In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Global Gendercide

One United Nations’ estimate says that between 113 million and 200 million women around the world are “missing.” Every year, between 1.5 million and 3 million women and girls lose their lives as a result of gender-based violence or neglect. As the Economist, which reported on the policy paper, put it last November, “Every two to four years the world looks away from a victim count on the scale of Hitler’s Holocaust.”

Zuzu reminds us: “Just to put it in a little perspective, that’s about the number of women and girls in the US.”

Go read this article. Now.

• In countries where the birth of a boy is considered a gift and the birth of a girl a curse from the gods, selective abortion and infanticide eliminate female babies.

• Young girls die disproportionately from neglect because food and medical attention is given first to brothers, fathers, husbands and sons.

• In countries where women are considered the property of men, their fathers and brothers can murder them for choosing their own sexual partners. These are called “honor” killings, though honor has nothing to do with it. Young brides are killed if their fathers do not pay sufficient money to the men who have married them. These are called “dowry deaths,” although they are not just deaths, they are murders.

• The brutal international sex trade in young girls kills uncounted numbers of them.

• Domestic violence is a major reason for the deaths of women in every country.

• So little value is placed on women’s health that every year roughly 600,000 women die giving birth. As the Economist pointed out, this is equivalent to the genocide in Rwanda happening every 12 months.

• Six thousand girls undergo genital mutilation every day, according to the World Health Organization. Many die, and others live the rest of their lives in crippling pain.

• According to the WHO, one woman out of every five worldwide is likely to be a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime.

All these figures are estimates; registering precise numbers for violence against women is not a priority in most countries.

I don’t love some of the language she uses (like “Third World”). But at its heart, I think her op/ed is correct. We need to be raising our voices and screaming about these abuses.

Three initial steps could be taken by world leaders to begin eradicating the mass murder of women. A tribunal like the International Court of Justice in The Hague should look for the 113 million to 200 million women and girls who are missing. A serious international effort must urgently be made to precisely register violence against girls and women, country by country. And we need a worldwide campaign to reform cultures that permit this kind of crime. Let’s start to name them and shame them.

Yes, yes, and yes. The one thing that I think she misses the mark on is assuming that some cultures permit these kinds of crimes, and some don’t. That’s simply not true. All cultures in existence today permit violence against women to some degree. Some permit it to a much greater extent than others — some outwardly encourage it, some do so more tacitly — but it’s present everywhere. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t come down harder on the places where it’s worse, but it’s irresponsible and innaccurate to assume that it’s a problem with “those people” and that it isn’t on your doorstep, too.

Who says feminism isn’t necessary?


23 thoughts on Global Gendercide

  1. Go for it. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the 200 million figure was equal to the number of women and girls in both the US and Canada, but I’d have to look up Canada’s population.

  2. I have read that in some very rural, traditional areas of India and China, there is a shortage of women for the young men to marry, because so many females in this generation were aborted or killed after they were born. Have you heard about this?

    It’s interesting really. It seems that simultaneously, people don’t want women around, but yet, they want us around to “keep the population up” with their natalist ideas. Makes you wonder what people want.

  3. Makes you wonder what people want.

    i don’t wonder. i know that people who support, encourage, or otherwise enable this behavior would be delighted if women just stopped being people.

  4. What’s wrong with selectively aborting female fetuses? I can see you may not share the values of the person who does it, but isn’t it just a matter of personal preference? I image some women are coerced into doing it, but I also image that many are totally in agreement with the value systems behind it. I suppose you could say there is nothing wrong with abortion per se, but selectively doing it to female fetuses is wrong because it is situated within a grand narrative of oppression. But that makes it issue with people’s thoughts not their actions – a symptom, not a problem.

    Aborting female fetuses may show there’s something distorted about people’s priorities, but it’s hardly a crime against a real person. I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s fantastic, but the pro-life business is a bit dodgy.

    I’m not sure if honor killings, deaths from pregnancy, and genital mutilation can be pegged at “gender-based violence”. Plenty of men are done in by the first and the last, and plenty of people are screwed by a general lack of basic health care. Are childbirth resources comparatively worse than for other health programs? Large numbers of people don’t even get vaccinations, the cheapest and most basic medical intervention there is. I’m not suggesting that the developing world isn’t a spectacularly nasty place to be a woman. But there’s a lot being thrown on that list which perhaps doesn’t deserve to be there.

  5. I’m not sure if honor killings, deaths from pregnancy, and genital mutilation can be pegged at “gender-based violence”. Plenty of men are done in by the first and the last,

    Really? How many men are sentenced to die because they had sex while unmarried, or after they were raped? How many men were sentenced to be raped due to the actions of their female relatives? How many men die from circumcision?

    However many it is, and oh, I’m sure you could find a few here and there, it’s nowhere in the neighborhood of 200 million.

  6. It’s pretty common for men to be the victims of ‘honor killings’ because they slept with the wrong person, or dishonored the family in some other way. It doesn’t just happen to women. Rather a lot of men die from circumcision. Yes, it’s not as invasive as the nastiest FGM, but it’s a damn sight more widespread and hardly carried out in aseptic conditions. Again I’m not sure this is “gender-based violence”, as opposed to nasty things that happen in nasty places.

  7. It’s pretty common for men to be the victims of ‘honor killings’ because they slept with the wrong person, or dishonored the family in some other way. It doesn’t just happen to women. Rather a lot of men die from circumcision. Yes, it’s not as invasive as the nastiest FGM, but it’s a damn sight more widespread and hardly carried out in aseptic conditions. Again I’m not sure this is “gender-based violence”, as opposed to nasty things that happen in nasty places.

    Wow, “a lot?” That’s a lot.

  8. I’ll look up some links if you want. Though I was hoping that I could appeal to your common sense to get you to support the proposition that using rusty blades to cut bits off babies in unsanitary conditions isn’t a good idea, and isn’t just going to be detrimental to girls.

    I’m not suggesting that women aren’t disadvantaged, or that men have it just as bad. I’m just saying that almost every bad thing that happens to women in the 3rd world seems to have been thrown on the list, rather than those that are specifically the result of gender-based violence.

    Anyone want to comment on the abortion point?

  9. James, allow me to explain a few things. First with regard to circumcision: Male circumcision, though there are good arguments against it and it is sometimes done in very poor circumstances, is more often done around the time of birth. It doesn’t involve the removal of any sexual function, just unnecessary foreskin. Again, that doesn’t mean that it’s never problematic, but it’s simply not on the same scale as FGM (female genital mutilation). For those who aren’t aware, FGM is the removal of some or all of the external female genitalia. It typically happens just before the onset of puberty. At its least extreme, a girl gets her clitoris cut off. At its most extreme, everything on the outside of a girl’s body is cut off, and her vagina is sewn shut (with a small hole to allow menstrual fluid out), and her husband literally cuts her open on their wedding night.

    FGM happens around the world, but is mostly relegated to traditional societies in developing nations. It is rarely done in hosptial settings, or even in sanitary conditions. These girls, who are usually somewhere between 7 and 12 (sometimes older, sometimes younger, but generally not babies) have their genitals cut off with old razor blades, or pieces of glass, with no painkillers.

    I’m sorry, but there is simply no way you can compare that to male circumcision. It’s an entirely different ball game.

  10. James, you’re just doing the “But what about men!” thing that derails threads and gets people kicked out of blogs.

    This is a discussion about harms done to women, and a number of women equivalent to all the women in the US and Canada and then some just disappearing off the face of the earth. This is not a discussion about some potential men who’ve been hurt, too.

    That the occasional man has been killed because he was caught sleeping with the wrong man’s daughter or wife does not negate the fact that in many countries, women who are raped are routinely expected to commit suicide, and when they don’t, they are threatened with murder and shunned by their families. That the occasional removal of a foreskin has been botched does not negate the fact that in some cultures, young girls are routinely butchered in the name of keeping them tractable and keeping them virgins, resulting in the removal of their clitorises with rocks or broken glass and the sewing shut of their labia, resulting in infection after infection, incredibly painful sexual intercourse when they are married at a young age, and dangerous, excruciating childbirth as the child has to be forced through a small, scarred-over opening, resulting in tearing.

    You raise the “But what about Men???” issue but you can’t be arsed to provide any links or any backup, and you apparently haven’t even bothered to google it.

    And you also have the huevos to suggest that all of this couldn’t be gender-related, because bad stuff happens to men, too.

