On the Occasion of International Women’s Day -“Women and men united to end violence against women and girls” by Yakin Ertürk, Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its causes and consequences - Presented 05 March 2009

Introduction

We are here today to commemorate International Women’s Day. 2009 is also the 30th anniversary of CEDAW, women’s international bill of rights. I would like to use this opportunity to celebrate our accomplishments and the fact that the eradication of violence against women (VAW) and the universality of human rights have become common goals and a shared obligation. In this respect, we must salute all the known and unknown women who contributed towards this end.

Efforts over the past two decades have clearly placed VAW on the agenda of governments and other stake holders. It is now firmly acknowledged around the world that violence against women is not an inevitable fate, nor can it be justified or excused by any means. It has also given hope to women in all corners of the world that this pandemic can and must be stopped. We must unite to respond to that hope with diligence!

In this respect, the SG’s campaign: “Women and men united to end violence against women”, is a timely initiative to consolidate efforts undertaken thus far at national, regional and international levels and to create a new momentum for action to combat violence against women globally.

The UN mandate for the elimination of violence against women
The UN agenda for gender equality in general and the VAW mandate in particular are unique in that unlike most other areas of international concern, gender issues gained recognition as result of the struggles of women themselves. In that sense, it reflects the demands, interests and aspirations of women in all parts of the world. The global women’s movement has succeeded in making VAW a public policy issue at the international level, which has been slowly but surely trickling down to national level policy frameworks.

It has now been fifteen years since the creation of the post of Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its causes and consequences, the first mechanism to monitor violation of women’s rights, particularly in the private sphere which for so long was shielded from public scrutiny. This mandate has provided a venue for the voices of those who dared to break the silence of violence and helped mobilize women from around the world, linking individual experiences of women with that of the collective; local with the global; particular with the universal.

Understanding the diverse trajectories of women’s individual and collective resistance to oppression and violence has provided a powerful insight for determining the parameters of the international agenda to end VAW and on how this agenda can be moved forward in tackling the problem globally.

Although, gender relations show great variation worldwide, their dynamics are embedded in a common patriarchal history that cuts across all “civilizations. However, in many parts of the world, historical transformations and women’s individual and collective struggles resulted in significant deviations from this universal norm towards greater equality between the sexes and recognition that VAW is not a natural and private matter. This has required and continues to require a firm political commitment, and making gender equality a priority public policy issue. It also requires that we continue encouraging and monitoring changes in the culture of major social institutions through informed political and legislative action.

Stepping out of traditional dichotomies
Many norms and standards for enhancing women’s rights are now in place, but they are inadequately implemented. Unfortunately, what still continues to be universal today is the violation of women’s rights which are committed with impunity. There are many reasons why this is so, including the fact that there are a number of dualities in our conceptualisation of the problem that impede implementation. One of these dualities is contained in the universal versus relativism debate. Other key dichotomies which have been inherent to approaches in international human rights law itself are the public/private dichotomy, and the dichotomy between political and civil rights on the one hand and economic and social rights on the other, as reflected in the Twin Covenants.

The universal versus relativist debate has become more pronounced in the post-cold war era as culture has become the new site of political contestation and global conflict, a phenomenon which has deepened in the aftermath of 9/11. Backlash against the universal application of some of the core human rights norms, especially those pertaining to women and reproductive and sexual rights, as well as conservative political trends globally have resulted in policy concessions that compromise or transgress universal human rights norms. This situation has had adverse consequences for women globally, but the consequences have been particularly striking for women in the south, placing them in a precarious position in their struggle for equality. I addressed these issues in my 2007 thematic report to the Human Rights Council.

The public/private dichotomy, which for a long time shielded violations of rights within the privacy of the home from the domain of law, has been addressed extensively by feminist scholars and has to a large extent been demystified.

However, the long standing focus on civil and political rights – at the expense of socio-economic rights - has not been dealt with sufficiently yet. My upcoming report on the political economy of women’s rights aims in part to respond to this gap in human rights practice, which has become all the more urgent given the current neo-liberal environment and the global economic crisis.

