Femicide

Every year on the 25th November is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against women. This date sees the beginning of 16 days of activism and raising awareness of the systemic misogyny faced by women and girls globally every single day. On the 16th day, the event culminates in Human Rights Day on 10th December 2021. The event is now 30 years old and the theme this year is centred around the issue of femicide or the gender related killing of women.

Femicide is defined as a hate crime, whereby a woman is killed as a result of her gender usually by a man or men. In 2017, 87,000 women were murdered, of which 50,000 were killed by either an ex-partner or a member of their family.  This is 137 women killed daily or 6 women every single hours of every single day by people they should be able to trust not to harm them. 

In the UK a man kills a woman he 'loves' or cared for, every three days. This statistic has remained the same for the past 10 years.

“Men’s violence against women is a leading cause of the premature death for women globally but research in the UK and Europe is limited and unconnected,” (Karen Ingala Smith)

But what about violence against men?

This is an interesting question. On one hand it is a hugely triggering question and is often a symptom of the continual centering of males in female issues. On the other hand we have higher rates of men being killed daily in the UK than men. So what does it mean? 

In the past decade, 6568 people were murdered in England and Wales. 4493 were men and 2075 were women. More men (69%) were killed than women (31%). However 90% of all murderers were men.  Most female murder victims were killed by someone they knew (57%) in contrast to 39% of men. For women this breaks down as 32% killed by an ex partner, 14% by family members and 11% by acquaintances (9% were friends). Men are more likely to be killed by strangers (32%) or friends (22%). Only 13% of female killings are by strangers. This leaves us with the startling realisation that in most cases, women are almost safer walking down a dark street than in their homes.

Men are indeed more likely to be murdered than women. They are more likely to suffer violence than women. There is the argument that society tolerates the killing of men more than women and seen as an 'expendable sex', able to be sent to war to die with impunity or into dangerous jobs more likely to end in death. The theory about women in this stance is that women are 'protected' in order to continue to pro-create which of course does little to counter the pervading culture than women are objects to be used or impregnated.

But the statistics are not the issue... The fact that LESS women die than men is not the issue. Who is killing women and why? This is the issue. Men account for 96% of murder perpetrators worldwide and 79% of murder victims. Men kill both men and women. When women are killed, it is in very different way (circumstances) than men are killed though the overall concept is the same. Power. Men are more likely to die through violent crime which usually comes down to exerting dominance over another male either in terms of property (object ownership or partner 'ownership') or physical prowess. Women are killed by men when they don't conform or abide by structures imposed by their intimate partners. 

Are men simply more violent and predisposed to murder than women? We only need to look back to the creation story to see that this was of course not in Gods original blueprint. At the fall of course, when we took things into our own hands, thinking we knew better, the divide was created and the power struggle was established. God's original plan was distorted and 'rule' was introduced. Male dominion characterised violence which is what we see unfolding throughout Genesis.

We first see the problem of male dominance between Cain and Abel. Cain was put out that God favoured Abels sacrifice. In his desire to be favoured, he killed his brother. He killed his brother to achieve (perceived) dominance.

The first shadow of male dominance over women appears when Lamech 'took' two wives and used violent words to intimidate them (Gen 4:23). This is problematic from the start. God said that a man shall leave his family and become one with his wife (singular). A man does not 'take' a wife. She 'takes' him willingly from his family. Lamech established polygamy which was (is) against God's will for marriage and then used stories of violence to intimidate his wives. For what purpose? Some authors suggest that the young man he killed was even a former husband, others suggest it was already a sign of the times that to exert power, one must demonstrate 'strength'. In any case, we see here the beginnings of a pattern of male dominance which is threatening to move forward into violence.

Fast forward to Abraham (Abram at the time) and we see further evidence of a degenerating view of the value of women. Abram gave away his wife to protect himself and it seems even the Pharaoh had a higher regard for women at this point than Abram (Gen 12:18). Symptomatic of this continued struggle for power we see Abram and his nephew Lot couldn't even live close to each other due to squabbling about who owned what land. We can't ignore the story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar here when we are talking about power struggles. Again a somewhat polygamous situation was never the best foundation for healthy relationships and Sarah is certainly not without guilt in her treatment of Hagar. However, Abraham reneged all responsibility and in his emotional abandonment of Sarah in this way violated their marital relationship. Later on Lot seals the deal on establishing women as property and without value to men when he offers his own virgin daughters to be raped by a mob outside his home.

So are men predisposed to violence and violence against women? Without God and post-fall it would seem the answer is yes. And no. Because we are now under a new covenant and we must daily bring our fleshly desires under control. Millenia of violence is a heavy and intricate yoke to break, woven as it is into the fabric of society. Traditional gender roles have become hugely problematic because they have been built around the norms of male dominance even, and especially, in the church where doctrines have been built upon it. Church denominations split over it and so the argument over dominance continues. Some seem to be so married to the concept of post-fall male headship, despite the Genesis 1-2 blueprint, that they don't see the damage it continues to cause. Even when framed in terms of servent leadership, humans are not generally complex enough to understand the complementarian stance that male headship does not equal dominance. This of course takes a dim yet realistic view of humanity.

Women suffer violence of every conceivable kind and globally are murdered hourly due to male power and dominance. Both sexes suffer as non-biblical and unachievable traditional roles place pressure on families. The concept of male headship has played, and continues to play its part in perpetuating violence against women and girls. A doctrine which is so self-unaware seems to me to be a dangerous one to align oneself to, especially in view of the Genesis 1-2 blueprint.