Gender Inclusive

Essays on violence, men, and feminist international relations

Adam Jones

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135973995
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Diplomatie & Abkommen

Gender Inclusive offers a challenging and unconventional reinterpretation of gender and mass violence.

Compiling essays and excerpts drawn from nearly two decades of Adam Jones's writing on gender and politics, this stimulating and diverse collection of essays explores vital issues surrounding 'gendercide' (gender-selective mass killing) including:

• How gender shapes men and women as victims and perpetrators of mass violence, including genocide.
• The range of gender-selective atrocities inflicted upon males, especially the gendercidal killing of civilian men of "battle age."
• The victimization of women and girls worldwide, including the structural forms of violence ("gendercidal institutions") directed against them.
• Genocidal violence throughout modern history, with a particular focus on the Balkans and Rwanda.
• In-depth critiques of prevailing gender framings in academic scholarship, mass media, and the policy sphere.

Adam Jones – recently selected as "one of fifty key thinkers in Holocaust and genocide studies" – contests prevailing interpretations of gender and violence, arguing that they fail to capture the broad range of gendered experience. His global-historical treatment is essential reading for anyone with an interest in genocide, human rights and gender studies.

Part I

The home front

1 The Globe and males

The other side of gender bias in Canada’s national newspaper (1990)*

Introduction

One of the central accomplishments of the women’s movement over the last two decades has been to draw media attention to the physical suffering and institutionalized victimization of women in North American society. In Canada, the aftermath of Marc Lépine’s terrorist rampage at the University of Montreal accelerated the nationwide flurry of analysis concerning the issue of violence against women, which was generally held to be the relevant context for Lépine’s actions.

The other side of human suffering and victimization in Canadian society has, unfortunately, passed almost unnoticed by mainstream media. Aspects of suffering which could be considered largely or specifically “male” have tended to be ignored, dismissed, or distorted. This has served to highlight the broad range of female victimization experiences – an important and worthy subject. But it has also denigrated or de-emphasized the male side, which in any humane and objective value system ought to be accorded every bit as much consideration and concern.

This phenomenon does not seem to be the result of a “boomerang” effect in media coverage. We are not dealing here with matters which have been male preserves in the past – something which might justify greater attention to the female side to help redress the balance. Rather, in this respect, the male experience has never been a matter for social concern as such, for reasons that will be examined later.

All this suggests an anti-male bias, unfashionable though such a concept may be to progressive minds. To clarify some essential features of this bias, I propose to examine a series of articles from Canada’s self-proclaimed “National Newspaper,” the Toronto Globe and Mail. The articles were published between March 10 and June 15, 1990. They constitute part (but only part) of The Globe’s wide-ranging analysis of social issues, including “women’s issues”– that is, issues and social problems which are allegedly indicative (predominantly or exclusively) of the female experience in our society.

It is important to mention that the examples of anti-male bias dealt with here are not necessarily representative of The Globe’s overall coverage of social issues, or women’s issues, during the sample period. In fact, much of this overall coverage is solid, informative, and unbiased. Focusing on women’s experiences performs the vitally important function of bringing women’s concerns to wider public attention. These positive elements are sometimes to be found even in articles which we will otherwise criticize for their anti-male bias.

A few comments on methodology may be in order. The articles were selected, over a roughly three-month period, on the basis of their perceived bias. Although they may well be suggestive of a wider trend of anti-male bias in media coverage, I have chosen to limit the present inquiry to the subject of physical victimization (or depicted physical brutalization in films, TV, and cartoons). In a few cases, I refer to other examples of coverage which reflect biased, insensitive, or dismissive mindsets. Such mindsets, in my view, could well account for the woefully inadequate treatment of male victimization, and I discuss them at greater length in the concluding sections of the chapter.

I also devoted some time to follow-up research. Here, I examined the microfilmed version of The Globe and Mail for the period March 1–June 30, 1990. I wanted to re-read Globe coverage more systematically, in the light of the patterns of bias I had detected during the original compilation process. I also wanted to see whether these patterns of bias were mitigated or offset by any other Globe coverage during, or shortly before or after, the sample period. (Hence the decision to examine coverage from a point two weeks prior to the first article selected, and continuing two weeks after the last article selected. The overall sample period was therefore four months.) This follow-up research turned up no evidence that the patterns of bias were offset by other Globe coverage. In several instances, in fact, further evidence for these patterns came to light. I have incorporated this supplementary evidence at various points in the text.¹

Of course, the argument here will not by itself demonstrate clear trends in The Globe’s coverage over time. Nor does the evidence serve as proof of bias in the media as a whole. It seems to me, though, that a broader bias does exist, and that it should be easily perceptible to anyone who can be provided with the analytical tools to recognize it. Thus, I hope that by isolating some of the features and strategies of Globe coverage, the average reader will be able to test my propositions for himself or herself. Researchers, moreover, might find the present work useful in formulating hypotheses for more systematic content analysis: if a clear pattern of sexist bias is apparent in a diverse selection of articles culled from just four months of coverage in Canada’s most prestigious newspaper, the topic may well warrant further attention and exploration.