I would like to take this opportunity to touch upon some of these issues briefly.

Gendered dimensions of globalization
While women have gained new employment opportunities in the context of globalization, this has happened largely under unregulated and precarious conditions. In many instances, this has actually increased women’s vulnerability to exploitation, abuse and violence. Yet, we know that where women’s labour force participation is adequately remunerated and socially supported, and women have access to productive resources their risk of violence is greatly reduced and their ability to leave an abusive environment greatly increased.

It is expected that women and girls, in both developed and developing countries, will be disproportionately affected by the current economic crisis. The World Bank predicts that up to 53 million more people will be driven to poverty in developing countries this year, bringing the total of those living on less than $2 a day to over 1.5 billion. This will seriously jeopardize the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals which aim to slash poverty, hunger, infant and maternal mortality, and illiteracy by 2015. These worrisome signs are likely to result in serious setbacks to the full realization of gender equality.

It is, therefore, imperative that gender perspectives are taken into account in relation to both the short and long term impact of the crisis, and in relation to a range of rights including education, health, security and livelihoods in order that gender gaps do not widen.

Deepening economic disparities are also likely to increase social tensions and armed conflicts. It is by now well-documented that violence against women tends to intensify when men experience displacement and dispossession related to economic transformations, migration, war, foreign occupation or other situations where masculinities compete and power relations are altered in society. The full impact of such situations on women is rarely taken into consideration in development, humanitarian and/or reconstruction programmes, or in immigration and refugee policies.
It is also essential that a critical consciousness is created with respect to hegemonic values and attitudes governing gender relations and identities. If women are to live a life free of violence, efforts to change attitudes must include strategies to challenge notions of masculinity based on policing women’s sexuality and /or on sustaining male supremacy in public and private life. Violence is not only an act of individual men but it is embedded in the way manhood is constructed, reinforced and challenged under societal pressures, social approval mechanisms and crisis situations.
I take particular pride in having introduced the subject of masculinity to the UN gender equality agenda in 1998. During my tenure as the director of the UN Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW) in 2001 we included the theme of the role of men into the multi-year work programme of the CSW which was addressed by the Commission at its 2003 annual session.
Since then our understanding of masculinities have expanded and we have learned that while social change or conflict eliminates some forms of masculinity, hegemonic masculinity is re-configured, thus reproducing gender inequality in discrete and subtle forms. Therefore, the sources of inequality must be attacked by de-linking power and masculinity at all levels and by recognizing and promoting alternative masculinities that are respectful of women’s rights. An environment that offers channels of equal participation for all members of society and inclusive democratic governance can foster such egalitarian values.
While transformative change is to be carefully tailored over a period of time, in the short term the behaviour of violent men also needs to be confronted and addressed. In various countries different models have been developed and employed by governmental and non-governmental organizations, particularly pro-feminist men, in addressing violent male behaviour. Good practices in this regard should be documented and disseminated so that they can be adapted to particular local conditions. Efforts to deal with violent men, however, must not lead to a deviation from the commitment to support women’s empowerment or compromise on their rights and resources in order to subsidize programmes for violent men. Furthermore, let us not forget that elimination of violence against women is inherently a project of women’s empowerment.
Conclusion

To repeat my opening comment, eradicating violence against women and ensuring that human rights are universally enjoyed is a common goal and a shared obligation. The progress achieved thus far towards this goal, although uneven, has verified that oppressive values, institutions and relationships can be transformed.

Transformative change may not always be an easy task, particularly in view of a deeply embedded patriarchy. Furthermore, such change is inherently disruptive of the comfort offered by the status quo, as oppressive as it may be. While such change may hold risks, it also promises a step forward in greater emancipation for all. In closing, I would like to emphasize that the struggle for gender equality is not about a battle of the sexes but rather it is a battle against oppression, which both women and men have a stake in.