  11. What’s wrong with selectively aborting female fetuses? I can see you may not share the values of the person who does it, but isn’t it just a matter of personal preference? I image some women are coerced into doing it, but I also image that many are totally in agreement with the value systems behind it. I suppose you could say there is nothing wrong with abortion per se, but selectively doing it to female fetuses is wrong because it is situated within a grand narrative of oppression. But that makes it issue with people’s thoughts not their actions – a symptom, not a problem.

    Well, all of these things are “symptoms” of a greater ill (misogyny). That makes them problems. Selective abortion wouldn’t be bad in itself, except that it reflects a greater worldview in which girls are a liability and are considered less valuable than boys. That is a problem.

    I believe she includes selective abortion to point to this larger problem, not to say that abortion itself is questionable based on the reasons the woman gives for having one.

  12. It’s pretty common for men to be the victims of ‘honor killings’ because they slept with the wrong person, or dishonored the family in some other way.

    Of course, what’s good for the gander is also good for the adulterous whore, so bascially some honor killings also target the man invovled for being a big slutty ho, but all, or a numbe close enough to “all” for government work, honor killings kill women. As it is primarily designed to control women’s sexuality, and men can get out of it by being rich, it’s hardly pertinent that occasionally some fundies end up in a circumstance that cuases them to be oddly consistent for a change

    Though I was hoping that I could appeal to your common sense to get you to support the proposition that using rusty blades to cut bits off babies in unsanitary conditions isn’t a good idea, and isn’t just going to be detrimental to girls.

    well gosh, if only there was a world wide push to provide better health care in third world countries, if only some Worldwide Health Organisation was doing something to stop this horrendous state of affairs.

    Don’t you realise zuzu that there are people dying due to poor medical care all over the world! Why, to imply that only women die is pretty goddamndably presumptuous and insulting to all those real humans (men) that die due to third worldiness and some times even suffer as a consquence of the patriarchal cutlure they happily supported up until they were stoned to death for being unable to pay a suitable bribe. let’s not forget the silent male victims of domestic violence (who are often killed for merely beating their vaginal property once too often while she had a weapon handy), who in the third world are avenged by having their murderers stoned to death or burnt alive or killed in some other equally gruesome fashion. Won’t somebody think of the penises!

    Gods bloggertypeperson! Don’t you see how nicely earth women are treated compared to those martian women, why complain? At least a victim of an honor killing is a multicellular life form, a privelage that civilised earth men can take away at any point with a big enough mallet er… not that violence is commonly used to keep women in check of course, I’m just pointing out that violence could be used if you complain too loudly, which is a completly different thing all together.

  13. I’m not sure if honor killings, deaths from pregnancy, and genital mutilation can be pegged at “gender-based violence”. Plenty of men are done in by the first and the last, and plenty of people are screwed by a general lack of basic health care. Are childbirth resources comparatively worse than for other health programs? Large numbers of people don’t even get vaccinations, the cheapest and most basic medical intervention there is. I’m not suggesting that the developing world isn’t a spectacularly nasty place to be a woman. But there’s a lot being thrown on that list which perhaps doesn’t deserve to be there.

    The number of men done in by honor killings is negligable. Are men killed in some societies for sexual deviance? Yes. Is there a pattern of men being killed because they are men and because they did something that patriachal society deems “bad” for men to do? No. Honor killings of women are systematic and socially, patriarchally enforced. Honor killings are by definition a woman killed by male family/community members because of something she did which brought “dishonor” on her family. There are other kinds of murders in which men are the victims, but they aren’t honor killings.

    As for deaths from genital mutilation, again, not comparable.

    And as for pregnancy-related deaths, every minute a woman dies from pregnancy-related complications. Ninety-nine percent of these deaths are preventable (and that’s an actual WHO statistic, not just me meaning to say “a lot”). We can talk about vaccinations, but the fact remains that pregnancy and childbirth are biological facts of female human-ness. Contracting diseases isn’t an inherent fact of living life as a human being. (And yes, I realize that not every single human female will become pregnant and give birth, and not every woman has the physical ability to do so. But it is part of our classification as a species, and hopefully you all understand what I’m getting at without assuming that I’m being exclusive).

    Reproductive health problems are the leading cause of death for women between the ages of 14 and 44. Basically, femaleness is killing women. And yes, men die too, but they aren’t dying as a direct result of their biology.

  14. Is there a pattern of men being killed because they are men and because they did something that patriachal society deems “bad” for men to do?

    Like, having sex with other men? Yeah, I’d say there’s a pattern. 4 thousand men in Iran alone since 1980. Is that enough of a pattern?

    But you’re right; I guess I wouldn’t call those “honor killings.” By definition, “honor killing” refers to the murder of women as enforcement of a sexual role. It’s not hard, though, to see examples of the same enforcement of sexual mores through murder done to men, and in significant numbers. It’s not equivalent, but it shouldn’t be dismissed, either, especially when it’s the result of the exact same problem.

  15. Like, having sex with other men? Yeah, I’d say there’s a pattern. 4 thousand men in Iran alone since 1980. Is that enough of a pattern?

    Whereas lesbianism is totally okay? Both genders suffer from homophobia and homophobic repression and violence. I don’t think dismissal is the problem here; it’s the same old PHMT crap being introduced as due diligence when it’s really nothing but an attempt to derail.

  16. so, vaguely back on topic…
    thanks for an informative yet absolutely scarifying post, Jill. That number, 200 million is so horrifying i’m still processing it. I was just reading yesterday that here in my civilised, first-country-to-give-women-the-vote, woman-led land, there are 30 incidences of domestic violence every day and the number is climbing every year. and in the six weeks between let Nov 2005 and early Jan 2006, six women were murdered by their partners. I know in the scheme of things, this may be a small number, but I think it definitely illustrates the absolute horrifying cancer of domestic violence that is everywhere.
    And this is a country in which I am often told I should be happy, because sexism doesn’t exist here, and at least you have a female prime minister etc etc etc. However that doesn’t stop me from noticing stats like these and the ones you have posted here, and being angry for women everywhere.

  17. Well, all of these things are “symptoms” of a greater ill (misogyny). That makes them problems. Selective abortion wouldn’t be bad in itself, except that it reflects a greater worldview in which girls are a liability and are considered less valuable than boys. That is a problem.

    That’s a very good point. A week or two ago I read an article for my Gender and Development class regarding gender ratios in rural China. What I took from that was that it isn’t that couples don’t want daughters. It isn’t that their preference for boy, given the choice of one or the other, is somehow ideological or driven be traditional values. It’s that, under a strictly enforced one-child policy, couples will choose a son rather than a daughter because they accurately assess that a son will be, in strict economic terms, better for them than a daughter. There’s a tendency to see this phenomenon as a feature of old-fashioned or patriarchal values within the family. That doesn’t really square with what I saw in this paper – in fact, the family most commonly described as ideal in this rural Chinese community was one son, one daughter. In periods of history when the one-child policy was less strictly enforced, this preference was reflected in birth rates.

    My point is that the difference isn’t due to cultural assumptions that devalue women _in the family_. It’s an issue of gendered economic pattern _outside_ the family. These rural families accurately assess the economic impact a son or a daughter would have on their lives, and choose, given the choice between one or the other, to have a son. Where we should be looking is _why_ is it an economic advantage to have a son over a daughter? How could we change that? And, frankly, the ideal solution would be if China revoked the one-child policy. Somehow, I don’t see that happening. If you address this as an issue of values, and try to tell people that daughters are totally awesome, their response will be “no shit. Ideally we’ve have one of each.”

    Now, I have no idea how this dynamic plays out in India. There’s no one-child policy there. This phenomenon could take an entirely different characer, with the same outcome, in India.

  18. sorry…Ijust realised I got my stats wrong. However, unfortunately not in the way I would have liked to, ie, having overestimated the incidence of domestic violence. So ignore my thing about there being 30 incidences of DV per day.

    Police statistic showed an upward trend of callouts to domestic-violence incidents, with 24,700 in 2002-2003 jumping to 30,692 in 2004-2005.

    In addition, domestic violence often went under-reported, the judge said.

    During December last year and January last year police attended nearly 11,000 family-violence incidents, in which 6000 children witnessed the violence – one incident every eight minutes.

    thought maybe pasting in the article I was reading would be easier.

Comments are currently closed.