful post. Thank you, theHandpuppet.
~ littlemissmartypants
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,436 posts)I was in an argument that this is 'not hate'. Although the poster was referring to ONE instance, he seemed to think it gave him license to argue about what hate is or isn't. Jesus
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)If so, could you steer me to the thread?
I'd say I was surprised that someone would dare to even argue that this isn't hate, but absolutely nothing surprises me anymore.
elias7
(4,185 posts)I read and reread that post all morning and I don't feel you're fairly characterizing the disagreement. Can't we agree that all violence is despicable but borne of several different impulses, hate being one of them, but not the source of all violence?
My understanding is that domestic violence is more a problem of power and control. I feel there is room to discuss the difficulty people have equating control and power with hate without sniping at them from another thread.
ismnotwasm
(42,436 posts)There is no point in this or that conversation. Time and time again, I see people acting like violence against women just popped up, with a bit of pop psychology to explain away 'hate', completely ignoring historical precedents, law, status etc.
You'll forgive me, I hope, for not indulging in this. There is no point without some sort of common reference.
I certainly didn't mean to 'snipe' I was expressing frustration.
elias7
(4,185 posts)Discussion can get very muddy when there are varying degrees of expertise and experience in any topic, especially when everybody seems to have a strong opinion, regardless of their expertise or experience. I usually stay away from my field(s?) of expertise as it is like reinventing the wheel. I understand that you do not have that luxury when it comes to women's issues.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)It's rooted in a millennia-long "tradition" of seeing women as less than, and subordinate to, men. And saying that isn't hate would be, at best, splitting hairs to the point of absurdity.
elias7
(4,185 posts)Hatred is a manifestation of an abnormal psychological and developmental response to the fundamental drives of fear and desire. I have no great depth of knowledge of Adlerian, Freudian or more contemporary psychology, nor do I have expertise in the sociology/psychology of gender inequality.
I don't think most psychologists or sociologists would feel comfortable with such laxity in definitions, but if stuffing such complex issues as gender inequality, power and control, and fundamental psychologic and sociologic drives under the umbrella of hatred helps scaffold your own understanding and actions, so be it.
I do take issue with your characterization of my attempt to clarify terms as absurd and splitting hairs. One could argue that this speech is somewhat condescending, and as I feel somewhat belittled, is somewhat hateful. Enlightenment is a tricky thing.