# Gender Violence



## Pearl

Hi Group!

We seem to have serious trouble in Spain when giving a noun to the fact.

While in the U.S. and G.B. the expression "Gender Violence" has been totally accepted, in Spain, due to political interests in my opinion, as they want to decrease figures, they prefer domestic violence, as they state that the word "gender" is only used when referring to linguistics.

Of course domestic violence only includes statistics of facts occured among home walls, while gender violence, is real everywhere, inside and outside our homes. 

Thank you all for your comments!

Pearl


----------



## marposa

Pearl said:
			
		

> Hi Group!
> 
> We seem to have serious trouble in Spain when giving a noun to the fact.
> 
> While in the U.S. and G.B. the expression "Gender Violence" has been totally accepted, in Spain, due to political interests in my opinion, as they want to decrease figures, they prefer domestic violence, as they state that the word "gender" is only used when referring to linguistics.
> 
> Of course domestic violence only includes statistics of facts occured among home walls, while gender violence, is real everywhere, inside and outside our homes.
> 
> Thank you all for your comments!
> 
> Pearl



Please take no offence, but why do you say "*We * seem to have serious trouble *in Spain*...", when your profile states you are from Catalonia (and not Spain)??. Just seems funny.


----------



## Pearl

Dear Marposa,

I obviously didn't say that the problem arrised when politicians had to put a name to the Law against Gender Violence and, for the time being, as you may know, Catalonia is centrally governed by the Spanish government.

No ofense at all.

But, could I have your opinion upon my request ?

Regards,

Pearl


----------



## LadyBlakeney

I do not wish to discuss on social or political issues in this forum, for I believe it is not what it was created for, so apart from what wording of the concept Spanish law may have acquired (I ignore the law's definition of it), I would like to inform all non-Spanish members that in Spain we also use the expression "violencia de género" (gender violence) besides from "violencia doméstica" (domestic violence).

Always interested in language matters,

Lady B.


----------



## valerie

hello, 

One of the commonly used terms is 'violencia de género' as a direct litteral translation of english. The problem is that 'género' does not mean 'sex' in spanish:

género sustantivo masculino1  (= clase) kind; type
este festival es el único en su género this festival is unique of its kind
género humano human race; mankind 
2  (Arte, literatura) genre; type
pintor de género genre painter
género literario literary genre 
3  (lingüística) gender 
4  (biología) genus 
5  géneros (comercio) goods
géneros de punto  (España) knitwear singular 
6  (= tela) cloth; material  

'Violencia sexual' has other meaning, restricted only to sexual related actions.

I understand 'Violencia domestica' refers to violence between persons in a family or a love/sex relationship. Does it include violence exerted by a son to her old mother, or by parents to children?

I personnaly like this term because of the choking contrast between the two words. It stresses how banal and trivial this violence is.


----------



## Pearl

Please excuse me if it seems I'm looking for a socio-political answer. That's not the point. I just explained the background of my doubt so that I could understand better how do U.S. and G.B. speakers accept "gender" instead of "domestic"... My opinion in this case is not relevant.

Best regards,

Pearl


----------



## Faboo

"O los que, en vez de violencia doméstica o por razón de sexo, que sería lo correcto y además es lo que más o menos recomienda la RAE al interesado en averiguarlo, recurren a ese violencia de género tan caro a periodistas, feministas y políticos de todo signo, olvidando –o tal vez no lo supieron nunca– que en la lengua española el género corresponde a los conjuntos de seres, a las cosas, a las situaciones, a las palabras, pero no a las personas. Una silla, una botella, una pistola, pertenecen al género femenino. Lo que tienen un hombre o una mujer no es género, sino sexo. Afortunadamente. "


Arturo Pérez-Reverte (Artículo "Mis imanes me miman" de "El Semanal" nº 866)

`nuff said!


----------



## VenusEnvy

To Valerie:
When we (English-speakers) say "Domestic Violence", it usually refers to married couples, or couples living together. I say usually because violence between husbands and wives is a controversial issue, to it usually takes precedent. However, it can also refer to any violence that takes place within the confines of the home. This is why, consequently, we use the word "domestic" when referring to anything pertaining to living in a house.

"Domestic animals" = pets
"Domestic chores" = household duties
"Domestic violence" = violence that takes places in the home

Pearl:
"Gender violence" and "domestic violence" are two different concepts to English-speakers. If not to English-speakers, than to women, or those interested in the social sciences.

"Gender violence" should actually be referred to as "Gender-based Violence". Most of the time, when speaking about "Gender-based Violence", it is often assumed that women are the victims. "Gender-based Violence" can include beating, killing, raping, incest, emotional abuse etc.

Is it clear why the two concepts are so very different?

Try this site: http://www.ippf.org/resource/gbv/ma98/1.htm


----------



## marposa

Hi Pearl,

In my opinion, it is very difficult to name this concept.

I agree that people do not have a "género" in Spanish, and therefore "violencia de género" does not seem accurate to me.

On the other hand, I am not so sure that "violencia por razón de sexo" is correct either (what happens if the victim and the abuser are both of the same sex?)

And "violencia doméstica"... I think it probably does not refer to the concept of home as the PLACE where the abuse occurs, but rather to the relationship between the victim and the abuser (implying there is an affective bond between them).

I am sorry but I cannot think of anything else to explain this better... I would probably choose "violencia doméstica" if I had to pick one.

Hasta luego


----------



## LadyBlakeney

I agree with Marposa and I apologize to Pearl for misunderstanding her post.

I would choose "violencia doméstica" because it contains the specific meaning we are discussing here in the minds of Spanish speakers. As for "violencia por razón de sexo", it would be a good translation into Spanish of the English term.


----------



## Pearl

Thank you all for your input.

LadyBlakeney, no need to apologize. 

Thank you all for correcting my mistakes :


----------



## e_dumalet

Hi every body, I'm new to this communtiy, and mainly wants to dicsuss gender issues... SO:
I don't speak spanish (I'm French), but I would propose the following translation: "violence sexualisée", in English "sexualised violence". It could occur outside the family. For instance, any homophobic violence is a gender (sexualized) violence, since it refers to the sexuality of the violent person, as well as the sexuality of the one who is submitted to his/her violence.

Abuse at work because a person is male or female, straight or gay, is a sexualised violence. There are some domestic violence that are not sexualized, such as a mother/father beating up his/her son just because they don't manage anger well.

I would even say that mocking or psycholigically abuse someone because he's a virgin, or a nun, is some kind of sexualized violence.

I think the concept of gender is interesting: it's one assumes his/her sexuality, as well as how society influences this assumption. As such, male/female heterosexuality or homosexuality, religious consecration, and so on, are all specific genders.

I just think that, even in English, the word is not clear enough.

Although I hope to have been clear myself , and that those remarks helped, Pearl! I am looking forward to reading some of you guys' comments!


----------



## modgirl

Just to make a distinction. Male and female are classifications of one's *sex*. *Gender* is a term that is applicable to words only. Unfortunately, however, many people don't realize that and are using *gender* to describe people.

Eg.  My *sex* is female.  I don't have a *gender*!

However, the *gender* of the word *doe* is female.


----------



## e_dumalet

I respectfully disagree... A whole development in philosphy developped "gender" as an essential element of one's personality: it's how one lives his sexuality as well as how a given society represents sexuality.

No?


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

I find "domestic violence" a good name for it. It expresses that the violence happens at home (it doesn't necessarily happen at home, but it happens between people who live together).
"Gender violence" means the violence is only because of the gender, I don't think it's because of that. There are also women that poison their husbands, I don't think it's a war between the masculine and the femenine sex, but a war between family members.


----------



## VenusEnvy

Oh my Gosh, memories. My very first post ever was in this thread...


----------



## LV4-26

As a Frenchman I understand the problems that the Spaniards have when it comes to translate "gender violence". In French I've heard "violence de genre" and it sounds totally weird because the word "genre" has so many meanings and the one referred to in the expression is far from being the most obvious. So you think of everything except what is meant.
It might be the same in Spanish ?


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> As a Frenchman I understand the problems that the Spaniards have when it comes to translate "gender violence". In French I've heard "violence de genre" and it sounds totally weird because the word "genre" has so many meanings and the one referred to in the expression is far from being the most obvious. So you think of everything except what is meant.
> It might be the same in Spanish ?


