Violence against women: there is never too much attention

Another International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women has come. How far are we from this goal?

On 5 November, Donald Trump won the US presidential elections after advising men accused of sexual harassment to “deny, deny, deny.” During his campaign, he repeatedly insulted Kamala Harris, using gendered traits as signs of weakness. He also boasted about his role in overturning Roe v. Wade and was recently convicted of sexual abuse, with nearly 19 allegations of misconduct in total. This commentary is not about Trump himself, but the fact that he won is a crucial contextual detail. His strong performance among men, even after making misogynistic remarks during the campaign, is key to understanding our current context.

The new far-right movements (which are not so new, if we look at the names on their rosters) find significantly stronger support among men – young men, in particular – than women. This trend is confirmed not only in the US elections, but also in Europe and Latin America (where young men massively support Milei, Bolsonaro, and Bukele). As Pablo Stefanoni put it, “Rebellion has turned right-wing” (Stefanoni, La rebeldía se volvió de derecha, Siglo XXI, 2021). Many feminist analysts, as well as political analysts in general, associate this behaviour among men with a reaction to the advances of feminism in recent decades. Say hello to our old friend backlash: after years of women, LGBTI+ people, and their movements pushing urgent issues like Gender-Based Violence (GBV) onto the public agenda, we are now seeing a global backlash fuelled by a rise in male resentment against these demands and their leaders. At the same time, some are trying to promote the idea that gender equality policies are no longer necessary, or even that we have done enough for women and LGBTIQ+ people. A commentary by Michał Gulczyński, published on EUIdeas on 9 October, seems to argue that we have paid too much attention to women, to the detriment of men.

Fortunately, Mafalda Escada, Mette Nikkessen, Francesca Lupia, and Agata Andrysiak have published a rebuttal,  refuting each of Gulczyński’s arguments, using evidence thoroughly and without manipulation. I won’t repeat what they have already powerfully stated, but I would like to reflect on where we stand in the fight against GBV. Reactionary narratives, through systematic misinformation, continue to drive more girls, women, and LGBTIQ+ individuals toward unliveable lives, and even death.

Cruelty, violence, and masculinity

I agree with much of what Gulczyński says in his “Do gender equality policies address men’s issues?” He seems deeply concerned with something feminists have studied for decades: masculinity. Many of the points he raises have been rigorously researched and debated by women, LGBTQ+ scholars, and activists*. However, he overlooked an important issue on men’s violent deaths that must be addressed: why are men more often killed by other men? Why is violence so tied to masculinity? Welcome to masculinity studies—we have a whole library on it.

After decades of research, Rita Segato wrote: “Masculinity is more available to cruelty because the socialisation and training for life that the subject carrying the burden of masculinity must undergo oblige them to develop a significant affinity—over a deep historical timeline—between masculinity and war, masculinity and cruelty, masculinity and detachment, masculinity and low empathy.” (Segato, Contra pedagogías de la crueldad, Rosario, 2016)

To understand why men are so into violence, we must inquire about masculinity, and how it is pushing young boys and men into violence.

In 2023, a report from UNODC showed that ‘Men are the most likely victims and perpetrators of homicide, as they account for 81% of all homicide victims and 90% of suspects formally in contact with the police for homicide,’ a trend we can also observe in other national reports, such as from the United States.’

But femicide is not any homicide: it is the most extreme expression of GBV. I cannot highlight this enough: what we mean by gender violence is a specific type of violence that is directed against a person because of their gender, or violence that disproportionately affects persons of a particular gender. This definition is generally agreed-on by authors, governments, and laws – while we have thousands of studies about masculinity, there are even more about GBV. And guess what? The victims of GBV are women and LGBTQ people, not men.

According to UNWOMEN, in 2022, around 48,800 women and girls were killed by partners or family members, with over five women murdered every hour. While 55% of femicides are committed by close relatives, only 12% of men’s homicides happen in the private sphere. Globally, 736 million women—nearly one in three—have experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence or sexual violence in their lifetime. In Latin America in 2022, there were  1,437 femicides  in Brazil, 976 in Mexico, and 232 in Argentina. In Uruguay, 28 women were killed, with a femicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000, higher than Brazil’s. In Argentina, 88% of femicide victims were killed by known perpetrators, and 64% by current or former partners. In Europe, Italy had 180 femicides, followed by 118 in France, and 113 in Germany. In addition to these alarming figures, approximately 15 million adolescents have suffered sexual violence by being coerced into sexual relations, according to UNICEF (2017).

