VAWG is a gendered issue which is deeply rooted in societal inequality. It is violence that is “directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately”.

[IwantToRetire]

Does anyone else think this statement is very feminist lite? Seems to gloss over the issue of women as a sex class being subjected to violence by the sex class of men.

I am asking as it is the opening paragraph of a "Joint VAWG Sector General Election Manifesto" supported by "a coalition of over 70 leading organisations working to end violence against women and girls".

VAWG is a gendered issue which is deeply rooted in societal inequality. It is violence that is “directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately”. Women are more likely than men to experience multiple incidents of abuse and different types of abuse (intimate partner violence, sexual assault and stalking) - in particular sexual violence. Any woman or girl can experience VAWG, however those who face other forms of inequality as a result of their race or ethnicity, wealth or social class, religion, sexuality, gender identity, disability, mental health or age are more likely to experience abuse and less likely to receive support and justice. As VAWG is a cause and consequence of gender inequality and other intersecting inequalities, it is essential that we situate our work to end it alongside wider ambitions to tackle said structural inequalities. For example, policies to tackle economic inequality, poverty, health inequalities and to dismantle the hostile immigration environment

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Full-VAWG-Manifesto-150923.pdf

Do you think they really believe this, or feel that they have to talk in this social sciences psuedo babble so that poor male politicians aren't to upset as being identified as part of a group that is the cause of male violence against women.

Do they really think that if somehow in the future social inequalities were erased no woman would experience male violence?

They really believe it, or anyway, they really believe in the progressive agenda items so just make sure you tack it on.

They do make a mention of "justice", but I doubt these are the kind of people that actually want tough punishments for violent crime, rather than just, "prison doesn't work", and, "violence is coming from inequality and racism".

Also, is it a good idea to link your policy to something as controversial as, "let's get rid of all our racist border controls"?

The general public will probably never support that kind of combined agenda.

That is written by a woman whose first rule of feminism is to hide women's reality to stroke men.

The problem is these the women who represent and are actually funded to provide services to women who have experienced sexual or domestic violence.

Over the past year or so I have noticed these groups getting together to make public statement about the police, the Government policy and bill to restrict demostrations and others.

In many instance I would probably agree with much of what they say, but these are women whose "status" is that the are paid employees of support services for women who have suffered male violence.

They never bother (until this "manifesto") to get together to make statement about violence against women, or for instance preserving the right for women (biological female) only services.

There is nothing to stop them as individual women forming a group that wants to campaign against social inequalites, or whatever.

And in fact using their paid employee positions to make these sort of statements, but not botherered enough like other campaign groups to use their own time to organise, makes it seem very tokenistic.

I wonder who it is they think they are going to impress. Maybe it is just each other so they can flaunt their "correct attitudes" about other issues even though their commanality is VAWG.

Or maybe they think / want Labour to be the new Government, that this will position them favourably.

Sometimes I wonder if there are any feminists left - and if there are how many if any are actually part of providing services to women survivors.

I think like the LGBA, it's a helpful thing to alert the grassroots uncaptured women's groups so that they are able to consistently provide representation of other women's views and the issues with the narrative that captured groups provide. Sex Matters, KPSS, FPFW, etc. It keeps the point that this is a political biased view committed to a particular agenda, which has its problems, and should be heard as such.

It keeps the point that this is a political biased view committed to a particular agenda, which has its problems, and should be heard as such.

I suppose also at the back of my mind is that many organisations suffer from "mission drift" and too often it isn't those at the coal face but the CE and MC who actually dont think the work of the organisation is newsworthy, so instead of getting the organisation in the news for its actual work, picks of topics that the media might pick up on.

What hope of preserving women's only services if those being paid to do this are so busy showing off to each other about how correct their position is on a whole range of issues, but unfortunately not the one they are paid for.

There's always too in those organisations mission drifting - and I agree this is a significant contributing factor- the quiet competition to be up with the next New Thing and abreast with all the fashionable stuff, which is part of why people have innocently and unquestioningly enabled this without their brain managing to intervene on the way.

Again, what I think will help, is clear information from dispassionate women centred services representing OTHER beliefs and view points and mentioning the inclusion/homophobia/misogyny/ableism aspects of this particular political position, and raising awareness that there are other voices, other needs, other views, and ALL aspects and voices should be consulted, not just one group.