 
I don't know what to tell you, unfortunately it's an expression that we hear every single day, I don't think there is another country in Europe with so many cases of domestic or gender violence... so it sounds actually too familiar and natural to me


----------



## e_dumalet

LV4-26, I agree with you... And believe ne, it's a real hassle when you have to translate some feminist etxts into french, like me! In French, you just replace gender by "sexe". Used as an adjective (or "gendered" comes around), you can work you way by replacing it by some kind of expression (like for gender-based), according to the context. But when it comes to philosophical notion, I cannot see other word but *sexualisation*...

What think thou? Or do you have other ideas.


----------



## LV4-26

Pearl said:
			
		

> ... due to political interests...


You're probably right.



			
				Pearl said:
			
		

> they state that the word "gender" is only used when referring to linguistics.


*They*'re probably right.
In these circumstances, the truth serves their interests. But it's the truth nonetheless.
In English, the word "gender" recently came to refer to a person's sex or to something more complicated along the lines of the philosophical movement e_dumalet alluded to. But this evolution is fairly recent. I've read that it even comes to the point that sometimes they ask for your gender (instead of your sex) on application forms. 

But this shift of meaning never reached either Spain or France. So that _género_ and _genre _do not mean anything connected to a person's sex, but still keep the old meaning :_ a grammatical classification of nouns and related words.

_Of course, the fact that a word is inappropriate mustn't be a reason to deny that the reality it designates actually exists. But that's a different problem that should be discussed in the cultural forum.

PS : "violence de genre" sounds really funny, almost laughable in French. Can we really use a laughable expression for such a serious matter ?


----------



## cuchuflete

e_dumalet said:
			
		

> I would propose the following translation: "violence sexualisée", in English "sexualised violence".



It may work in French, but it's somewhere between dreadful and meaningless in English.   Violence as a noun cannot be modified thus.  This unfortunate attempt at a neologism, sexualised violence, implies that the violence itself has been infused by sex.  While sex may be a motive for violence, the violence itself is asexual.
Through common use, or misuse, 'gender' is becoming widely accepted in AE as a synonym for sex.  You may blame that on American Puritanism.  We had and have a perfectly descriptive term, sexual violence, but most people prefer to talk about violence associated with sex by supressing the obvious word and substituting an incorrect euphemism.

Through abundant usage, the incorrect will become correct.   Linguistic violence?  Repeated misdemeanors against a language lead not to punishment, but to lexicographic legislation declaring the crime to be 'decriminalized'.  That's English evolution.


----------



## panjandrum

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Through common use, or misuse, 'gender' is becoming widely accepted in AE as a synonym for sex. You may blame that on American Puritanism. We had and have a perfectly descriptive term, sexual violence, but most people prefer to talk about violence associated with sex by supressing the obvious word and substituting an incorrect euphemism.
> 
> Through abundant usage, the incorrect will become correct. Linguistic violence? Repeated misdemeanors against a language lead not to punishment, but to lexicographic legislation declaring the crime to be 'decriminalized'. That's English evolution.


I struggled long and hard to preserve the distinction between sex and gender in conversations on the implications of our equality legislation. This includes the Sex Discrimination Order, which, as its name suggests, is entirely comfortable using sex, not gender.
Unfortunately, those responsible for implementing and monitoring the legilation insisted on substituting gender. Every time I insisted they should be talking about sex, they refused. I blame that on N Irish Puritanism, a close relative ofthe US variety.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Would marital violence work??

In Spanish... violencia matrimonial, but sometimes it happens between people who are not married... 

I don't know...


----------



## LV4-26

Oh yes I suppose it would. But then so does "domestic violence" in the same sense.
The only problem (if I've understood what was said at the beginning of this thread) is that "domestic violence" leaves out that sort of "gender" violence that takes place outside the home (not between spouses).


----------



## timpeac

modgirl said:
			
		

> Just to make a distinction. Male and female are classifications of one's *sex*. *Gender* is a term that is applicable to words only. Unfortunately, however, many people don't realize that and are using *gender* to describe people.
> 
> Eg. My *sex* is female. I don't have a *gender*!
> 
> However, the *gender* of the word *doe* is female.


 
A gender is a grammatical abstract term and cannot therefore be female. I think you mean the gender of the word doe is feminine (although I'm not sure that's true - some people might refer to female animals as "she" or "her" but I am not one of them - but that's another discussion!!).

Pearl - for the record I would not say the term "gender violence" is common in the UK - I've never heard it before reading this thread. However, on reading the title, before reading this thread, I can say that I was expecting to read about "gender-based" violence eg people who have a penchant for hitting people of a certain sex, rather than domestic violence necessarily. "Domestic violence" is still the usual term here for hitting your partner, as far as I know.


----------



## cuchuflete

We have a curious case of chronological abuse, though not violence, here. Pearl started this thread in August of last year. And still some kind foreros are addressing their answers to her.  Interesting.

Before finding the right translation, it might be interesting to define terms.

What, precisely, is sexual violence?
What is domestic violence, and where does it occur?
Can these two terms overlap?  If so, which should take precedence, and why?

Rape is a violent criminal act.  It is sexual.  It may occur in the home, or between people who share a home.  Who gains what by classifying it as either sexual violence or as domestic violence?   The word is strong and specific in its meaning.  Why water it down with neologisms?


----------



## e_dumalet

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This unfortunate attempt at a neologism, sexualised violence, implies that the violence itself has been infused by sex. While sex may be a motive for violence, the violence itself is asexual.



Cuchuflete, thank you very much for your input. Very insightful indeed. I'd to like to add something though...

First, I wouldn't say that "sexualised" is a neologism since it already exists. Second, if it doesn't work in english, then it wouldn't work in french either...

The use of this suffix has some advantages, the first one being that then the word would be at last easily translatatable into most languages. It would just necessitate to clarify its meaning.

Gender as such can be translated as "genre" in French or, I suppose "genero" in spanish. But The adjective "gendered" or the verb "to gender", that I encountered in some texts of Judith Butler, get tough.

Let us refer to "sexualisation" (which is on the other hand a neologism). The suffix could litterally mean the process by which something is sexualised, that is by which it made sexed, from a neutral genderto a male or female one; or it could signify as well the result of suxch a process.

But sexualisation could very well cover, in a more technical way if you want, in a philosophical context, the definition given by Judith Butler of gender: "the social meanings that sex assumes", or "the social construction of sex". That is, the process (or its result) by which a person is assuming his/her sex, in a certain social and cultural milieu. It wouldn't mean, then, this infusion you were talking about, ie. the process by which something becomes sexed, but rather the process by which something assumes his or her sex. A person going throught his sexualisation would then mean that this person is assuming his male or her female biological reality in acertain way, either because of the social paradigms imposed on hi,/her, or because of his/her choices.

Sorry to have been so long... 
And hope you would comment what is only an attempt, cuchuflete


----------



## Gil

"sexualisation" existe déjà depuis un certain temps.  Voir TLFi:


> DÉR. Sexualisation, subst. fém. Action de sexualiser, résultat de cette action. a) Biol. Fait d'acquérir les caractères spécifiques d'un sexe déterminé. L'½uf (...) engendre (...) un appareil génital qui va se sexualiser progressivement (...). Mais les hormones continueront d'assurer cette sexualisation bien au-delà de la vie embryonnaire (S. LILAR, Le Couple, 1963, p. 206). La tendance de base de l'embryon humain est la féminité, (...) tout le processus de sexualisation masculine se déroule comme une lutte visant à étouffer cette féminisation originelle (Le Monde, 8 nov. 1978, p. 13, col. 1). b) Fait d'acquérir des valeurs sexuelles, d'être imprégné de sexualité. V. supra ex. de Divin. 1964.  [].  1res attest. a) 1914 « fait de donner un caractère sexuel à » (E. RÉGIS et A. HESNARD, La Psychoanalyse des névroses et des psychoses, Alcan, p. 246 ds QUEM. DDL t. 21: la Sexualisation du monde extérieur), b) 1932 biol. (G. BOHN, in Mercure de France, t. 1, p. 164, ibid. t. 28: la sexualisation du protoplasma); de sexualiser, suff. -(a)tion*.


----------



## LV4-26

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> We have a curious case of chronological abuse, though not violence, here. Pearl started this thread in August of last year. And still some kind foreros are addressing their answers to her. Interesting.


In my case it's only interesting in that it goes to show that I don't bother to look at the dates above the posts. . (phew, what a sentence, hope it's clear and correct) I thought it was a recent thread.


----------



## timpeac

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> In my case it's only interesting in that it goes to show that I don't bother to look at the dates above the posts. . (phew, what a sentence, hope it's clear and correct) I thought it was a recent thread.


 
No, I didn't look either - but are we really addressing just the original poster, even when we use their name? I'd say not otherwise we'd be private messaging.


----------



## cuchuflete

e_dumalet-

The only way I can give you an honest answer is to go off-topic.  I despise jargon.
Jargon has three potential purposes: clear communication, inclusion, and exclusion.

The terms we are discussing do not communicate clearly without paragraphs of glossing and detailed explanation. They are attempts at "insider terms" to be understood easily by specialists in a field of interest. Those who would use them comfortably are included, while the average reader is *ex*cluded.  It reminds me of so much business, academic and goverment babble.

That's why I requested definitions, before continuing the quest for a single phrase.
It may not be good marketing to use existing words, but often these communicate better.

Earlier I mentioned rape. If it occurs in a home, between people who share a dwelling--married or otherwise, perhaps even a parent and his child--it would seem to be domestic violence, and also gender violence. What benefit does anyone other than a statistician gain from such classifications? What is being communicated? To whom? Why? 

Pearl asked a very good question a year ago: What term should one use for *a noun?* Before naming it, we need to define it, and then see what generally understood words may be available to describe it. Unless...one is a social anthropologist or Ph.D. candidate trying to invent new jargon, and sound properly learned. If that is an objective, I'll just go hide in the "Jargon" thread and add results found here to the list of linguistic atrocities.
Gil presented good evidence of the existence of "sexualisation". If my very limited ability to read his language has served me, one of the meanings is to acquire sexual apparatus. This can occur with a fetus, when it develops sexual organs. Does a crime have sexual organs, or does it sometimes involve them? 
"Fait d'acquérir des valeurs sexuelles, d'être imprégné de sexualité." Is there a cross-lingual pun in this sentence? Regardless, I am not aware of any crime that has '...des valeurs sexuelles', rather it may have sexual motivations and sexual consequences. 

« fait de donner un caractère sexuel à » Very well. You have proved it is not a neologism. Nonetheless, the term 'sexualised violence' is a creative contortion of existing words, and it only communicates when accompanied by detailed supporting text. Without that support, I might assume it to be a description of a fight between two roosters. They fight for the ability to copulate with females. Does the as yet unrevealed definition include fights between same sex opponents seeking the right to pair with the other sex?


----------



## foxfirebrand

All these "modified" forms of violence reek of euphemism and political correctitude.  In other words there's a reason for lovers of the language and good style to despise them, and a reason for people with common sense to deplore them for extra-linguistic or extra-literary reasons.

If Ugly Judith is clubbed by a bunch of goons because they have nothing better to do, the crime is aggravated assault.  This is violence, and if you want "clarity," refer to the legal definition. 

"Domestic violence" is common in everyday speech, and there are good practical reasons for having a different term for the beating Ugly Judith gets at home and the one she imposes on some pretty girl in the bar.  But these reasons are  pragmatic and have to do with police work, not social issues.  The logistic problem with "domestic violence" is that when (as is usually the case in fights) the parties both make a case that the other is at fault, you can't admonish the culprits, separate them and send them home-- they _are_ at home.  Time-honored practice has shown that if you leave them together they'll most likely go back at it, so you have to separate them, and that entails hauling somebody in.

For political reasons, these pragmatic differences are appropriated by those who have "issues" with crimes against women or foreigners or ugly people-- I mean beyond the objections all good people have against violent crimes.

To my thinking, this is unfair to victims who don't fall into the "preferred" category-- the pretty girl who got beat up by Ugly Judith.  If Judith was responding to a taunt, the crime of assault was mitigated-- especially if it was in response to "fighting words."  If Judith simply fights when she's bored, the crime is assault, and the randomness of the action will sometimes be a factor in charging assault in the first degree-- but usually that charge entails hunting a specific victim down with malice aforethought.  Use of a weapon makes it aggravated assault.

If Jude beats up pretty girls because she resents being ugly, her crime is assault.  If she only beats up ambiguosly Eurasian-looking girls, pretty or not, because God alone knows why-- the crime is assault.

In my opinion the language doesn't benefit from euphemisms, and my dislike of them is far more sweeping than most people's, I'll grant that.  "Hate crime" is a particularly odious one, but for reasons that exceed the purview of language-- the phrase "thought crimes," which used to be anathema to civil libertarians, is all the explanation I'll venture on the "social issues" level.

