Violence against women is not random
When we look at the Mindmap, there are a lot of connections to be made. We can recognise that there is a relationship between “marital rape” and “domestic violence” and “marriage”.
But is the relationship between gender norms and violence against women as readily recognisable?
If we Google “acid attack stories” we find the same themes repeat themselves all across South Asia: I rejected his marriage proposal, my brother rejected her marriage proposal, my father wanted a daughter, I rejected his advances, I wanted a divorce.
If we Google “honour killing stories” a similar plethora of reasons pops up: she was killed by her brother/father/parents/uncle for making Tik Tok videos, for refusing a marriage, for dressing in a socially unacceptable way, for texting on a phone, for falling in love with someone who was not acceptable to the family.
Just hold this thought for a moment: a woman is maimed, disfigured and killed for not doing what is considered to be socially acceptable.
How do we make sense of this? And why is there so much violence against women?
Multilateral agencies, governments, NGOs, academics talk about the many root causes of violence against women. There are countless papers that talk about the manifold reasons behind violence against women, such as: drug-usage, poverty, inadequate laws, lack of moral education, lack of academic education, small living conditions. Money is poured into alleviating these symptoms. But little focus is given to the deep, underlying, cancer of patriarchal social norms and expectations.
The philosopher Kate Manne in her book Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny (2018) sets out a framework that shakes up our established views on the root causes of violence. This framework shows us that the violence against women is not random.
We know “misogyny” commonly means “woman hating”. Kate points out the problem with this definition. According to this definition, even a man like Donald Trump is not a “misogynist” as soon as he tells us that he loves his wife or his mother because he cannot be both “woman hating” and also love the women in his life.
Down Girl offers a much more robust and durable definition of misogyny.
In a patriarchal social system, sexism reigns and sets out clear gender roles for women and men. In this system, women are seen as nurturing, giving, helpers and men are seen as stoical breadwinners and adventurers. In the Down Girl framework, misogynists police women to ensure they do not deviate from the socially-legislated norms of sexist gender roles.
Kate also makes the point that men who see sexism as the natural order of society feel entitled to make sure all women conform to this social order. This entitlement comes from believing that women have a particular role to play in relation to men, namely a supportive, nurturing, listening, caring role. In Kate’s ‘logic to misogyny’ then, when a woman rejects a marriage proposal or wants a divorce, a man will feel entitled to police her behaviour through control and violence because she is supposed to be supportive, nurturing and caring. In his sexist world view, it is against the natural order of things, to which he is entitled, for a woman to be anything other than compliant.
In this world, violence against women is not random. It is systemic and perpetuated by and for patriarchal social norms.
In other words, rapes, acid attacks, honour killing, domestic violence, even shame (victim shaming, slut shaming, infertility shaming and more) are all expressions of misogyny in a patriarchal social order.
Knowing this, I wonder what would happen if multilateral agencies and governments saw violence against women as a matter of national emergency and took the bold step of putting their money, time and energy behind changing patriarchal mindsets. Imagine the (emotional and physical) lives saved, the health care avoided and the acknowledgment that, yes, crimes targeted against 50% of the citizenry are a problem worth addressing.
