Guest post: 'Let's start counting dead women, not ignoring them'

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

I started counting dead women in January 2012. In the first three days of the year, eight women in the UK were killed through men's violence. Eight dead women in three days: three were shot, two stabbed, one strangled, one smothered and one - 87-year-old Kathleen Millward - was beaten to death by 15 blunt force trauma injuries inflicted by her own grandson.

Eight women aged between 20 and 87; their killers, five men aged between 19 and 48, were husbands, partners, boyfriends or exes, a sister's partner, an aunt's partner, a robber and a grandson. I was outraged that these murders were being reported as isolated incidents - that connections weren't being made about the occurrence and impact of men's violence.

I didn't intend to start a campaign, but once I'd started counting and naming the women, I didn't feel able to stop. Initially I focused on women killed through domestic violence, but the boundaries of who I was counting were continually tested. At the end of the year, I tried to define who I was counting and who I wasn't, using the term ‘gender related murder’. I was trying to express that fatal male violence against women goes beyond ‘domestic violence’; that there is more to men's misogynistic murders of women than the widely used phrase ‘two women a week are killed by partners or ex-partners’, and that socially constructed gender has an influence on men's violence against women that goes beyond domestic violence.

Nearly three years after I started counting, I now include all women aged 14 and over who have been killed by men in the UK and UK women killed overseas: regardless of the relationship between the woman and the man who killed her; regardless of what is known, not known or assumed about his motive; regardless of how he killed her and who else he killed at the same time; regardless of the verdict reached when the case gets to court in our justice system created by men, which repeatedly delivers anything but justice to women. I do it because I believe that - in a world where sexism and misogyny are so pervasive that they're all but inescapable - a man killing a woman is always a sexist act, a fatal enactment of patriarchy.

Because I'm counting dead women, I've been able to make connections that others simply wouldn't know about. It’s not just that in the UK men killed 126 women in 2012, 144 in 2013 and between January and the end of September this year at least 112 women have been killed through suspected male violence. It's that 37 of these have been women who have been killed by their sons, and that 20 elderly women have been killed in so-called botched robberies or muggings. On 4 September this year, 82-year-old Palmira Silva was beheaded in London, but most people didn't know that she was the third women to have been beheaded in London in less than six months. I did, though. On the 3 June 2014, Tahira Ahmed, 38, had also been decapitated. Her husband, Naveed Ahmed, 41, was charged with her murder; and in April, Judith Nibbs, 60, was decapitated, allegedly by her estranged husband Dempsey Nibbs, 67.

The Home Office currently records and publishes data on homicide victims’ gender and the relationship of the victim to the principal suspect - but it does so in a way that does not reveal the sex of the killer. We may be able to see how many women were killed by a partner and assume that most of them were male, but the records don't show us that most women killed by their child are killed by a son, or that most women killed by a relative, acquaintance or stranger are actually killed by a male relative, acquaintance or stranger. The Home Office records don't allow us to make connections across the different forms of men's fatal violence; in fact, the official government statistics hide the extent to which the problem of fatal violence is a problem of male violence.

This is significant, because it's by making the connections between instances of fatal male violence against women that we can get a true understanding of what is going on. I started this project because I wanted to remember and commemorate the women who have been killed by men, to raise awareness and motivate others to speak out and oppose men's violence. That is still important to me, but I also want to contribute to reducing, if not ending, men's violence against women and girls. If this is going to happen, we need to name and analyse male violence. So I started a petition calling for a ‘femicide observatory’, a fit-for-purpose, comprehensive record of fatal male violence against women.

I've been working with Women's Aid and Freshfields solicitors to develop a database of all women killed by men between 2009 and 2013, but we're going to need funding to support the development and maintenance of the sort of records that we'd like to keep. We want proper records, which we could then make accessible to policy makers and academics, in order to build a better understanding of the social, cultural and psychological issues that enable men's violence against women.