The problem with "special case" euphemisms on the language level is, they water down the language.  Call assault "bashing" to indicate a special case of assault, say against homosexuals, and you take a step in the wrong direction.  Eventually crime against a protected group is described in terms that imply privilege-- I won't go into the politics of that, but in linguistic terms, it means that the idea evolves that _any_ crime against such groups is more heinous than the same crime would be, if it were only Ugly Judith getting "bashed."  

The next thing you know, the word "bashing" is used to describe any offense whatsoever against the group-- or worse, anyone who wants to make his sense of victimhood more serious by citing membership in the protected group, whether it's relevent to the facts in the crime or not.  Name-calling is "bashing," derogatory jokes are proscribed (a crime in itself) because someone perceives them as "bashing," legitimate criticism that has nothing to do with criteria for membership in the protected group-- you guessed it, "bashing."

"Gender violence," or whatever ugly (sorry, Judith) euphemistic term you want to use, is particularly offensive to me.  Violence against women is either rape, battery, assault-- or "emotional abuse" if none of this watering-down of the word _violence_ bothers you.

It's said that enurement to violence (by too much TV-watching, say) is one of the most serious problems we have as a society.  Violence against language does a lot to bring this enurement about.  Who needs it?


----------



## modgirl

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> All these "modified" forms of violence reek of euphemism and political correctitude.


 
I know we're getting off-topic, but I could not agree with you more.

Is a parent's child any "less" dead depending on the reason that the child was killed?

Is the opposite of a _hate_ crime a _love_ crime?

Let's get real....


----------



## cuchuflete

I nominate FFB's post #32 as the best of the year for support of clear speech that says what it means.  

Thanks,
Cuchu


PS-

How can we translate a mush term that nobody except Kräuter_Fee has even attempted to define?


----------



## foxfirebrand

Thanks, Cuchu-- 

I meant to take my argument about watering down the language a step farther.  If the term "bashing" comes to include less and less serious crimes against a protected group, it ends up being used for anything negative-- even legitimate criticism.

The next thing you know, "bashing" means simple criticism of _anyone,_ and the attempt to extend special protection to certain victims, or wean people from their scapegoating instincts, or otherwise modify human behavior-- is defeated.  "Bashing" even takes on a positive connotation, as in the sentiment that "Bush-bashing is fun!"

And for some, the softening and ultimate rejection of the terminology of well-intentioned social engineers-- causes many to more deeply disregard the issues they were meant to embrace with a duly "raised consciousness."


----------



## munyeca

Even in the US, though, the term "Gender Violence" beats around the bush. Maybe I'm mistaken about how it is used, but from my understanding of the meaning, it would be better in both languages to call it what it is:
violence perpetrated specifically against women by men. 

It's not as catchy as the alternatives. "Men attacking women" is shorter. Regardless, English is my native language, I go to a politically active college, and when I hear the term "gender violence" that is specifically and expressly how the people around me use it. 

munyeca


----------



## Brioche

munyeca said:
			
		

> Even in the US, though, the term "Gender Violence" beats around the bush. Maybe I'm mistaken about how it is used, but from my understanding of the meaning, it would be better in both languages to call it what it is:
> violence perpetrated specifically against women by men.
> 
> It's not as catchy as the alternatives. "Men attacking women" is shorter. Regardless, English is my native language, I go to a politically active college, and when I hear the term "gender violence" that is specifically and expressly how the people around me use it.
> 
> munyeca


 
I suppose a _politically active college_ is one where only women are victims, and only men are villains.


----------



## nycphotography

I for one (and I seem to be quite alone defending this particular hill) think that all violence is very easily described in very simple terms regarding personal rights and community rights, without ever requiring a single qualifying adjective such as gender, gay, domestic, racial, hate, ad infinitum.

Pure and simple, either one person violates the rights of another, and comittes a violent offence, or they don't.

Attaching all these "touchy feely" adjectives to it (gender crimes, domestic violence, hate crimes, blah blah blah blah blah) does absolutely NOTHING except add a layer of smoke, mirrors, and mental masturbation to a concept that was already perfectly clear and required zero clarification.