So, we agree. We have to urgently work on the perpetrators of homicide, including femicides, from a gender perspective to understand why almost 95% of the people who kill other people are men.

Equality to stop violence

Inequality is the core of violence against women. Therefore, there is a general agreement around the idea that working on gender equality can prevent violence by increasing the autonomy of women.

Gulczyński claims that he “analysed all EU multiannual gender equality strategies and annual reports since the 1980s. They started in the 1980s with women’s empowerment goals, such as increasing women’s labour market activity and opportunities. They gradually developed to include more goals, such as women’s equal participation in political power, improving women’s health, reducing occupational segregation, and tackling GBV” . The tricky thing about this statement is that he does not show why these were policy goals, why they still are, and most importantly what happened with these issues. Did we reach equality in these areas? Spoiler alert: no. For example, regarding women’s political participation, according to UNWOMEN, it will take another 130 years to achieve gender equality in top leadership roles. Additionally, women make up only 23.3% of Cabinet members leading policy areas, and in just 15 countries they hold 50% or more of these high-level positions.

Gulczyński also affirmed that “In some countries, men do not even have equal rights. For example, the retirement age in Poland is 60 for women and 65 for men.” This way of presenting evidence without reflecting on the reasons behind these measures is irresponsible. It is true that, in many countries, the retirement age for women is earlier than for men. In most countries where women retire earlier, that age has been set in this way to compensate for the years women dedicate to unpaid caregiving work, and still this measure could not bridge the gender gap in pension benefits. To ignore this context while presenting data is a manipulation of information.

Intersectionality, what a nice idea

I was pleasantly surprised when I found the word intersectionality in Gulczyński’s post. However, I believe that Kimberlé Crenshaw**, who developed the concept, had something quite different in mind than what Gulczyński put forward. In Crenshaw’s 2016 TED Talk, The Urgency of Intersectionality, she describes a specific case that led her to conceive the metaphor of an intersection, solidifying intersectionality as an analytical framework. In her words: “Intersectionality is a metaphor for understanding the ways that multiple forms of inequality or disadvantage sometimes compound themselves and create obstacles that often are not understood among conventional ways of thinking” (2017). An analysis of masculinity must consider this notion, recognising the differences between, say, a wealthy white man and a low-income, racialised man. Other key concepts, like ‘suspect classification’ from US Supreme Court jurisprudence, help identify groups vulnerable to discrimination, supporting affirmative actions to tackle these inequities.

Understanding these ideas may give us a clue as to why gender inequality reports do not typically centre on ‘men.’ Men are not the primary group at risk of discrimination in this context, just as ‘wealthy white men’ do not appear as focal points in policy reports on poverty or racial inequality.

Should a gender equality strategy include men?

To prevent GBV, we must work on transforming masculinities while reinforcing gender equality policies that empower women and LGBTQ+ individuals. This means not only addressing violence—of which men are the overwhelming majority of perpetrators—but also investing in equality policies that focus on redistributing time, income, and unpaid care work to strengthen and increase women’s autonomy. At the same time, we must work on equality policies in employment that incorporate gender diversity not only in recruitment, but also in job retention. Material inequality, time poverty, and economic dependence are conditions that make violence possible.

One way to incorporate men’s demands into gender equality agendas would be to listen to the call from some organisations for equal parental leave, for instance. Caring for children equally benefits not only the children, who have the human right to receive care from both parents, but also men, improving their physical and mental health and their bond with their children.

For sure, a gender equality strategy that seriously aims to eliminate violence against women and LGBTI+ people must first do one thing: recognise that it exists. Then, persist and persist until the goal is achieved.

* Further information on this topic can be found in Chiodi, Agostina, Luciano Fabbri, and Ariel Sánchez. “Varones y masculinidad (es).” (2019); Rita Segato “La guerra contra las mujeres”; Fabbri, Luciano. “Micromachismos, porongueo y complicidad. Resistencias de los varones cis a los procesos de despatriarcalización.” Diana Maffía (compiladora), Intervenciones feministas para la igualdad y la justicia (2020): 137-149

**”On intersectionality: essential writings” Kimberle Crenshaw (Columbia Law school, 2017) and Crenshaw, Kimberle´ Williams (1989) “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum.

Tags: Gender equality, Policy, Women, Violence, Gender inequality