To show your support and add your voice to my call for a proper record, please sign my petition 'Stop Ignoring Dead Women'. Men's fatal violence against women is not a series of isolated incidents – it's connected and systemic. Men's violence against women is both a symptom and cause of inequality between women and men. Men's violence against women affects all women, directly or indirectly. And we need to stop it.

is jealousy innate? is violence as a reaction to jealousy innate? to what extent does a man's jealousy regarding a woman stem from our society's structures in which men have been socialised to believe they can take ownership of women and therefore the jealous reaction is basically "someone is touching my stuff"?

This is an interesting discussion. And I do see the point of the OP.

However, In 2011/12, as in previous years, more than two-thirds of homicide victims (68%) were male ... homicides against men were most likely to be committed by a friend or acquaintance (39%), whilst homicides against women were most likely to be committed by a partner or ex-partner, (51%)

In 2010/11, 273 suspects convicted of homicide were male. 33 were female.

Both stats from www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime/index.html

It's obvious, therefore, that the majority of female murder victims are killed by men - the vast majority of murders are committed by men. But more than twice as many men were killed (by men) as women.

So the issue is that killers are usually male. I realise this is what most posters are discussing, but am unsure whether more data needs to be collected in specific reference to men murdering women? Isn't it more a matter of collation?

Link to data tables: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime/rft-appendix-tables.xls

Garlic, I think it's that most female homicide victims are killed by male partners or ex partners but the genders are not recorded.

Hmm - I see that, Yonic, but unless the 33 female murderers are all massive serial killers of lesbian ex-partners (and there is data on numbers of homicide per perpetrator somewhere; I saw it a few weeks ago), then it's clear the murderers are almost all male. By a factor of 273/33.

As an aside, I noticed that "homicides against men were most likely to be committed by a friend or acquaintance". Some friend!

But, yes, some police forces and officers need to be more aware that a partner threatening murder might actually do it. It beats me why they don't always. Some left-over idea about 'domestics', perhaps?

Threatening murder's a crime in itself. Maybe people in general should be aware of this, and report it as such.

From the stats mentioned in Garlic's post: 540 murders in 2011/12, of which 367 were male, 173 female (68% vs 32%). If female murderers (33) do their equal share of murdering women, they should have murdered 19 women , 154 being murdered by men. It would be interesting to see how many women are murdered by women and how many by men.

As a complete aside, can I say how I like (if that is the right word) how you publish the photographs of the dead women where possible Karen. I think it's really powerful.

If female murderers (33) do their equal share of murdering women, they should have murdered 19 women, 154 being murdered by men. It would be interesting to see how many women are murdered by women and how many by men.

Yes, it would and that's one of the aims of Karen's campaign, isn't it? To have the correlations done at source. The data include children by gender, too: I didn't break the victims down by age; it can be done. Again, though, we can't know the genders of their murderers unless this is published.

Agreed about the photographs.

Absolutely. It's a good campaign.

Any attempt to look at the problem of murder with a view to its reduction is laudable and worth pursuing imo.

I really have no idea on evo psych vs socialization, but it's true to say a majority of murderers are men as it is also true to say a majority of men don't murder.

Therefore does anyone think it is unsafe to conclude that if we zero in on the differences between those men who murder and those who don't, and take steps accordingly we might end up getting somewhere?

I for one belive it is mankind's default nature not to murder.

Karen , thanks for raising awareness of the issues around the shortcomings in the collection and publication of homicide data.

Why does the Government not collect more data about the killers of women? Is it for reasons of cost?

The Government collects and publishes statistics about the number of men in the UK who kill themselves but it does not publish the number of men in the UK who kill women.

I think collecting suicide statistics is probably more time-consuming and more expensive than recording e.g. the sex of a woman's killer and their relationship to the woman. The Government should improve the collection of homicide statistics (and continue with data collection of other things, in case anyone got the impression that I'm against collection of suicide statistics).

Why not count dead people?

"The Government collects and publishes statistics about the number of men in the UK who kill themselves"

You're right. Let's ignore male victims of suicide, they only do it anyway because they're stupid violent men.

