Thread

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept

A few days ago I wrote this: this very day there are people, probably much more proximate than we like to think, for whom this time of no escape represents a frightening risk, an inevitability of harm, a damaging restriction of choice.

I also wrote that we must to all in our power to protect such, to give them control over their own decisions, to give them means to make themselves safe; if there is anything anyone can do, however small, now would be the time to do it; this is not for another time.

And now I must listen to my own words. Because in the last few days, someone posted a video explaining how to hit your wife if she annoys you during lockdown. But apparently that’s all right because it was meant as a joke.

And then someone threatened that the names of women who were witnesses in a trial would be exposed. But apparently that’s all right because they deserve it.

And then First Minister Sturgeon announced additional funding for Women’s Aid and people condemned it because men suffer violence too. But apparently that’s all right because it’s fair comment on a politician’s announcement, and it’s about balance.

I must not walk past, although it would be easier to do so. Violence against women is not all right. It is all wrong. And our response to it is too often all wrong as well. Four out of five cases of domestic violence are violence against women.

Domestic violence against men is less frequent but just as harmful, and the impact on children who witness or experience it is incalculable. Domestic violence is never justified by pretext, or context.

But here is my simple proposition. The sophistry whenever something is announced to tackle the wicked scourge of violence against women needs to stop and it needs to stop now.

If you asked me what I thought about fraud, I would say it was wrong. And you wouldn’t immediately say that I hadn’t condemned theft so I must think that theft all right.

If you asked me whether I thought we should continue to take steps to prevent knife crime, and to tackle its causes, I would agree. But you wouldn’t immediately say that I hadn’t condemned gun violence, so I must think that is all right.

And please don’t ask me why I don’t just condemn violence, full stop. Of course I do. But what is there to be so afraid of, when measures against violence for women are announced?

Why should women be singled out for these measures, I will be asked. I don’t usually write in block capitals, but for once I will. THEY ARE SINGLED OUT FOR THESE MEASURES BECAUSE THEY ARE SINGLED OUT FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FOUR TIMES OUT OF FIVE.

We need to stop arguing about this and start working together to prevent it. Every time a man expresses a defensive reaction masquerading as a doubt dressed up as a concern, he slows that process down. We need to agree not to do that.

In closing I ask you, respectfully, to consider this – if you want to challenge something, challenge violence against women. Challenge yourself to do that.