This political lobby have never got their heads around the marketing issues that they have so successfully exploited: which is that there is always a market saturation point, there is a point of over exposure at which people get fed up, and the gallop to the Next Buzzy Exciting New Thing that has worked, will eventually move on from them. The next New Thing in these organisations will eventually be the point scoring and self congratulatory comments in meetings of 'of course we must remember that other people have other beliefs, and this does not work for all women'.

This approach is increasingly standard now in all DEI, id pol, cultural marxism thinking around equalities, not just sexism, but racism, and any other ism as well.

So no, I don't think it's anything to do with avoiding making some men feel bad.

As far as it goes, there probably are some social factors that contribute to things like domestic violence. So I don't think that it's necessarily wrong to want to be clear about what those are, and look at mitigating them.

In the same way, an organization working against racism might find itself looking at increasing educational opportunities in poor black neighbourhoods. If you define racism as the existence of racial disparities, than it makes sense to do so.

Within the women's movement, the idea that something that affecting women disproportionately is sexism that needs to be combated isn't anything new. It's pretty basic to the idea that things like maternity leave shouldn't affect seniority, for example.

Within the women's movement, the idea that something that affecting women disproportionately is sexism that needs to be combated isn't anything new.

This is effectively a statement to political parties about the issue of VAW. To not even at the start make the basic fact that it is about male violence is incredible.

And in fact dangerous.

Because, it will then be used by the NAM politicians, ie all of them, that violence against women isn't about men but about social inequality, racism, etc., etc..

It a huge step back from why refuges were set up in the first place. That it is the presence of men in women's lives that is the threat.

Now we will get men whimpering about I couldn't help it, I'm poor, I'm froma BME community, and so on.

And it isn't just badly thought out, it indicates that those at the top have lost touch with the principles of the service they are coopting, and are using their paid employment to promote their personal political agendas.

As pointed out on the thread about the Judicial Review of the Scottish GRR, even though 4 groups representing LGBTQI+ organisation asked for and got the right to present their interests in relation to the issue, not one women's group attempted to do this.

I cant see a typed list of the groups who have signed this, but based on the logos it seems that the nia project have not signed this.

And if this is true, is quite interesting.

Where does that get them, though? What's the program? Saying men are a problem? Telling them not to be violent?

I think it's very understandable that people involved in helping women who are victims of DV think - why can't we try and do something about this before it gets to the point where we need to help someone in trouble? How can we prevent it, or even some of it? Shelters are necessary, but wouldn't it be better if they were less necessary?

To then look at what the risk factors might be, and ascertain what the real connection is - why wouldn't people want to invest energy in that? If we know that poverty increases the risk of DV, do we really not want to acknowledge that ?

Where does that get them, though? What's the program? Saying men are a problem? Telling them not to be violent?

This is a manifesto. ie a briefing to political parties, one of whom will be the next UK government.

In not stating the obvious, ie the root of the problem, it fails to properly brief the politicians.

For instance they could have just had a front sheet of statistics showing what % of DV cases where men are the perpetrators.

And later on talked about how for different communities, the outcome or resources after the act of violence has taken place can make it worse.

Being poor or from a BME community isn't the cause of male violence. However the impact of the crime is dealt with differently because of those factors.

They are asking for help, they are telling the politicians what the problem is and what the solution is. More funding for them.

Also, just to add we do not have shelters in the UK, we call them refuges.

Reading your headline to me it sounds like domestic violence only affects working class women. We know that is a myth.
Most feminists groups are moving towards gender based instead of male violence. They have to because they are inclusive of men who say they are women. If they name the problem, that is males, then they are bringing sex into it. Sex just muddies the water when you want to be all fluffy and kind and have as many funding opportunities open to you as possible.

This is gender identity ideology once again. Soon they will be saying people are victims of domestic violence by other people.

They have to because they are inclusive of men who say they are women.

In one way I wish this was true. But many of these groups to provide services and advertise jobs under the single sex exemption.

This is the disconnect I cant get. If they are aware enough to do this, ie acknowledge that the issue of domestic violence is primarily a crime committed by men against women, why dont they feel able to say that?

Reading your headline to me it sounds like domestic violence only affects working class women.

And that is another thing that worries me. Even if they thought this document was just for politicians to consume, their message then gives substance that somehow women, especially women with less status, somehow contribute to them becoming victims of male violence.
.

Its just all so strange. Its like an article written by a well meaning student, whose own life experience and lack of researhc means she hasn't joined up the links.

And of course everyone being swamped by the Be Kind agenda - and NAM.