Male Violence Against Women

As of 26th November 2021, at least 129 women in the UK have died as a result of male violence this year. As usual this statistic cuts across the socio-economic divide. 

Meanwhile, on the 25th November Conservative MP Nick Fletcher claimed that Dr Who being a woman had pushed young men into crime. At a time when the ruling party, the Conservatives, need to put strategic support in place for mental health and address the issue of male suicide, as well as creating a society that views women as equals. It chooses to blame, not their lack of funding for programmes that might tackle the issue of male crime, no instead it blames women for having the audacity to have a positive female, science based, role model in the shape of a fictional character, Dr Who. 

It is perhaps just another example of ‘whataboutery’ but it is also perhaps more dangerous. These comments come from within the ruling party of the UK and are perhaps indicative of the stance taken and preferred direction it wishes to take. 

This view insinuates that women are to blame for male crime, not poverty or lack of opportunity, or poor mental health services. No, women are to blame. As male violence against women is a crime, essentially this view is insinuating that women are to blame for the male violence against them. 

Let’s let that view sink in. 

At a time when women are calling for a safer society, the ruling party, instead of putting interventions in place, are actually blaming women for the atrocities against them at the hands of men. 

The whole ‘female Dr Who’ speech by MP Nick Fletcher may have been an attempt to distract from other issues the government are struggling to deal with, but it has serious implications as indicated by the subsequent debates in the media and on social media. People took this matter seriously and equality for women in the UK takes a little step back. 

This time the message being that women should not demand positive, science based, role models because it upsets men and makes them commit crimes. 

Will the current UK government ever take responsibility, stop deflecting, stop creating a culture war and actually lead the country to be a safer place for everyone? I seriously doubt it.

What expectations does society have for children?

Before I start - I will say - this is not a peer-reviewed article based on huge amounts of research and I do not have the answers, all I am doing is asking the questions. What I am musing about are my own personal lived experiences and observations.

Let's start with a word in common use today, as it was back in the 1970s when I was a child, 'tomboy'. It is still often used to describe girls that play football, rugby or cricket and perhaps like to dress in jeans, t-shirts and sweatshirts, as opposed to skirts and dresses.

The online Oxford Dictionary gives this definition:

"A girl who enjoys rough noisy activity traditionally associated with boys."

The online Cambridge Dictionary has a similar definition:

"A girl who dresses and acts like a boy, especially in playing physical games that boys usually play."

In my view the word 'tomboy' to describe a girl is very outdated and unhelpful and this why. At best a girl might enjoy this label, she might prefer to be viewed in this way and be proud of it. But I ask - why shouldn't a girl enjoy physical games and wear clothes that are practical for these activities? Why does rough noisy activity need to be associated more with boys than girls? Why, when a girl is doing what pleases her, is she accused of behaving like a boy? Surely any child should have the choice to engage in the activities that interest them. 

You might say there is no harm in this, but I would argue otherwise. By labelling a girl as a 'tomboy' she might feel as though she isn't acting as she should do and ok - she might like this. On the other hand she be may be made to feel that she is letting people down because she isn't playing the role she is supposed to play, she may even feel that she is a disappointment.

Getting girls into STEM subjects is still a focus within the UK education system. Why are girls by and large not engaging in these subjects? Is it down to the way society perceives them at a young age? Are girls concerned that they will be considered 'tomboys' if they engage in subjects traditionally associated with, and still dominated by, boys? Do some girls worry that if they are considered a 'tomboy' in their teens, that boys will not fancy them? Do they feel, in a world dominated by social media, that they should fit a certain image and expectation? Is acting outside of an ancient social norm therefore limiting choices made by girls?

I would argue that it is time to stop labelling girls as 'tomboys', after all a girl referred to in this way is just doing what comes naturally to her as a female, what does that have to do with boys?

Equally, I would argue that language used towards boys can also be problematic. "Boys don't cry", "man up" and "grow a pair" are all expressions used to toughen up boys, boys that grow up to be men, men who are more likely to commit suicide than women. This language has been criticised in recent years, but it is still common place to hear it and I would argue that it encourages boys to be repressive and even isolated in terms of their feelings. Meaning they are probably less likely to seek help when they need it. 

And what about boys who wish to play with dolls, a toy traditionally associated with girls? What about boys who prefer clothes traditionally associated with girls? In this respect the 'tomboy' has an easier passage through childhood. These boys will be more likely to suppress their true choices and not engage in them, bottling up their desires for fear of ridicule and bullying. 

I would argue that society still has some way to go in understanding that not all children wish to fit traditional expectations and this can further be ratified by looking at what the retail industry perceive to be appropriate for boys and girls.

