NEWS: 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence

CULTURE: 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence

Today begins the 16 Days Campaign against gender violence.

This year's goals include:

• Demanding and securing adequate funding for work against VAW;
• Calling for greater accountability and political commitment from states to prevent and punish all forms of violence against women in practice, not just in words;
• Increasing awareness of the impact of violence against women, including engaging in measures to end it by men and boys;
• Evaluating the impact and effectiveness of work to prevent violence against women;
• Securing the space for advocacy and defending the defenders of women's human rights in their work to end gender based violence.

You can get an action kit here, find out what's happening locally here, and educate yourself here. That last link has an absolute *ton* of information about the connection between reproductive rights and violence against women, and some really interesting links about the relationship between torture and gender-based violence; do check it out.



I think it's fascinating that they've chosen to call it activism against *gender* violence rather than activism against violence towards women. Why? Because gender violence includes not only violence against bio-women, but also violence against transsexuals and gay men, prison rape, and the shaming of men who are victims as "pussies." Think about it: violence is coded as macho, and victimization is coded as feminine. (Remember the brouhaha when Bill Maher pointed out that flying planes into the Twin Towers was hardly the work of cowards? How dare he "credit" terrorists with courage?!?)



Violence is simply violence. And victimization has nothing to do with being weak. As long as violence continues to be seen as a demonstration of "power," and victimization as fragility, and as long as power is coded as strong and manly and fragility as delicate and feminine, violence will remain a gendered issue.



And I shouldn't need to tell you how wrong that is.



Bitch_PhD thanks Feministe and the Women of Color Blog for the heads up.

No, you don't need to tell us that. But it doesn't hurt to be reminded.

The link didn't indicate any activity in Indiana, so far as I saw. The joys of living in a red state.

I wish the folks who conduct this well. And thanks, Bitch_PhD, for helping raise awareness of it.

It's difficult to take initiatives like these seriously when they so conspicuously ignore the phenomenon of woman-on-woman violence, including domestic violence in lesbian relationships.

If we are going to really redress the problems of VAW culturally, ethically, and legally, then we have to look beyond the easy answers of gender warfare.

Violence in some sense seems to set a pecking order.
Perhaps even a weak minded person in a position of authority using their authority to manipulate a person.

I have seen it happen to men and women from men and women. I sometimes think violence has a different meaning for different people. A diversity class only covers racial differences, when diversity is also male amd female as well as race based.

I have seen the spirit of competion turn violent.

Just a thought and rambling from an older gentlemen.

Sure, violence against another person is bad in all its forms. The point, I think, is that certain elements of our society seem to think of violence as "manly' and therefore acceptable. And it's true that this can manifest in any superior/inferior relationship.

But it's the male/female relationship in which its occurrence seems most frequently to have some element of acceptance based on coding. Trying to raise awareness of this doesn't deny the other problems. It's a place to start.

But when that happens it is no longer about competetion. When violence (violence above the standards of a given sport, obviously) enters the equation it's about domination.

Violence can certainly establish that Hierarchy, which in essence isn't terrible. If someone has superior skill then they should be regarded higher than someone who is still learning a skill. It doesn't establish them as a superior person though, so while they may be regarded higher the "inferior" (for lack of a better word) is equally respected.

What I'm trying to say is a Boxer who wins a title is rewarded for his or her skill as boxing, not his or her dominance through physicial power. A true athlete would recognize that when he or she leaves the ring, the rules change. Their "Skill" at physically pummeling someone is no longer regarded as an effective tool in everyday life.

I also think that meeting violence with violence is sometimes necessary. Mugging, an inheirantly violent act, can be met with an appropriate amount of force if one is capable. Obviously when you have a gun pointed at you the smart decision is to just give the fucker your wallet and be done with it...but if you are confident in your ability to take the mugger down, by all means, go for it, stud. Of course the important thing to notice here is that the act of physical dominance is against someone who has already committed an act of violence, and is therefore exempt from the same freedom ordinary people have.

That was really long winded...I apologize.

so...activism, yeah! I'll check it out.

a chance to plug! check out this podcast: peace and conflict studies: introduction to nonviolence

thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Just a few clarifications. Violence is sometimes a part of Dominance, but Dominance is not purely violent. Someone going outside the usual rules of a sport, as far as physical contact, is not trying to "dominate" another player. They're being aggressive and blood thirsty. Dominance is about establishing a hierarchy. The way you used it above is more about destroying your opponent, beating them down completely. That's not a necessary part of normal dominance.

