For the first time ever, the Government has used the word femicide – the killing of women and girls – in its strategy to tackle men’s violence against women and girls and does so three times. However, it appears they separate intimate partner and family perpetrated killings of women (domestic homicides) outside, not within, the concept of femicide. This is not the case, intimate partner and family perpetrated killings of women by men are femicides. This is internationally recognised.
Femicide is arguably the most serious form of men’s violence against women and girls. Our work has shown that on average, every three days, a woman is killed by a man in the UK. You would not have known this from the three previous national strategies to tackle men’s violence against women and girls; none of which even addressed the killing of women and girls, let alone as a strategic priority. We are pleased that Labour’s new strategy finally reflects the harm of fatal violence and our call for femicide to be named and recognised as a form of men’s violence against women and girls; but we are alarmed by the separation of intimate partner and family perpetrated femicides from other femicides. Intimate partner femicides share more in common with femicides perpetrated by other men than they do with intimate partner killings of men committed by women; especially when we are looking at causes and looking for solutions. The countries with higher measures of sex equality are generally those with lowest rates of femicide.
Femicide is not a gateway crime. Men who kill women almost always have long histories of violence against and abuse of women and very few of these men have been held to account by the law. We therefore welcome the announcements made prior to the strategy about the full powers of the state being deployed on the largest crackdown on violence perpetrated against women and girls. Portraying this as a turnaround suggests that women and girls have been woefully failed by the state for decades. Ironically, when a man is charged with homicide of a woman in the UK, we see by far the best conviction rates of any form of men’s violence against women. It appears that the courts believe women when we’re dead – but not so readily when we are able to stand up and testify.
We welcome the ‘whole of society approach’, the cross-departmentation ambition of the strategy and the emphasis on prevention. Prevention must be so much more than a few special school assemblies. It is rightfully presented in the strategy as future proofing; and although this is critical for younger generations, we need to look at the attitudes of adult men today, younger and older. Failing to recognise that the state is the biggest employer of adults is a missed opportunity. The strategy’s action plan has specific actions to keep perpetrators out of policing. This should have been extended to include all state employees. There should be zero tolerance of sexist and misogynistic attitudes, or abuse of and violence against women and girls by men employed by the state; and beyond to those with elevated status, whether that is in business, politics or any other sphere of power and influence. This is not just about ‘Andrew Tate.’ Misogynistic attitudes were prolific and pervasive way before he became noteworthy.
There should be no hierarchy of victims, but some women are afforded more empathy than others. Poor women and those with mental health or substance use problems—often the result of a long history of abuse from multiple perpetrators—are more likely to be blamed. The strategy does not specifically address men’s violence against older women. Femicide Census data for 2022 and 2023 showed that more women were killed by their own sons than by strangers. More broadly, 22 percent of women killed by men in the UK are aged 60 years and above. We are concerned that ‘requiring a victim’s consent before sharing their information with immigration enforcement’ is not the same as a firewall prohibiting data sharing between the police and immigration enforcement and could be imposed coercively. Having ‘no recourse to public funds‘ should not be a barrier to any woman subject to violence and abuse. No woman should be trapped with abuse because of a lack of economic alternatives.
In the 17 months since Labour came to power, at least 146 women have been killed by a man or where a man is the suspect. If Labour’s new strategy has any chance of realising their pledge to halve men’s violence against women and girls in a decade, then it is critical that these are not seen as 146 isolated incidents but symptomatic of a systemic problem with deep roots. We cannot assume that Labour has a decade (minus 17 months) to show that this strategy works. The next general election must be called by August 2029, that’s in just over three and a half-years. It is women and girls who will pay the price if Labour and their strategy fail.
