The Tribune

THE Global 16 Days campaign is always an interesting time for us at Equality Bahamas. Since 2017 when we started participating in the campaign, we have observed the responses from members of the public. Most people are content to ignore it or casually observe the activities while others are either excited by it and looking for ways to participate, or enraged by its existence — not that it is necessary, but that the campaign dares to centre women, people who disproportionately experience gender-based violence.

Gender-based violence against women is an issue most of us consider to be undeniable. It has become obvious to us over the years, unfortunately due to the public incidents and acts of violence which are reported on whether by official or unofficial channels.

It took years of consistent work by feminists and women’s rights activities to make the term “violence against women” one that is widely used and understood. When that work began, it was as though no one was paying attention. People did not know why these women, from all over the world, were pressing this issue, demanding it be treated as a specific type of violence perpetrated against women. Through the sharing of stories, collection of quantitative data and consistent activism, the world came to understand the need to call it violence against women.

This year, being the 30th anniversary of the campaign, is special for all participants, and especially for those who were there at the beginning. One person who was a part of the movement shared on Twitter: “When 24 of us met in that cold week at the @CWGL_ Rutgers long ago, we had a bold vision - to bring feminists and their movements together around [violence against women], globally. Little did we imagine we would be where we are today!” In a series of linked posts on Twitter she recalled their efforts. She noted that, from then to now, we have seen progress, noting gender-based violence against women was one of the first issues of major concern that many governments noted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Still, we have a long way to go.

People are resistant to conversations about gender, rights, and, in particular, women’s rights. There is general confusion about equality. There is fear that improving conditions for women will somehow destabilise men. These ideas are not only held by members of the public, but are implied by government actors and systems. For example, there was a Women’s Bureau. It needed to become a Department, fully staffed with its own mandate and a budget to carry it out. It became the Department of Gender and Family Affairs. Gender, for some reason, could not stand alone. Not only that, but someone decided there needed to be a men’s desk. Why does there need to be a men’s desk in the Department of Gender and Family Affairs?

If you understand the term “gender,” you know this is unnecessary. Gender is about the relations between women and men, and the Department ought to be focused on transforming the environment — physical, political, and economic included — to ensure there is equality in access to opportunities and resources between women and men. Aspects like men’s desks and the addition of “family affairs” only serve to placate people who lack the fundamental understanding of gender and what a department focused on it is meant to do. When this is happening with a government ministry, we cannot be shocked when men attempt to interrupt and disrupt every conversation about women’s experiences and specific needs.

I have come to expect, whenever I am on a radio show that takes calls and text messages, for a man to insert himself into the conversation, refuse to participate in it as it is set, and attempt to turn it into something else. They try to minimise and detract from the point being made about women’s experiences of gender-based violence by centring themselves. “What about men getting abused?” they ask. They seem to expect one of two responses - the suggestion that men do not experience violence, or the dissolution of the conversation because it shifts to accommodate them and their insecurity related to the issue actually being discussed.

Yesterday, in a discussion about the Global 16 Days campaign and very brief comments about femicide - the gender-based killing of a woman - someone sent a text message asking if there is a word for the killing of a man. The short answer, of course, is no. The answer may be uncomfortable to hear, but will lead people open to it to understanding, however, that women are being killed because of their sex or gender at such disproportionate, alarming rates that it is necessary to name the act, collect data on it, and develop specific responses to prevent, intervene and see justice. Men are not being killed because of the sex or gender the way women are, so there is no term for it.

When a group of people is disproportionately impacted by anything, it needs to be addressed in a way that responds to their circumstances and experiences. Those circumstances and experiences are unlike those of the other people who are impacted based on different factors. Take, for example, breast cancer in Bahamian women. According to research conducted within the last decade, Bahamian women have one of the highest rates of BRCA gene mutations that can cause breast and ovarian cancer. Women in The Bahamas have been getting diagnosed younger and at later stages than the global average. The response to this is not to simply carry on with monthly self exams, mammograms at the usual age and treatment upon diagnosis. Free BRCA gene testing was provided for a period of time to the general public and family members of people with a BRCA gene mutation were encouraged to get tested. By getting tested, Bahamian women would better understand their risk and have options available to them instead of having to “wait and see”.

Since we know we have a high rate of BRCA gene mutations, we encourage women to get the genetic test if they can. It is an expensive test, so The Bahamas Breast Cancer Initiative Foundation raised money to cover the cost of thousands of tests. The test allows researchers to look for the seven known BRCA gene mutations. Women who tested positive and women with family history of breast and ovarian cancer are given different guidelines from those who do not. They are advised to start getting mammograms earlier, for example.

First, we are not treating Bahamian women like all women because we know there is a higher rate of breast cancer in this group. By studying this group, we learned there is a high rate of BRCA gene mutations in Bahamian women. This allows us to further segment, and focus on Bahamian women who test positive for a BRCA gene mutation. We were then able to design interventions for Bahamian women with a BRCA gene mutation as they are at the highest risk.

We still look at Bahamian women, recognising that all women have not been testing, and some women with strong family histories of breast and ovarian cancer test negative. Neither of these groups is at a disadvantage. Women outside of these groups are disadvantaged. The interventions are meant to address these women’s specific circumstances in a way that a general approach — self test and do annual mammograms — does not and cannot.

Apply this to violence. Anyone can experience violence. One in three women, however, experience physical or sexual violence in her lifetime. Women are disproportionately the victims and/or survivors of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, rape and other forms of sexual violence. We can have an anti-violence campaign, we can offer courses on healthy relationships for all, and we can train people in conflict resolution. These are all great. We still, however, have to respond to the specific needs of women who are experiencing gender-based violence, develop strategies for prevention and effectively intervene.

We will not be able to address the broader issue of violence that is affecting everyone without looking at the largest group of people being impacted by a specific form of violence.