As an office example, a few sharp words from your Boss in private can re-establish dominance and pecking order. It's a necessary part of most work places. When they go out of their way to embarrass and shame you, that's no longer about dominance. That's aggression. It's the difference between being a stern leader and being a bully.

And just to point out one funny irony in your comment. You said "go for it, stud" which implies it requires a macho attitude or manliness to stand up for yourself. That was kinda funny to me.

the evidence about violence against women is immense and profound. The evidence that the attackers of women is mostly men is plain and simple. I urge you to consider these things.

The attackers of women usually have a penis, by definition that makes them male. These predators to high degree all carry specific characteristics 1) Their brain development is usually slightly different from an average normal human being. They have smaller frontal lobes(the area of the brain that governs cognitive responses such as empathy, remorse,regret) or they suffer from neuro transmission lapse..that is simply, that part of the brain receives less stimulation than it should. 2)they are often children who were victims themselves. A Child who was victim of molestation often become molesters themselves. Children who were physically abused often become physically violent themselves in adult life.
The fact that most of these attackers have a penis is largely irrelevant. The fact that they were either victims or have a different brain configuration is mostly the culprit here.
I support the protection of all people, and accept that many groups in society are usually the victims of one group in society and need more provision for protection. My point is this..as necessary as the protection of women is, it is also highly necessary to protect children, because this is where the cycle starts..save a child from abuse..and in twenty years you will have likely saved a women from abuse..this particularly applies to boys, by the fact we have endogenously more testosterone, and naturally have slightly smaller frontal lobes than women is the key. these two agents make it much more likely that a young boy abused will become an abuser,..in young girls it has the reverse effect and they are likely to become low self confidence, suicidal and in later years promiscuous, and worse of all, accepting of such abuse and brutalized to it, to the point that a punch or being forced to have sex is not really that violent and quite normal...in short they develop pathological stockholm syndrome.
As you think about the protection of womens health and rights this week..try to remember where the root of where a lot of violence comes towards them..young boys under 3 who had no one protecting them. It is one thing to educate men and boys..it is another to ensure that some of the protections women seek also be accommodated to the gender that causes most of this violence.
As for the opinion that violence needs a macho attitude...it doesn't..it needs a attitude of low self esteem and an inability to communicate, an attitude that cant express itself and resolves to violence and a person who actually tries to make themselves feel strong, because they actually feel they are weak and people see them that way.
This is my opinion, i have based it upon what is known about violent offenders, there is also other factors i have not included such as alcohol and substance abuse and poverty..if you disagree with it, that is your choice..don't rag tag all about in this article thread..i am only asking you to think about this information and see the link..a safer future for women can help be achieved by greater protection of child, particularly young boys today.

thank you

It's impossible to take a statement like this seriously when it's coming from...Nevermind, it's impossible to take a statement like this seriously, period.

Thanks Bitch_PhD.

A transsexual might have a penis but still consider herself female. From what I gather from the article, this campaign is trying to steer us away from binary gender distinctions in favor of more fluid gender/sexual identities.

I urge you to drop this noise about brain development, though you're right about the effects of violence on both the oppressor and the oppressed, as well as anybody else in the vicinity.

." From what I gather from the article, this campaign is trying to steer us away from binary gender distinctions in favor of more fluid gender/sexual identities."


you do not need to gather...it is stated clearly what this campaign aims to do.



# Demanding and securing adequate funding for work against VAW;
# Calling for greater accountability and political commitment from states to prevent and punish all forms of violence against women in practice, not just in words;
# Increasing awareness of the impact of violence against women, including engaging in measures to end it by men and boys;
# Evaluating the impact and effectiveness of work to prevent violence against women;
# Securing the space for advocacy and defending the defenders of women's human rights in their work to end gender based violence

my statement was in regards to objective 4 -evaluating the impact and effectiveness of work to prevent violence against women.

Give peace a chance.

Another good one to check out is the White Ribbon Campaign, happening right now, too. If the 16 Days Campaign isn't in your city, start wearing a white ribbon and pass a few out. That way, even if there isn't an organized movement in your city already, you can participate by wearing the ribbon as a pledge to never condone, participate in, or be a passerby of domestic or sexual violence.