Story: Violence against women with disabilities is often ignored in several countries
The TIME story links to a Human Rights Watch report, Include Women, Girls With Disabilities in Anti-Violence Efforts. According to TIME, this report shows that “Women with disabilities are three times as likely to be raped, physically abused or sexually assaulted,” but are “often ignored when it comes to prevention programs.” This gives reader no context to determine the group to which these women’s experiences are being compared.
The reports on which this article is based reveal a different story than its inference that among the disabled, women are uniquely victimized and face unique discrimination. The story goes on to report that these women are often excluded from violence prevention programs, inferring again that gender is part of the basis for exclusion. However, getting the information behind the claim required some digging. The “Include Women” article links to other articles and quick-reference fact sheets, which selectively present information garnered from research reports, rather than linking to the reports themselves.
The assertion is originally stated in the Human Rights Watch report, which links to various references, not all of which are actually related to that claim. Among these is at least one which contradicted it: Submission on the combined eighth and ninth periodic report of Ecuador to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, February 19, 2015, describes concerns regarding mentally disabled women’s access to abortion services in Equador.
This report states three exceptions to Ecuador’s laws banning abortion. The third one is “when the pregnancy is the result of a rape or statutory rape of a woman with an intellectual or psychosocial disability.” The report does not show discrimination specifically against disabled women in this area but details concern that exceptions aren’t being made for them according to the law. The claim is linked to another report, INFORME SOMBRA al COMITÉ de la CEDAW E cuador 2014. I used Google’s translator to search the report for the source of the claim. The translation is rough but good enough to get the gist of what is being said:
Regulatory Framework in Ecuadorian Health System
In Ecuador abortion is legal on two grounds: for protect the health and lives of women and in the case of the rape of a woman with mental disabilities; to Despite these conditions of legality, do not exist in the protocols and clinical guidelines to ensure the country women’s access to safe abortion.
In other words, facilities aren’t excluding disabled women from care because they’re disabled, or women. Lack of government protocol is preventing them from creating programs uniquely designed to serve these women. The report goes on to state that not having specific protocols in place creates the risk of prosecution for physicians, leading to the risk that physicians will be afraid to perform abortions even when the law permits.
This does not support the claim that women are excluded from violence prevention services. It’s a statement pointing out a lack of a service exclusively for women, not a service offered to men but denied to women. It highlights a circumstance created not by discrimination but by government ineptitude. A law designed to accommodate disabled women is not being properly followed due to lack of government protocol.
It’s also consistent with the information included in other reports this submission cites. It is most often not that programs exclude women or discriminate against them, but that laws in place to help them aren’t properly implemented due to lack of working protocol. While this is a problem, it doesn’t back the claim made in the Human Watch report or Time’s article that female victims of violence are ignored in violence prevention programs. In fact, it contradicts it by showing how workers in these programs are fighting to remedy a condition which impacts only female victims: clouded legal environments surrounding abortion services, a service provided exclusively to women, and in the case of justification by sexual victimization, exclusively to those with disabilities.
Continuing to dig through the links, I opened another link from the Human Rights Watch report: Sudan: Mass Rape by Army in Darfur. This article discusses rape as a war weapon as if it is used strictly against women. It quotes from a report which focused on female victims of an attack on Darfur, to the exclusion of male victims, whose experiences are only briefly mentioned and not fully described. As IRIN ( Integrated Regional Information Networks, a humanitarian news agency covering sub-Saharan Africa) reports in HEALTH: Rape as a “weapon of war” against men, sexual violence is used as a weapon against men in South African conflicts, as well. IRIN reports that such violence is under-reported and poorly addressed due to lack of services. While this does not detract from the seriousness of the issue exposed in the Human Rights Watch report, it does once again contradict the inference that women uniquely ignored. In fact, another Human Rights Watch story linked in the first contains the following paragraph:
During a five-day research trip in November 2014, Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed 42 refugees in South Sudan’s Maban County, and six internally displaced people inside Blue Nile state. The refugees, including 17 women and girls, had recently fled abusive treatment in government towns or villages.
The story goes on to state, “Almost half of the refugees said they had experienced sexual violence themselves, have an immediate family member or neighbor who had, or had witnessed sexual assaults.”
Given a group of refugees in which a majority (25 out of 42, or approximately 60%) were male, Human Rights Watch chose to single out the women and girls, and then in their report failed to state the gender of the sexual violence victims. Further examination of the organization’s publications suggests that the researchers are only asking women and girls about their experiences, thereby excluding information on male victims from their research and reports. However, if that were entirely the case there would have been no reason for the report to mention the male refugees. That they are mentioned suggests that at least some of the refugees recounting experiences with sexual assault were male, and their information was simply not detailed in the report. The information provided is not sufficient to either eliminate or confirm that possibility.
While the organization may have reasons for exclusive reporting on female victims, information gathered with that intention contains a bias that makes it useless as a measure indicating that female victims are excluded from anything. In fact, such exclusive reporting by a human rights organization indicates that if anyone is uniquely ignored in this area, it is male victims.
The links included on Human Rights Watch’s Sexual Violence page referred to in the Include Women article reveal a similar pattern: Continual self-reference and reporting limited to women’s experiences. These are women’s issues articles and reports, not reports which use comparison to show that women are uniquely abused or uniquely excluded from services. Rather than supporting that claim, the research instead provides yet another example of selective presentation of information by media and organizations with feminist or social justice ideological leanings to infer discriminatory conditions the information does not support.
Many of the links lead to information gathered or presented with an exclusive focus on women and girls, even when information on abuse of men and boys is readily available. For instance, the word “institutions” is linked to an article, yet another instance of self-reference, which describes the findings of Human Rights Watch research which only looked into abuses at institutions serving women with intellectual or psychological disabilities.
Human Rights Watch presents India’s mental health care environment as if involuntary admission to an institution by one’s family is legal to do to women, only to women, and without health reasons. However, the Mental Health Act of 1987, part II, section 19, Admission Under Special Circumstances states that “Any mentally ill person who does not, or is unable to, express his willingness for admission as a voluntary patient, may be admitted and kept as an in-patient in a psychiatric nursing hospital or psychiatric nursing home on an application made in that behalf by a relative or a friend of the mentally ill persons if the medical officers-in-charge is satisfied that in the interest of the mentally ill persons it is necessary so to do.” The wording itself indicates that this is not limited to women, or legal to do without medical reasons.
In another article on this topic, Human Rights Watch admits that “men and boys with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities also face abuses,” but excuses ignoring their plight using the claim that women and girls “are particularly marginalized because of their gender and are especially vulnerable to unique forms of neglect and abuse.” This is an example of backing one claim, the inference that women are uniquely victimized, with another, the claim that being female makes women more vulnerable to victimization. It also leads to circular reasoning, as evidence presented for the belief that women are uniquely vulnerable usually involves the claim that women are uniquely victimized.
Later in the “Include Women” article, Human Rights Watch refers to more of its own research, this time a report on HIV and people with disabilities. The second quote in the summary is from a man describing a difficulty in receiving treatment which he has experienced due to his disability.
The problem is that deaf people have no detailed information on AIDS. We can go to the hospital but there is no sign language…The deaf do not know about adherence to medication and it can be a killer.
—Franklyn C., a Zambian man who is deaf and has received training to be a counselor for HIV testing and counseling, Kitwe, January 2014
Apparently because he is male, the organization does not attribute failure to accommodate his needs as a response to his gender. The report contained multiple examples of men and boys whose access to HIV services was limited due to their disabilities. The report indicates that disabled individuals of both sexes commonly experience difficulty with access, not that said difficulty is a female problem. The listed causes of reduced access are inadequate training of healthcare workers, lack of access to condoms and education on how to use them, lack of access to informational materials which accommodate various disabilities, stigma associated with disability, obstacles to testing and treatment, and lack of support for treatment adherence. These are all causes which would impact the individual based on disability, not gender. Knowing this does not detract from women’s experiences or the need to provide better access to services. It simply means that the same is true of men.
Despite this, the authors of the HIV report included statements claiming that women and girls are at greater disadvantage because they lack “equal access to information about gender-based violence, HIV prevention and social protection services.” The report does not explain any ways in which men and boys with disabilities have greater access to these services than women and girls. This is because, according to the source cited in it for that claim, no research was done on male victims. Once again, the assertion that women are uniquely vulnerable relies on research which only reports on female victims because only female experiences were examined.
Compare this to studies which have examined both genders in various populations. In a survey done in Nigeria, Factors Influencing Gender Based Violence among Men and Women in Selected States in Nigeria, approximately 44% of respondents reporting domestic violence were men. This is consistent with reports from western nations such as the United States, where research shows that over half of domestic violence is bi-directional, meaning both partners are violent toward each other. And according to Zambian Minister of Gender Inonge Wina, domestic violence victimization in Zambia is not limited to women and girls.
What about access to health care and violence prevention services? Male victims of sexual and gender based violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo face significant barriers, including some of the same ones mentioned as barriers faced by the disabled. According to the report, Sexual and gender based violence against men in the Democratic Republic of Congo: effects on survivors, their families and the community,
There were several issues associated with accessing needed health care services for male survivors. These included shame, fear of loss of confidentiality in disclosing SGBV to health care providers, lack of financial resources to pay for care and medications, limited capacity of health care providers to care for male survivors of sexual assault, and limited supplies in the local village health centers and hospitals to provide needed treatment, such as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).
The survivors, family and stakeholders stated that the health care and treatment services survivors received only addressed the physical needs of the male survivors. None of the male survivors reported receiving individual or family counseling, or family mediation for reintegrating husbands and wives as well as families. Additionally, participants reported that they do not have access to ongoing health care services for their physical and/or mental health needs in their villages. The health infrastructure in rural DRC lacks basic resources as confirmed by the service providers in all the village health centers.
Human Rights Watch, and by extension TIME, has used exclusive focus on female abuse victims as support for the claim that disabled female abuse victims are ignored in minority-populated countries. This is a gross but not surprising display of hypocrisy and racism.
Their method consists of limiting their examination of the topic to minority women’s experiences and minority women’s outcomes. They then treat the information garnered as an indication that women’s experiences are unique and the outcomes are a result of gender discrimination. The assertions are then released to the media, whose reports are read by laymen who will presume them true without further investigation. The lack of evidence is buried under discussion about unfamiliar cultures and a card-house of biased research and self-referral. Because the general public does not have the tendency to examine these articles for truth, this type of reporting leads to unproved assertions becoming common beliefs. That, in turn, garners support for funding for programs run by the organizations doing the research.
In other words, the organization appears to be marginalizing and demonizing brown-skinned men as batterers and rapists to exploit minority female victim status for profit.
If you like what you read here, please consider becoming Hannah Wallen’s patron. The Brigade runs on donations by readers like you.
- How did gynocentric culture come about? | HBR Talk 305 - April 18, 2024
- Are women the weaker link? | HBR Talk 304 - April 11, 2024
- Some facts about early suffrage might shock you! |HBR Talk 303 - April 4, 2024
by 
Such an important piece. And yes, the circular reasoning..”obviously” men are less vulnerable, so given that axiom, let’s organize, present, study, and frame any results based on that, and the “results” are in: it’s exclusively the female half of humanity that turns out to need more help, protection, support. Have you seen this rare 2011 article in the Guardian, “The rape of men: the darkest secret of war”
As one doctor put it: “female rape is significantly underreported and male rape almost never” So the mainstream view of female rape being “underreported” is not false at all, but the Big Lie is the implicit (or sometimes explicit) other half we’re told, that for males it’s “not much of a problem” instead of the truth that, worse than “under-reported” it’s “almost never” reported. The Guardian writer asks a female researcher about this “and almost never” reported for male victims.
The journalist asks her, could it be that there is in fact a long history of prevalent, widespread sexual violence against men, throughout wars, throughout history? She replies: “No one knows, but I do think it’s safe to say that it’s likely that
it’s been a part of many wars throughout history and that taboo has
played a part in the silence.”
She is Lara Stemple, of the University of California’s Health and Human Rights Law Project. “Her study Male Rape and Human Rights notes incidents of male sexual violence as a weapon of wartime or political aggression in countries such as Chile, Greece, Croatia, Iran, Kuwait, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia. Twenty-one per cent of Sri Lankan males who were seen at a London torture treatment centre reported sexual abuse while in detention. In El Salvador, 76% of male political prisoners surveyed in the 1980s described at least one incidence of sexual torture. A study of 6,000 concentration-camp inmates in Sarajevo found that 80% of men reported having been raped”
But the elephant in the room is the ideological blindness to males being able to be a gender-based “class” that can be uniquely vulnerable, victimized, oppressed, or discriminated again, depending on the specifics of the situation. That’s just UNTHINKABLE and that is the mental and ideological barrier that must be overcome. Until it is, no amount of information or examples will ever work to wake people up.
On the other hand, examples are useful for waking people up if included as support for a direct, explicit challenge to readers and viewers, telling them: yes, men can be specifically and sometimes uniquely targeted or victimized.
Having society understand this fact is a sine qua non for MHRM to advance. I’m working on a piece with some almost funny examples of this societal blindness, but being far slower than the stars of HBB at getting from draft to a finished piece, let me mention two examples quickly:
As a progressive who listens to progressive media, they talk about Stop and Frisk, and they are honest enough to say the victims are (usually young, though not always) and otherwise they honestly say it: “black males” are the target. Then they go on to frame the story, the headline, as being about “racism” Nothing about “misandry” or even SAME (Sexism at Mens Expense / Sexism at Male Expense) is ever there, but exclusively a focus on “racism”
Not that can make one angry or can be “shaking my head” funny, but it tells us something else: it’s not conscious, it’s not deliberate, it’s blindness. Why? If it were not blindness, they would cover up the facts. They would not say “black males” they would say “black people”. They would not make it so easy and blatant, if it was on purpose. The it is not on purpose doesn’t make it “less bad” it makes is more insidiously difficult to root out, to awaken people
But it’s striking how even when it’s right there in front of your eyes: “black males” are the target, and then next sentence, is not about “race and gender” not about anti-black and anti-male, but just about “racism”
It’s almost comical how blind they are to what they just reported were the targeted demographics.
Second and last example is a woman feminist scolding her fellow female feminists for honoring a male because feminists have apparently been way too accommodating to the men. Then she says, it might have been a mistake or just misused, that feminism admitted that “men can be victims” of “Patriarchy”
She says (very kind of her) that yes, sometimes men can be victims, not just victims but victims DUE to their being male. But what does she say almost in the same breath? That she’s annoyed at her fellow feminists for including one particular male to honor because they “try too hard” to include men because why? Because for men gender based discrimination is “purely theoretical”! Has your brain exploded yet?
Truly almost comical, surreal too… If it were deliberate she would have tried to hide it, or deny it, or not say that yes, men are victims, just literally two or so paragraphs earlier…But the framing of “Patriarchy” makes that “admission” very superficial..given that framing, no matter how much one “admits” to themselves that men unique suffer, it’s never a real full authentic understanding…leaving them able to say, in the next breath, that, as we all “know” victimhood is purely “theoretical” for males….hence working title of “The problem with filing everything under ‘Patriarchy'” for one piece, and another post, also citing this example, on just this core problem of ideologically *defining* men out of any class to do with being a victim, or targetted, oppressed, or vulenrable.
That’s the central core of denial that we must break through. The radical notion that men and boys are not only people, but that they face their own particular, often unique, sets of discriminations and oppressions, victimizations and so on.
Some quotes from the Guardian article, parts capitalized for emphasis:
“I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE REPORT INSISTED THE DEFINITION OF RAPE BE RESTRICTED TO WOMEN,” he says, adding that one of the RLP’s donors, Dutch Oxfam, refused to provide any more funding UNLESS HE’D PROMISE THAT 70% OF HIS CLIENT BASE WAS FEMALE.
He also recalls a man whose case was “particularly bad” and was
referred to the UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR. “THEY TOLD HIM: ‘WE
HAVE A PROGRAMME FOR VULNERABLE WOMEN, BUT NOT MEN.'”
…It reminds me of a scene described by Eunice Owiny: “There is a
married couple,” she said. “THE MAN HAS BEEN RAPED, THE WOMAN HAS BEEN RAPED. Disclosure is easy for the woman. she gets the medical treatment, she gets the attention, she’s supported by so many
organisations. but the man is inside, dying.”
But when I contact Stemple by email, SHE DESCRIBES A “CONSTANT DRUM BEAT THAT WOMEN ARE THE RAPE VICTIMS” and a milieu in which men are treated as a “MONOLITHIC PERPETRATOR CLASS”.
“INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW LEAVES OUT MEN IN NEARLY ALL INSTRUMENTS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS SEXUAL VIOLENCE,” SHE CONTINUES.
“The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000 treats wartime sexual violence as something that only impacts on women and girls… Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced $44m to implement this resolution. Because of its entirely exclusive focus on female victims, it seems unlikely that any of these new funds will reach the thousands of men and boys who suffer from this kind of abuse. Ignoring male rape not only neglects men, it also harms women by reinforcing a viewpoint that equates ‘female’ with ‘victim’, thus hampering our ability to see women as strong and empowered. In the same way, silence about male victims reinforces unhealthy expectations about men and their supposed invulnerability.” she says
Back at RLP I’m told about the other ways in which their clients have
been made to suffer. MEN AREN’T SIMPLY RAPED, they are forced to
penetrate holes in banana trees that run with acidic sap, to sit with
their genitals over a fire, to drag rocks tied to their penis,, to give oral sex to queues of soldiers, to be penetrated with screwdrivers and sticks. Atim has now seen so many male survivors that, frequently, she can spot them the moment they sit down. “They tend to lean forward and will often sit on one buttock,” she tells me. “When they cough, they grab their lower regions. At times, they will stand up and there’s blood on the chair. And they often have some kind of smell.”
..Often, she says, wives who discover their husbands have been raped
DECIDE TO LEAVE THEM…’If he can be raped, who is protecting me?'”
“IN AFRICA NO MAN IS ALLOWED TO BE VULNERABLE,” says RLP’s gender officer Salome Atim. “You have to be masculine, strong. YOU SHOULD NEVER BREAK DOWN OR CRY…When he FAILS to reach that set standard, society perceives that there is something WRONG” with him. And it’s not just “in Africa” but everywhere.
From article by Will Storr, Saturday 16 July 2011 19.05 EDT
“The rape of men: the darkest secret of war” in the Guardian
Anyone else notice increasingly the exclusion of help for boys and men in the developing world? It started with that “Because I Am A Girl” charity effort by Care International, then you had word come out that the World Food Program only provides food aid to females because it’s allegedly the best way to ensure that all members of a family receive food, and now even private corporations like Stella Artois create charity efforts that, amongst other things, strive to provide clean drinking water TO GIRLS AND WOMEN. And I’m sure I’m missing a bunch more examples.
Does it surprise me that Human Rights Watch and mainstream publications turn a blind eye to male victims in favour of exhaustive coverage of female victims? I wish I could say it does…but at this point, it really doesn’t. And this one sided narrative or representation of ‘best interests’ are not just present in the developing world.
I recall a couple of weeks back, the medical community encouraging the Government of Ontario to begin providing boys with the HPV vaccine free of charge, the way they’ve been providing to girls for at least the last decade. Yet while the message to support giving it to girls was “you can protect girls from cancer,” the message to support giving it to boys was “it could save the health care system millions of dollars.”
The level of dehumanization of boys and men throughout the Western media…is almost sociopathic, isn’t it?
You might want to check out The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers. The examples are pretty appalling.
Hannah, is this the place to talk to you about Wikipedia? You told me on the chat to contact you here but I can’t see where.