Response to "The Problems with the Istanbul Convention"

Author: Daniel Gospodinov

I am writing this article in response to a recent post on this site, in which the author intelligently set out his objections to the ratification of the controversial Istanbul Convention in our country. In this response, I would like to set out the points on which I disagree with the author of this post. Perhaps as an additional goal, I also aim to provoke a debate about the ways in which we protect people from discrimination in Bulgaria and how effective and comprehensive they are.

I will go through several of the main arguments of the original article and state the objections I have to them.

Link to the full text of the Convention in Bulgarian.

Domestic violence is not just against women

This is something that the Convention itself acknowledges in its preamble. The definitions of the terms “domestic violence” and “victim” in the document reflect the diversity of victims of such violence and almost all the legal measures it provides are aimed at protecting the rights of all victims of violence, regardless of their gender. (Art. 3, definitions) The reason the Convention focuses on women victims of such violence is the fact that worldwide, more cases of domestic and other related violence are registered against women than against men and, more importantly, it is linked to widespread cultural norms that place women in a subordinate position. The Convention denies the validity of such cultural norms and ensures by law that they cannot be accepted as an excuse for violence. (Art. 12, para. 5) Such cultural norms are in most cases absent when we consider domestic violence against men (which, I repeat, is fully recognized in the Convention and treated on an equal footing with that against women, other things being equal), although examples to the contrary can certainly be found. The presence of this specific motivation in a large proportion of cases of violence against women necessitates specific preventive measures. Similarly, terrorism (politically motivated violence) requires different preventive measures than ordinary violence.

The original article claims that, by setting out specific measures to combat it, the Convention privileges violence against women. I believe that this is largely justified by the specific motivation of this violence and the specific prevention that is needed, but the Convention really does not pay attention to other types of violence that are formed in a similar socio-cultural context and need similar prevention – violence by men against men to “preserve dignity” and to “prove masculinity”, ethnic and racist violence, homophobic violence, etc. All these types of violence are just as widespread and in need of prevention as violence against women, but the Convention is silent about them. Nevertheless, it is a good start and addresses at least part of the problem, setting a good legal basis to which measures to prevent other types of such violence can be added later.

Another criticism that the original article makes of the Convention is that it treats women in a condescending manner, reducing them to the status of victims. As we have already understood, Art. 3 defines the term “victim” regardless of gender or other social variable. But still the argument remains that the document indirectly creates a victim mentality in women, focusing on the violence of which they are the recipients and in general men are the perpetrators. And this is so, however, the goal is quite different from the one presented in the original commentary – the goal is to eliminate historically, culturally, socially and religiously formed obstacles to women living peacefully and equally with men. And as you can see from a quick review of the Convention, such obstacles exist and are quite serious. To claim that measures taken with such a goal would be detrimental to women is, to put it mildly, unjustified – I don't think any woman would be crushed by the fact that measures exist to protect her from discriminatory violence.

Gender as a social construct

The Convention does indeed define (art. 3) gender as a social construct, not a biological given. In reality, one of the main reasons why modern social science is ridiculed is that it rejects seemingly “obvious” and “simple” truths such as the existence of two sexes – male and female. But the reason social science exists at all is that “obvious” truths about society are often misleading, and its functioning is not as “simple” as it might seem at first glance, especially when viewed on a global scale. The main reasons for creating the concept of gender separately from that of sex are the following:

• In almost all traditional societies, each sex is assigned a specific social role, which is as much predetermined by biological characteristics as by the cultural and religious specifics of the society. In order to break the strong connection between the sexes and their social role, and to emphasize that it is in no way obligatory for a person to fulfill the social role that is associated with his biological sex, especially when this role brings him a lower status in society, we need to use separate terms for biological and social sex.
• Some societies traditionally accept more than two gender identities. An example of this is the so-called hijras in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, who are usually born male and adopt a traditionally female lifestyle, but at the same time have been accepted as a third gender in these societies for millennia. Obviously, there is no biological reason to separate hijras from other biological men, but the main element of the hijra identity is that they distance themselves from traditional male (and to some extent female) characteristics, which, as you may have guessed, are socially constructed. In order for these identities not to be accepted as anomalies and to be treated with respect, it is necessary to introduce the term gender and expand it beyond the male/female dichotomy.
• In the modern world, there is a wide spectrum of gender identities, and it is common for individuals to disagree with fulfilling the gender role that society has predetermined for them based on their biological characteristics. For example, many biological men do not want to behave in a “masculine” way and, knowing that despite their biological nature, society will have difficulty accepting them as men, choose another, non-traditional gender identity. And yes, I suppose many of you will define this as an anomaly, but ultimately this is a choice that in no way affects anyone other than the person themselves, and accordingly a choice for which they cannot be judged and for which they should be fully accepted as an ordinary member of society. In order to give such people the necessary respect, modern social science separates their purely biological sex from their social sex – the sex with which they wish to identify in social situations.

When we talk about purely social phenomena such as violence in the context of gender relations, it is much more appropriate to use the word sex in its sense of a social phenomenon (or simply the word gender) rather than a biological given. Biological differences between women and men cannot explain the fact that women are victims of domestic violence in the overwhelming majority of cases. However, socially constructed roles of men and women can.

Here comes the need for training in non-stereotypical gender roles. Tolerance and acceptance of differences is not a priority of upbringing in most Bulgarian families. At the same time, many of them are still patriarchal, with women being disproportionately burdened with household duties and the man's word being law. Think about what kind of imprint this creates on the mind of a child growing up in such a family, depending on their gender, and perhaps you will realize why the education system should intervene.

"These things apply to the Middle East, why should we pass a law against them in Europe?"

That the treatment of women is a big problem in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, South Asia and other regions where societies remain highly conservative is probably known to every 8-year-old kid. And you only have to watch this video to understand how serious the problem really is. And if you are surprised by my mentioning Latin America, read this. (I'm sorry for discriminating against people who don't know English). Indeed, the problems there are far more serious than anything we can observe in Bulgaria or anywhere else in Europe.

However, European legislators have real power only over what happens in Europe. As much as we want to change the fate of women in Saudi Arabia, we can do very little without the cooperation of their government, and especially their society. Societies are extremely resistant to socio-liberal values that someone tries to impose from the outside. Imagine the public reaction in Bulgaria when someone proposes training in non-stereotypical gender roles (or gay marriage) in the country. You can expect a similar reaction in the Arab world when someone suggests giving women driving licenses or allowing women to pray on an equal footing with men in the temple. The crystallization of such values in societies is a slow process that can be (and is) supported, but forcing it is in most cases counterproductive.

The fact that in certain parts of the world women's problems are much more serious than those in Europe does not mean that such problems do not exist on the Old Continent and that we should not address them with legislation. In Europe, there are still large communities that are highly conservative for religious or cultural reasons (among them the Bulgarians, as the "tearful comments" mentioned in the article show), and the Convention is a way to show these communities that their religious and cultural considerations in no way excuse the discrimination and mistreatment not only of women, but also of people with different sexual orientations, socially disadvantaged people, the disabled, people of different races and ethnicities, etc. It is the first of its kind and can easily serve as a model for similar legislation throughout the world.

Conclusion

Indeed, the Istanbul Convention does not address all forms of socio-culturally-motivated violence, but it at least creates a stable legal framework for combating one type of such violence, which can subsequently be built upon, without creating serious concerns about introducing additional discrimination. Bulgaria should ratify the Convention given that the problems described in it are particularly acute in the country and our existing legislation has proven many times to be ineffective in preventing them.

I consider the criticisms regarding non-stereotypical gender role training to be absolutely unfounded, since the existence of well-defined gender roles in Bulgarian society is one of the main reasons for the widespread prevalence of domestic violence and violence against women in our country. There are other criticisms, some of which are far more justified, however, I believe that the positive effect on human rights that will result from the ratification of the Convention will be far greater than the anticipated negative effects.

I believe that by ratifying the Convention, Bulgaria will take an important step towards becoming a tolerant country, in which every citizen has equal rights and opportunities for success. And tolerance is a quality that we have always been proud of as a people.

Photo: Ladislav Cvetkov

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!