There are not a lot of people in the United States who pay much attention to what happens in the United Kingdom (UK) unless it involves the royal family. But there is a something else in the news right now in the UK that has repercussions for the cause of women’s rights all over the world: the reaction to the March 3 murder of 33-year-old London resident and marketing executive Sarah Everhard as she was walking home from a friend’s house that night. A London police officer has been arrested and charged with her kidnapping and murder, and a peaceful vigil in her honor was violently broken up by London police because it violated coronavirus restrictions on large gatherings. There has been outrage not just about the murder of a young woman by the actions of a violent man, but also because of the victim blaming that ensued in the aftermath as well as the usual suggestion that the onus remains upon women to protect themselves rather than society’s responsibility to protect women from violent men.
There were those who questioned Ms. Everhard’s decision to walk home alone, asking “Why didn’t she take a cab?” or “What did she expect?” – as if a woman in a supposedly free society has absolutely no right to be able to walk unaccompanied after dark. The response by London authorities and police was to advise London women to remain indoors at night for their own safety, or to at least “not to go it alone.” In order to make a point regarding how women are expected to regulate their bodies and behavior according to the threatening actions and attitudes of men, Member of Parliament Baroness Jenny Jones suggested that rather than restrict women’s night-time freedom of independent movement, there should be a 6:00 PM curfew for all men instituted instead. After all, it is overwhelmingly men who commit violence against women – and indeed commit violence in general – why should women have to always be the ones to adjust?
Talk about back lash . . . you would think that Ms. Jones had suggested that all men be imprisoned, the reaction was so swift and negative. On Twitter she was called “deranged,” “bigoted,” and “misandristic” (fearful of men) for correctly pointing out that restricting female freedoms in response to male violence against women is a misogynistic and contradictory go-to reaction that has not worked to end violence against women for centuries. Telling women to stay in does not protect them from violence – as the increase in domestic violence calls over the past year of COVID-19 restrictions has shown – so why suggest that? Because it is always women’s actions that are expected to change for them to remain safe – rarely are men asked to adjust or inconvenience themselves in response to an incident of violence against women.
The only effective long-term solution is to change the behavior of men, but yet when that is suggested people consider it outrageously unfair, and it is men who are suddenly portrayed as victims. Ms. Jones later clarified that she was only making a point – that she was not actually serious about instituting a curfew for men. But I would ask: why not be serious about it? Why should women continue to have to bear the brunt of male violence not just in regard to actual male violence, but also in regard to the burden – physical, emotional, social, financial, and cultural – of trying to avoid it? Until men actually experience a measure of even periodic personal inconvenience akin to that felt by women on a daily basis, even many of the “good” men feel little individual incentive to do more than simply insist they are not “bad” men. Even “good” men will too often laugh or remain silent when sexist comments or jokes are tossed around within a group of men about women. And even those who say something at the time still vote for politicians who have engaged in sexist or even violent behavior towards women and/or politicians who wink at such behaviors and do little to advance policies that will truly reduce violence against women or advance women’s socio-economic equality.
Not all men are violent or even sexist – why make all men suffer? Well, even fewer women are violent towards other women, and yet women are the ones who constantly must modify their own attitudes, behavior, and even their bodies, to avoid becoming the victims of male violence. Ms. Everhard took precautions – surveillance video caught of her leaving her friend’s house to walk home shows that she wore bright colors, running shoes, and leggings. She communicated with her boyfriend as she left her friend’s house, promising to recontact him when she arrived at her home. She was likely alert and aware of her surroundings. She modified her body, her attitude, and her actions to mitigate the threat of male violence that could be perpetrated against her. That a police officer has been accused of her murder means that she was allegedly abducted and killed by someone she should have been able to trust. But even if it had been someone more random with a violent criminal history – why is it at all a woman’s fault when she is a victim of violence at the hands of a man? And by extension – why should all the other women of London have to avoid going out alone because one woman was victimized by a violent man? Why is it fair to ask women to perpetually modify their actions and attitudes and curtail their own freedoms to avoid male violence against them when it is overwhelmingly men who harm women?
We repeatedly refer to violence against women as a “women’s issue.” Nope. It is not even equally a “human issue.” Since it is mostly men who are committing most violence against others including women, we need to start framing it as more of a men’s issue. Toss the ball of responsibility back into men’s court and say – fix or stop those among you who victimize women, or men can be the ones to have their freedoms restricted for a change until it does get fixed. Curfew for males unless they are accompanying a woman, instead of suggesting women stay in when there is a dangerous predator on the loose? Yep – a lot easier to figure out who the law-abiding males are that way, and perhaps if they are required to lose some of their own freedom of movement more men will start to become serious about combatting toxic male culture. Heavier regulation of traditionally male organizations with histories of violence against women like fraternities and sports teams? Yep. More regulation of male sexuality akin to that imposed upon women, such as charging fathers equally to mothers and health care providers for violating abortion and/or child neglect and abandonment laws? Yep. In return, make sure that forms of male birth control, such as condoms, are readily available and fully covered by insurance for both men and women.
If one believes that men and women are truly equal, then one should not object to the assertion that it is men who should start taking responsibility for their fellow males’ attitudes and behaviors towards women and stop requiring women to bear the daily burden of male behavioral transgressions and moral failures. Women have been bearing that burden for millennia, and it is time for society to put it back where it belongs and demand that men, as a gender, get their collective act together or they, not women, should have to suffer the consequences of male failures for a change. Too many men, even good men who are not by nature or practice sexist, remain silent much too often in regard to calling out and curtailing the inappropriate attitudes and actions of other men towards women. Men need to be personally, individually motivated to do and say the right thing in the face of male peer intimidation and apathy. Having to bear some of the collective consequences of the violent actions of some of their peers, even if periodically, may be a catalyst for motivating more men to take the issue more personally and seriously.
And please, do not respond by saying “It’s not fair to punish all men for the actions of the few.” Why not? Why is it more acceptable or less “bigoted” that all women are perpetually “punished” with the undue daily burden of having to take preventive measures that men do not due to still all too common violent acts against women? Asking that men take more responsibility for the actions of other men is not “punishment.” It is simply asking that all men, just like women have been asked to do for centuries, finally put some individual and collective skin in the game when it comes to ending the ongoing epidemic of male violence against women once and for all.
Want to Stop Violence Against Women? Regulate Men