Dolls are largely representations of girl children, boy dolls are few and far between. You might say this is because they don't sell, but I would ask why don't they sell? This is down to the marketing surely and adverts of boys playing with boy baby dolls are, in my experience, non-existent. Yet you often see proud dads with babies on social media and in the park, so why can't young boys model this with a doll that represents them. That said there is improvement on toy shop websites as they no longer split toys into boys and girls categories, baby steps to a more equal future, but progress none the less. 

On the 3rd November 2021, I took a look at a few clothes websites for children, just to see if there was any improvement in the designs offered as male and female options. The websites I looked at (large popular UK shops) continued to split clothes into male and female categories and here is a summary of what I saw.

Girls' jumpers with slogans such as "Dancing Queen," "Ready to party" and "Merry Catmus." Compared to boys jumpers with skiing penguins, NASA and Spiderman. 

On the same website girls’ pyjamas were based around fairies, unicorns, stars and moons. Whilst boys’ pyjamas were based around transport, space travel, NASA and animals.

My evaluation of this shop is that they perceive girls as social butterflies that live in a fantasy world, whilst boys are perceived as sporty and active with an interest in STEM subjects. 

The second shop I looked at had the following girls’ clothes: flowery dresses and tops with unicorns, slogans such as  "Shine everyday," "Everyday is a new day" and "Positive energy." The boys’ clothes were Marvel based, related to sports and gaming and had slogans such as "Step up to your game," "love the game" and "epic gamer."

My evaluation, girls you need to positive and happy and put a smiley face on everyday to keep people around you happy. Boys you must be energetic and sporty, and enjoy your gaming, you are amazing. 

In conclusion, I would personally just have children's clothes sections and not target boys or girls with any particular  items. It may well be that more girls would chose some clothes and more boys would chose some other clothes, but the freedom to choose who they want to be would also be liberating moving forward. Ultimately this might free children from the labels and expectations placed upon them by society, that could potentially in later life, limit choices such as qualification options and job roles. 

Thank you for taking the time to read my musings.

How can history help us to be a cohesive society?

Taking down statues is not erasing history or part of cancel culture. History is a story about the past that can told in different ways, depending on who is writing it and for what purpose. Events can be missed out, cut out or glossed over and some details can be forgotten completely. History is a giant jigsaw puzzle, by revisiting and remembering the whole story, we are not erasing history, or rewriting history, we are filling in the gaps and missing pieces, therefore gaining a more complete version of events. Raising awareness of past events and the abhorrent behaviour of some people, allows us to remember them in a more appropriate way, rather than celebrating them, allowing society to move forward cohesively.

After the Jimmy Saville revelations, commemorative rooms had names changed, plaques were taken down, buildings were renamed. Charities even closed. Yes this was in living memory and anything celebrating his life was removed but history won’t erase him and neither should it. Lessons need to be learned to protect those in the future. How and why was this enabled? Is one question that needs asking.

Should we forget the atrocities of people in the past because they are not in living memory? Perhaps these people were benevolent as well as committing atrocities, people are complex and not one-dimensional. However, just because one gives to charity does not mean atrocities should be forgotten.

The Atlantic slave trade atrocities, which includes physical and sexual abuse, as well as enslavement and separation of families, funded the infrastructure and development of the Britain we live in today. These atrocities were done to the ancestors of those living in Britain today. Moreover, racism increased out of a desire to keep the black community being viewed in a particular way, allowing the slave trade to continue and profits to be made.

Why would anyone in Britain today want to live in a street named after a slave ship or its owner? And yet they do. By changing the name of the street and putting the street name sign into a local museum, we are not erasing history. Far from it, we are improving our historical knowledge. Educating people about the Middle Passage and plantation life allows us to raise awareness that human trafficking continues; these days inside locked containers. Additionally, by raising awareness of our past we can acknowledge and understand why the Atlantic slave trade happened, this should allow us to move forward as a nation, cohesively, rather than disjointed.

Does this mean we are being woke? 

Well informed and up to date. Alert to racial or social discrimination or injustice. 

(Oxford English Dictionary) 

I should hope so.

We need to consider why being accused of being woke, is being peddled by some right-wing commentators as a negative force for society. Why so? What are their motives for using this term in a derogatory manner? Do they wish to intimidate and divide people? Create culture wars?

In the past, people have tried to manipulate how people think, they have burnt books, controlled reading material and spread propaganda, all to try and ensure people remain unaware of different points of view, especially around issues of racism.

The Internet makes information control difficult, so by trying to turn a positive force, such as being woke, into a negative term, making it something to be ridiculed, it creates a barrier between people and divides them. By telling people it’s shameful to be woke, it keeps people quiet. Well that’s presumably the hope the anti-wokers have when they weaponise such words. 

Let’s not erase history, less revisit it. Let’s fill in the gaps. Let’s learn the lessons from yesterday and apply them to today. Let’s move forward together using history to build a society that is alert to racial and social injustice in the hope we become more cohesive and less divided.