Dead people are already counted. HTH.

Please note we are talking about Western Industrialized society here.

There are still tribes in the World where the men are NOT violent, nor is this prized, in fact they would be what we would term "new men", this is considered normal.

There are also tribes around that practice sadistic homosexual rights as part of male initiation rituals. They also consider this to be perfectly normal.

We can safely say that in our Westernised culture males express themselves using violence more than women do. Women feel envy, jealousy, competitiveness etc but do not express it through violence very often.

In our society males are socialised from an early age with physical play, not talking (as this is "girly" and therefore = bad) and not having close, sharing friendships.

It is theorised that women diffuse difficult emotions by sharing with friends and having a supportive emotional network. Men, in our society are brought up to believe that this is girly, that "boys don't cry" and men have better emotional control and don't have emotions the way girls do. Look at the two insults children use: gay and girly. Both are positions of saying that the worse thing is being less than male - and the constructed maleness of not being emotional and being "strong".

messuru wrote - "Let's ignore male victims of suicide, they only do it anyway because they're stupid violent men."

Why do you hate men so much? I could never follow your suggestion to ignore male victims of suicide. Your opinion that these men are stupid and violent is absolutely appalling. Your opinions about male suicide show us just what these men are up against. In start contrast to your suggestion and opinion, I believe that men at risk of suicide need more help not less.

Messuru, collect whatever data you like. No one is stopping you from doing exactly what KIS is doing. I really worry when men hate men as much as you seem to as well. No feminist I know hates men, as some of the feminist haters do.

I think that this is a really interesting campaign and agree that the photographs make it particularly powerful. Can I check that that I've got the main thrust of the points you are making correct:

1. Most women who are murdered are killed by men
2. Of that figure, most women who are killed by men are killed by partners/ex partners, but there are connections between the deaths that are sometimes obscured by referring only to domestic violence when talking about women who are killed
3. More work and funding for your project is needed to tease out what these connections are.

In a perfect world, should you get more funding/resources, I'd be really interested in seeing the database broadened to see figures relating to women who are victims of any type of violent crime i.e. women who are attached but survive, and look at collecting the same sort of figures globally. I know that is almost impossible, but we should try. Because as much as I would like to believe that some cultures are enclaves of enlightened and non violent men, the evidence points me towards the depressing conclusion that, in the vast majority of cases, women (and children) are more likely to be the victims of war, poverty, and famine worldwide. You just need to look at the 1000 yazidi women and girls who have disappeared because of ISIS (look here: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/islamic-state-plea-for-west-to-help-more-than-1000-kidnapped-yazidi-women-in-isis-sex-trade-9752220.html) , and the Zimbabwean schoolgirls who are still missing.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is that I agree with you in thinking that violence and the murder of women is not about sex. It's about (as my namesake says) power. Solely talking about sexual relationships as the motive for killing women can obscure other connections, which have not been fully explored in the past. I found the figures about sons killing their mothers particularly hard to read.

I've signed up and I'll be following the progress of your campaign with huge interest.

How on earth would humans have thrived if it wasn't for the male instinct to hunt and kill? Yes we have evolved to become intelligent and with education we should be able to communicate before raising a fist, but that primal flash point is still there and unfortunately women will invoke a strong response in men whether we like it or not.

I can't believe for a second that we would have evolved as a species if the men were programmed to kill the women, and often the children. I can't see any reason for that to be the case. It also doesn't explain why NAMALT. What good would come of it? And how come those men who can't overcome those "primal" urges manage to not act like cave men the rest of the time? Do they see a squirrel and try and hunt it and eat it raw?

I'm assuming you are still accepting that men can't give birth to children and women can? It seems that it is not acceptable on this thread to say men and women might think differently but I'm hoping we are still in agreement that men and women are physically different?

I am crap at biology so correct me if I am wrong. But other than our sexual organs do our organs work differently depending on sex? Male or female a heart is a heart and if you are ill and in need you can receive a heart/lung/eyeball from either sex?