Three thoughts on violence against women

 After recent events, it is important to recognise the sorrow and anguish of Sarah Everard's family and friends, and I join in offering my prayers and condolences to them.

The subsequent debate on violence against women has prompted three thoughts.

The concern being expressed by protestors and others about the safety of women on the streets of our towns and cities is primarily a concern about violence directed towards women by men. Whilst the fashion might be to describe this as "gender based violence" - with all that the ambivalence contained in the word "gender" implies - we are in reality, even when we use this language,  designating a violence directed against women because of their physiological sex. And likewise the men responsible for this violence are being designated, in reality, by their physiological sex.

I think I can be forgiven for thinking that, in recent years, the prime ethical principle governing sexual behaviours is that of consent. The #MeToo movement drew to public attention circumstances where men in powerful positions have taken advantage of their power to engage in unwelcome sexual behaviours with women. In educational circles, attention is given to enabling young people, both boys and girls, to properly understand the significance of consent. But, in terms of building barriers that will discourage men from abusing women, would it not also be helpful to have a recognition that some sexual behaviours are wrong even if the parties involved consent? It would then be crystal clear to all concerned that men in positions of power, or boys exerting peer pressure, should not be engaging sexually with the women and girls they encounter. 

The term "sex worker" has now become common place in referring to women who would previously have been described as "prostitutes". (Though men do also engage in such work, women do predominate). In effect, this change of terminology encourages a societal acceptance of a situation where a man pays women for sex. But, from the point of view of such a man, with an inevitably weakened sense of right and wrong, what is the difference between this paid-for sex on Friday night and an approach to a non-consenting woman in the street on Saturday night?  If the only difference we expect him to observe is that of consent, the difference is not a strong one.

So there are my three contributions to the discussion, for all they are worth: honesty about treating it as a question of physiological sex, being willing to consider the ethics of sexual behaviours to have an objective content other than just consent, and recognising that cultural accommodation of prostitution is not going to reduce risk to women.