I am dismayed by the number of references to "Violence Against Women and Girls" in the Labour Party Conference documentation. This VAWG terminology is used repeatedly in both the NPF reports (attached) and the CLP/affiliate motions. The proper term is "Men's Violence Against Women and Girls". The use of the term VAWG without identifying Men as the perpetrators of the violence locates the issue with the women and relieves the men of their accountability.
This article explores the problem more fully:
Quotes: "Let's name the problem. Let's give them the responsibility they certainly have earned. Women don't get raped by streets or by alcohol or by parties or by their homes. They get raped by men in these places. They don't get beaten by a mystical force, their partners beat them."
.... 'Jane was raped by Paul'. [vs] 'Paul raped Jane'.
"If 'Violence Against Women' triggers an 'Oh dear, those poor women' response, 'Men's Violence Against Women' triggers a 'Who are these men?' response. Now we know who's causing it. Now it feels like we can, or should, do something about who's causing it."
I noted one instance of the term "Male Violence Against Women and Girls", but "Male" is not a proper substitute for the term "Men" in the language of gendered violence. The contributor "White Ribbon" provides the only correct use of the terminology "Men's Violence Against Women and Girls" - in an quote from its submission in the NPF report.
Do you agree that as a policy Labour we should be naming "Men" in our "Violence Against Women and Girls" terminology?