With one minor exception (to be noted), all articles cited here are Globe editorials or feature pieces by staff writers, whether bylined or uncredited. None is the work of a Globe columnist, whose contribution could be seen as reflecting the views of an individual, rather than overall Globe standards and editorial strategies.

Comments on the findings

The Globe and Mail articles considered here each employ, consciously or unconsciously, one or more strategies for denigrating, de-emphasizing, or ignoring male suffering and victimization. A brief outline of these strategies is as follows:

(1) Concepts of gender discrimination which logically apply to both women and men are limited, in their practical application, to women only. In particular, gender-specific discussion of violent victimization in The Globe is limited to discussion of violence against women alone. Logic suggests that if human violence is to be subdivided into categories of victims (rather than of perpetrators), then all such violence among adults which is not “against women” must be “against men.” In practice, the concept of “violence against men” does not exist, although this category represents the majority (in its most extreme manifestations, the large majority) of acts of violent victimization in Canadian society.

(2) Statistics which provide newsworthy, sometimes shocking data regarding both sexes’ physical suffering are liable to be either misrepresented or discussed in highly selective fashion. Both of these sub-strategies serve to emphasize women’s suffering and de-emphasize men’s, while focusing attention on the stereotype of the male as perpetrator (rather than the victim or survivor) of violence.² Often, some of the available data suggest a significant and even predominant level of male suffering. But once again, this suffering is dismissed or downplayed. Its nature and implications are rarely rendered explicit.

(3) In cases where the victims of violence cited in statistical data are overwhelmingly male (for example, suicide and on-the-job homicide) – where, therefore, a gender component is both obvious and relevant – the victims are likely to be categorized not by gender, but by some other gender-neutral classification variable (e.g., age, occupation). When classification by gender does take place, the language used will tend to be bland, perfunctory, and colorless. There will be no inquiry into the broader social and cultural context of the physical suffering. Where the victims or survivors are women, on the other hand, the gender variable will tend to assume primary significance. The social context, moreover, will be explicitly or implicitly conveyed, often in language with real emotional resonance.

(4) In cases where the general “culture of violence” is under discussion (for instance, levels of violence in mainstream or pornographic films), and where gender is used as a classification variable, the gender-focus will be on depictions of violence against women in the context of a culture which promotes such violence. It will rarely (in fact, never in the sample period) be on violence against men, in the context of a culture which also promotes such violence. Let us turn now to the articles themselves.

Violence against women, violence against men

On April 28, 1990, The Globe and Mail published a long and impassioned feature article by staff writer Vivian Smith. The article, which appeared on the front page of the high-profile Saturday “Focus” section, was titled “Living in Fear.” “Women are afraid to go out alone,” the sub-heading stated. “Why does half the population have to put up with a restricted life?”

To understand the context of Smith’s article, we need to refer back to the article from which the Globe writer took her lead. Three days earlier, The Globe had published a brief report headlined: “One in four felt unsafe walking alone at night.” The article reported the results of a Statistics Canada survey, Patterns of Criminal Victimization in Canada (hereafter, PCVC). The Globe story began: “One in four Canadians felt unsafe walking alone in their own neighbourhoods at night …”

The “angle” of the original article, then – as indicated by its headline and lead sentence – is perceptions of liability to violent assault and other crimes, such as robbery or theft. The Statistics Canada data themselves are more wide-ranging: they compare actual liability to personal victimization, as measured by incidence of such victimization, with perceptions of liability.

The original Globe article stresses the second of these two aspects of the PCVC findings. The article provides no actual statistics on perceptions of liability. It states only that “Women, the elderly, city-dwellers and those who were divorced, widowed or separated were most concerned about their personal safety, along with those who were victims of recent crime.” This is a nearly-direct quote from the StatsCan report itself.