Of course, as an American, I have come to expect no less from our polticians, our media, our community ahem leaders, and our citizens.  Nobody ever wants to use language to arrive at or to convey the truth.  Rather they seem hellbent on using language to twist warp and pervert the truth until it matches whatever funny notion they have about what it _should_ be.

I think this goes to the very core of language itself, namely INTENT.  Why do we allow ourselves to get lost in pedantic arguments that circle the bowl endlessly, when the intent of the speaker is so much more important?  And why do we, with such predictable gullability, trust the intent of the speaker based solely on whether its coming from our own "family" (or party, or club, or friends, etc)???


----------



## nycphotography

munyeca said:
			
		

> violence perpetrated specifically against women by men.


 
Actually, Its just plain violence period.  To distinguish between one so called type of violence vs another is to allow yourself to sucked into commenting on and participating in someone else's agenda.

To ALL users of language I ask one question:  Do you like having words put into your mouth?  If not, then you should prevent it.  How?  By challenging those who would presume to speak for you.  By stripping the language you encounter of it is spin, its bias, and identifying the subtle lies being perpetrated in the messages you encounter.


----------



## foxfirebrand

nycphotography said:
			
		

> I for one (and I seem to be quite alone defending this particular hill) think that all violence is very easily described in very simple terms....


You don't seem to be quite alone-- have you read the thread?
.


----------



## nycphotography

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> You don't seem to be quite alone-- have you read the thread?
> .


 
Not quite alone.  I originally missed yours in the middle (apparently the thread predates my arrival).  

But after I posted mine, I was rereading and found it.. and I must say, we do seem to be defending the same hill ;-)

I felt like you said what I meant in better words than I ever could have.  Then I reread my own version, and decided that I'm ok with mine too, we just have different styles and slightly different angles on things.


----------



## munyeca

nycphotography said:
			
		

> To distinguish between one so called type of violence vs another is to allow yourself to sucked into commenting on and participating in someone else's agenda.


 
I agree with that; well said. (Though I would say also that there's nothing wrong with having an agenda and that you can wield some phrases to your own advantage there.) I should have phrased my comment less politically and more linguistically. My obscured point--that was responding to the first post--is this:
when people use the term "Gender Violence" in the US, they are referring to men's violence against women. There's no reason to lament the fact that you can't say "gender violence" in Spanish, because the phrase itself is already evasive in English. 

General phrases like "Domestic Violence" or "Spousal Abuse" sound like they could mean women attacking men as well, but--through the short span of my life--I have never heard them used that way. Using those phrases to talk specifically about men, who are physically or sexually (and maybe verbally or emotionally) abusing women, is inaccurate. Vagueness makes "Gender Violence" inaccurate as well because it is imprecise. To avoid having words put in your mouth, you must also say exactly what you mean.


----------



## foxfirebrand

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Then I reread my own version, and decided that I'm ok with mine too, we just have different styles and slightly different angles on things.



Definitely-- and two heads are better than one, especially since we're on the right side of the issue.  
.


----------



## ALAWEB

Hi Group!

First of all, give a new: THIS IS MY FIRST COMUNICATE IN A FORO.

Excuse me for my little English level. When I dnon't know a word in English I'll write it in Spanish. May be it don't correct but I think you coudl excuse me, ok ??

I'll start, saying some ideas over this matter:

In Spain the concept: GENDER VIOLENCE (Violencia de Género) we use to speack over VIOLENCES FROM MAN TO WOMAN and the necessary to be COUPLE OR EX-COUPLE. Is it clair ??

So, in Spain the concept: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (Violencia Doméstica) is much big concept than GENDER VIOLENCE. The Domestic Violence is for any kind of violence beetwen members of the same family, incluind people that live in this home. They don't why juridic join. Is it clair ??

Excuse me, one more time, for my English level.

I don't know if thes two ideas are clairs. Do you want to anwers me ??  

Thank you all for your comments!


----------



## cuchuflete

Welcome to the forums, Alaweb!

This thread is about three years old, and has languages other than English.
This forum is now strictly monolingual, English Only.  

Your contribution is perfectly clear (note: it is not 'clair', but _clear.)

_As further discussion of Spanish legal concepts really does not belong is a forum
dedicated to English usage, this thread is now closed.

We look forward to seeing more of you in the forums, Alaweb.

Un saludo,
cuchuflete


----------

