Woman to head SPVM major crimes unit
Mélanie Dupont has become the first woman to head the SPVM’s major crimes unit. Dupont is quoted as particularly concerned about crimes against women, but it displeases me to see her quoted saying “Tous les dossiers, c’est une mère, la sœur de quelqu’un.” Men’s lives have value in themselves; women’s, in that they’re of value to someone else. Even coming from a woman.
Meezly 12:55 on 2024-12-04 Permalink
Agree. That expression has always bugged me for the same reasons too.
By the same token, look at the commonly used “crimes against women” or “violence against women”. Why are “men” almost always omitted when this phrase is used?
“Most terms used to describe the types of violence women experience hide the everyday reality for many women throughout the world that the perpetrators of this violence against women, and indeed even against other men, are men.
Gender‑neutral language is continually used; for example, family violence, domestic violence, intimate partner violence, violence in the home, sexual assault, and community‑based violence. Each of these terms masks the reality that the overwhelming majority of these forms of violence are gendered, that is, they are perpetrated by men upon women. Even when the issue is gendered by referring to violence against women, the gender of the perpetrator is often omitted.”
From the White Ribbon Campaign, the largest global male‑led movement to stop men’s violence against women.
Kate 13:50 on 2024-12-04 Permalink
By the same token, look at the commonly used “crimes against women” or “violence against women”. Why are “men” almost always omitted when this phrase is used?
The reasons women are assaulted or murdered tend to be different from men, in the broadest sense. Looking at the homicide numbers: a fair number of the men who get killed are involved in gang activity, while there’s only one woman that’s been killed here recently in connection with gangs, and it was because she was the wife and daughter‑in‑law of gangsters.
Women get killed because of domestic strife, and often the attacks are by their partner or recent ex‑partner. A few men get killed for that kind of reason but it’s not prevalent.
So I do think it’s worth examining crimes against women as a different social phenomenon. But I think we still need to understand, as a society, that their lives were of value because they were living human beings, first, and not primarily because of their family relationships to men.
jeather 13:54 on 2024-12-04 Permalink
I’ve seen much, much more use of femicide for murders of women (especially if it is by someone they know), I think as a way to distinguish it as a specific thing.
Meezly 10:39 on 2024-12-05 Permalink
“Even when the issue is gendered by referring to violence against women, the gender of the perpetrator is often omitted.” Is this done subconsciously? Do we do this because the media does it?
Kate, you couldn’t even identify the gender in your phrase: “Women get killed because of domestic strife, and often the attacks are by their partner or recent ex‑partner.” Was that subconscious or intentional?
Again, what I’m trying to say, that if women have value as human beings first, then why when it comes to violence, the emphasis is placed on women, as if they’re somehow to blame for their victimization and men get a free pass?
And very much like “c’est une mère, la sœur de quelqu’un”, we’ve been conditioned by society to relegate women AND diminish the impact of male violence against women.
Crimes perpetuated by men against women has been part of the same social phenomenon that has had centuries to mold mindsets and define toxic gender roles.
“Violent men kill women because of domestic strife.”
“Often the attacks are by their male partners or former male partners.”
“Men inflicting violence against women.”
“Crimes perpetuated by men against women.”
It’s not that hard!
Kate 11:24 on 2024-12-05 Permalink
I apologize for my ignorant assumptions and will try to do better.
MarcG 16:23 on 2024-12-05 Permalink
I appreciate you pointing this out, Meezly. It seems like the same linguistic mechanism used whenever death or harm in an unequal relationship is described (e.g. drivers vs. pedestrians & cyclists, “good guys” vs “baddies” in a war), and for sure it’s easy to internalize and have it affect your thinking.
Chris 16:50 on 2024-12-05 Permalink
>Gender‑neutral language is continually used…
Uh, yeah, welcome to the last several decades. Gender neutral language is heavily en vogue.
Strikes me as interesting to advocate for gender specific language when it’s mostly men doing something bad, but if it’s mostly men doing something good, ex firemen, we want to call them firefighters.
JP 19:58 on 2024-12-05 Permalink
I see where you’re coming from Meezly but gendering or not has been/is becoming a very murky topic all around for various different subjects and I think there’s a tendency to extend that neutral language to other facets. I think it’s great to point it out but I wouldn’t be overly critical of anyone if they don’t say “violence against women by men” all the time. I think it’s understood that it’s usually if not always men. I do feel there’s some hypocrisy in the culture….as a woman, I don’t want to share bathrooms with men (the new gender neutral ones they have at shopping malls, for example) but I’ve gotten a lot of pushback for sharing that opinion at work recently…I felt like my apprehension around men in that context was not an acceptable sentiment at all. I understand it might seem like apples and oranges but I feel like I’m being told “stop gendering” all around!