The Globe story cites comments by one of the report’s authors, Holly Johnson of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Johnson said, “women are being assaulted in urban areas almost as frequently as men. In cities [citing the PCVC findings], 89 of every 1,000 men were victims of violence, while for women it was 87 per 1,000. In rural areas, the rate was 83 per 1,000 for men and only 54 per 1,000 for women.”

The StatsCan data indicate, then, that in urban areas, the risk of violent victimization is approximately equal for men and women. In rural areas, men are considerably more at risk – a disparity the Globe article accurately conveys by the word “only,” i.e., “only 54 per 1,000 for women.”

It is important to note, as the Globe story does not, that the PCVC is inevitably imprecise in its discussion of personal victimization. Its subcategory of violent crimes includes only assault, sexual assault, and robbery. It does not include the most extreme form of violent victimization – homicide. The PCVC survey was conducted by telephone, and thus depended on the victim’s being alive at the other end of the phone to answer inquiries (being, that is, a survivor). This important fact is unmentioned in the original Globe article, and it should be borne in mind during the discussion of Vivian Smith’s report, which we will return to shortly.

A close examination of the PCVC turns up further relevant data on personal victimization. “Among Canadians,” the report notes, “the risk of personal victimization is highest for those who are male, young, single, residents of urban areas, and those who are students or unemployed” (PCVC:13). This hierarchy is repeated, in almost identical form, later in the report (PCVC:21). Again, males are placed at the top of the list, and are deemed most liable to suffer personal victimization.

In discussing the correlation between lifestyles and risk of theft and violent victimization, StatsCan reports the following:

Overall, students report the highest rate of victimization [among lifestyle categories] … Although male and female students reported almost identical rates of [non-violent] personal theft, male students have a rate of violent victimization almost 60% higher than female students.

(PCVC:25)

We return now to Vivian Smith’s feature article based on the PCVC report. Like the original Globe article, Smith’s feature emphasizes women’s perceived liability to personal victimization. In pursuing this reporting strategy, we will see that the Globe writer systematically misrepresents the StatsCan data on actual liability to personal victimization, and dismisses a crucial missing element– homicide – altogether.

Here is how Smith seeks to establish a link between women’s perceived and actual liability to violent victimization. “A study released by Statistics Canada this week,” Smith writes early in her article, “showed that women are more afraid than men of being violently attacked, and with good reason. In cities, they are now just as likely to be victims of assault as men, the study on crime statistics found.” (Emphasis is added here and for all subsequent quotes.)

A careful reader will perceive the illogic of Smith’s argument, even without reference to the actual StatsCan findings. Proposition One, for Smith: Women are more afraid than men of being violently attacked. (True, according to StatsCan.) Proposition Two: Women have “good reason” to be more afraid of violent attack than men – because they are “just as likely” to be personally victimized (violently or non-violently) in urban areas.

Of course, being “just as likely” to be violently attacked is by no means “good reason” to be more afraid of violent victimization. Note here that Smith selectively cites only the data on urban victimization, while effectively dismissing the PCVC data indicating that, in rural areas, men are considerably more liable than women to be violently victimized. (This means, of course, that, overall, there is a significant gap between male and female victimization rates.) And her refusal to consider homicide statistics as part of the broader scenario is striking.³

Smith continues:

In the StatsCan study, the crime that most concerned 73 percent of women aged 15 to 24 was assault or the threat of it. Only 35 percent of men in that age group had that concern – they worried more about theft and property loss. Holly Johnson of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, who helped write the report, said men feel more secure in being able to fight off their attacker. It may also be that men know they are only losing their stuff. Women are attacked because they are women.

This is a remarkable passage. Smith notes, accurately, that far fewer men than women have a fear of (i.e., perceived liability to) violent attack. But this perception– as is obvious from StatsCan’s findings– bears no relation to actual liability to violent attack. Regardless of their average greater physical strength, and their socialized feelings of immunity from assault, men in fact are more at risk of violent attack not leading to death. And when it comes to homicide, the most extreme form of violent victimization, the disparity is large.

For Vivian Smith to claim, then, that “It may be … men know they are only losing their stuff ” in situations of personal victimization is more than inaccurate. It is grotesque. In actuality, as Statistics Canada has consistently suggested in the PCVC and other easily available reports, men are losing much more than their “stuff.” They apparently are ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Preface: A pilgrim’s progress
• Acknowledgments
• PART I The home front
• PART II Absent subjects
• PART III Gendering genocide