Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

This #GivingTuesday, whatever is your first priority, your second priority has to be independent media.

2021 has been one of the most dangerous and difficult years for independent journalism that we’ve ever seen. Our democracy is facing existential threats including the climate emergency, vaccine apartheid amid deadly pandemic, a global crisis for biodiversity, reproductive freedoms under assault, rising authoritarianism worldwide, and corporate-funded corruption of democracy that run beneath all of this. Giving Tuesday is a critical opportunity to make sure our journalism remains funded so that we can stay focused on all your priority issues. Please contribute today to keep Common Dreams alive and growing.

Please Help This #GivingTuesday -- Though our content is free to all, less than 1% of our readers give. We’re counting on you. Please help Common Dreams end the year strong.

"Who is being targeted? What kind of violence matters? What kind of victims matter? Who is really, 'at war?'" (Photo: Mark Dixon/flickr/cc)

A ‘War’ on the Police? How About the War on Women and Other Marginalized Groups?

Meghan Murphy

On Saturday, it was widely reported that Ismaaiyl Brinsley “executed” two cops in Brooklyn. The mainstream media and the NYPD immediately tried to link the shooting to the recent protests instigated by the killing of Eric Garner and Mike Brown (and subsequent acquittal of Darren Wilson, the cop who shot Brown to death and the failure to indict the police officer who put Garner in a chokehold, leading to his death).

“Two NYPD cops were executed Saturday after a career criminal drove from Baltimore to Brooklyn to kill police officers in a twisted bid to avenge the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown,” the New York Daily News reported.

“[Police Commissioner Bill] Bratton said they were looking at whether the suspect had attended any rallies or demonstrations.”

Patrick Lynch, the NYPD union president, went so far as to say, “There’s blood on many hands tonight: those that incited violence on the street under the guise of protests, that tried to tear down what New York City police officers did every day… That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall — in the office of the mayor.”

Naturally, the NYPD then used the shooting as an opportunity to claim there was some kind of “war” against the police.

“Bratton said the suspect made very serious ‘anti-police’ statements online but did not get into specifics of the posts.”

“They were, quite simply, assassinated — targeted for their uniform,” he added.

An email circulated among the NYPD states: “… we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”

For the first time in years? Ok. Because American cops have long behaved like they’re in some kind of warzone when dealing with political protests… The notion that the NYPD is now (supposedly) forced to behave like a “wartime police department” doesn’t really strike me as new… Have they behaved like peacekeepers in the past?

While the NYPD and American media seem eager to freak out over the deaths of these two cops, using it as an excuse to (as it seems obvious they plan to) engage in and justify even more police violence, they seem less concerned with the ongoing war against women and other minority groups.

What they are clearly less concerned with was that earlier on Saturday, in Baltimore, Brinsley shot his ex-girlfriend in the stomach. The woman, Shaneka Nicole Thompson, survived but remains hospitalized in critical condition.

As Nancy Leong pointed out in an article for Slate, the management of Thompson’s apartment complex reportedly “distributed a letter to other residents stating that her shooting was the result of a ‘domestic dispute’ in order to reassure them that ‘this was a private, isolated incident.'”

So shooting a woman is just a “private, isolated incident,” whereas killing a police officer is a public incident and “an attack on all of us, and everything we hold dear.

That makes sense I guess, since the police are “the public” and everyone else is “no one important, really, just some rando.”

To be clear, those two officers — Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos – did not deserve to die. Their deaths are a tragedy. But to pretend, with all that we know about the ways in which women, people of colour, and other marginalized groups have historically been and continue to be targeted and subjected to violence, that this shooting constitutes some kind of “war” against the police force is incredibly offensive, ignorant, and manipulative.

Why are we still not talking about male violence? Why is there (apparently) no “war” on black people or on Aboriginal people or on women but there is (apparently) a “war” on cops??

Leong points out that three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day in the US. Is that not a “war?” Is that not a “public” issue??

Black women are assaulted and killed by police officers too, but few are talking about that. Evette Dion writes:

"In black American communities, we are holding our breath, waiting for whoever’s next. There is no guarantee that the next victim will be a black male, but there appears to be a guarantee that the victim will be marginalized or forgotten by the mainstream media if she is a girl or woman of color."

You’ll notice this is, once again, about men shooting other men and women. This is still about male violence.

And, interestingly, men who go on shooting rampages tend to be misogynists.

Leong reports that the man who held 17 people hostage for more than 12 hours in a Lindt chocolate café in Sydney, Man Haron Monis, has an “extensive history of violence against women.” He was, Clementine Ford writes, “out on bail for 2013 charges relating to the murder of his ex-wife,” who he also stalked and threatened, and was charged with more than 40 sexual assault offences allegedly involving seven different women.

But we don’t take violence against women seriously. Over and over again we let violent men off the hook until they do something we actually consider to be “serious.”

Obviously killing anyone is “serious.” But women die every day at the hands of men and it generally isn’t national news. Certainly American media and the police don’t talk about the ongoing war on women, against the poor, against people of colour, or against Aborginal people with the same passion and urgency they have about this so-called war against the NYPD.

Why are women’s issue always “personal,” “private,” “individual” problems? Why are the problems of powerful men “public” problems that affect “all of us?”

Violence against women is taken for granted. Misogyny is taken for granted. Male violence is not seen as gendered. Violence against powerful men is a “public” problem — a war — and violence against women is a sidenote, if it is mentioned at all.

Sixty women disappeared from the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver over about 20 years, beginning in the early 1980s, before the police even began an investigation.

A database created by an Ottawa researcher tallies the number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women across Canada at 824.

On any given day in Canada, more than 3,300 women (along with their 3,000 children) are forced to sleep in an emergency shelter to escape domestic violence.

Most domestic violence homicides happen after a woman leaves (or tries to leave) her abuser. Women simply aren’t protected by the system. They aren’t taken seriously. The signs are there and they are ignored, over and over again, until it’s too late.

Soraya Chemaly pointed out that the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq was 6,614, while the number of women killed as the result of domestic violence during the same period in the US was 11,766.

So tell us, who is being targeted? What kind of violence matters? What kind of victims matter? Who is really, “at war?”

© Meghan Murphy

Meghan Murphy

Meghan Murphy is a writer and a journalist in Vancouver, B.C. She is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, Canada's most-read feminist blog, and is host and producer of the syndicated Feminist Current podcast.

... We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

New Climate Study Predicting More Rain Than Snow in the Arctic 'Rings Alarm Bells'

"There are huge ramifications of these changes," said the lead researcher, "all of which have implications on wildlife populations and human livelihoods."

Jessica Corbett ·

As Executives Hike Prices, US Corporations Rake in Biggest Profits Since 1950

"Prices are high," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, "because corporations are raising them—so they can keep paying themselves with ever-larger executive bonuses and stock buybacks."

Jake Johnson ·

47 Groups Urge Congress to Avert 'Human Rights Failure' by Blocking Biden's Saudi Arms Sale

"The Biden administration in its very first weeks committed both to center human rights in foreign policy and to end U.S. complicity in the war in Yemen. Allowing this sale to stand breaks that commitment."

Brett Wilkins ·

Congress 'Asleep at the Switch' as Biden Continues Trump-Era Ploy to Privatize Medicare

More than 1,500 physicians warn that the experiment threatens "the future of Medicare as we know it."

Jake Johnson ·

Amid Overdose Crisis, 260+ Public Health Groups Urge Congress to Pass Life-Saving Bills

"If our leaders fail to act, another year of devastating and historic overdose deaths is inevitable," said one drug policy expert.

Julia Conley ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.

Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo