Our interview with journalist Evrim Kepenek focuses on Bianet’s male violence monitoring report along with peace and gender perspectives in journalism.
Evrim Kepenek is an experienced journalist who has worked in media platforms such as Cumhuriyet, Birgün, Taraf, DİHA, Jinha and Jin News. Since 2018, she has been working as the editor of Bianet’s women and LGBTI news. Alongside these platforms, her articles are featured in online magazines and pages such as Civil Pages, Yeşil Gazete, Journo, and Hemşin culture magazine GOR.
Bianet’s male violence report prepared by Evrim in recent years are quoted by national and international rights organizations and contribute to showing the systematical nature and dimension of violence. In this interview, we talked about the report’s preparation process, what it shows, the dynamics that emerged in the pandemic, and peace journalism, a topic that we both are interested in.
Could you tell us about the outcomes and preparation process of the male violence monitoring report?
Before the preparation process of the report, I would like to mention something else briefly. Our report is entirely focused on male violence and includes killings and violence. It collects the data month by month. For example, if we say that men killed 36 women in March 2021, it means that all murders were committed in March. If he was killed in February and was reported in the press in March, that murder is not included in the number. It is added as “reflected” in March.
While preparing the annual report at the end of the year, we include the ones which are reflected in the press later. We also have a separate title for children. As you know, everyone up to the age of 18 is a child. Therefore, when a 17-year-old young girl is killed, regardless of whether she is killed by her lover, a man or her father, we treat it as a “child murder” and do not include her in the title. We cover these numbers in detail as “men killed 36 women and four children” in March.
I would also like to note that there is a process that has been established at Bianet regarding the preparation of the report. This system was founded by Emine Özcan, Burçin Belge and dear Çiçek Tahaoğlu who took this position before me. Even if we add new things to the content according to the current developments, I generally proceed according to this established method.
Our colleague Ege Öztokat examines all the news about violence via media follow and google alert. Ege spares the content that contains violence committed by men and selects those that can be included in our report. I receive a summary of about 30-50 pages each month. I prepare the tally based on this summary. I am reviewing titles such as “Who killed women, where did they kill them? How did he kill?” I do this for all topics like harassment, rape, child abuse, forced sex work, violence against children and violence – injury. Additionally, I check the names one by one and look at the legal process. I mean, like the question of whether the perpetrator was arrested after being detained. Also, our friend Yağmur Karagöz prepares the infographics so that they reach a wider audience.
Of course, it is a backbreaking and challenging process, especially from a psychological point of view. Because you finish the day reading these sentences: “Her husband burned Ayşe, who went to the market”, “Her brother crushed Aisha’s head with dumbbells when she did not give the money”. But I think both the Femicide Platform’s and our reports are vital. Every month, we have a chance to say to the state that this is a type of violence conducted by men systematically rather than a ‘fault’ or isolated incident, as you said. The data that we collect tells and proves this.
If we look at the last year as a journalist (if any), what do you think are the effects of the pandemic, is there any difference regarding your reports from the past years?
I can clearly say that child abuse and male violence have increased. Both the data of the bianet monitoring reports and the reports prepared by many non-governmental organizations demonstrate this. For example, law enforcement officers did not perform their duties on the pandemic’s pretext, and the courts were suspended. Moreover, men who committed violence were released. We know that men also commit violence after they are released from prison. The murder of Seyhan, who sold flowers in Kadıköy, and her mother by a man, who was released from prison, is an example of this.
In one of your interviews, you said that the peace process had a positive effect on femicide. Why is peace essential, and how do you interpret its relationship with femicide? In addition to this question, you talk about peace journalism and gender perspective in your work. What role do you think these perspectives play in violence against women, what kind of transformation can they make?
So, we know that violence begins and ends in language. For example, suppose we want to make the perpetrator visible. In that case, we say, “the man named Ahmet killed Ayşe.” Assume we want to overshadow the violence and make it invisible. In that case, we can say “, the 35-year-old beautiful mother of two children was killed by Mehmet, who had economic problems because he was unemployed.” In other words, the language we use tells us the dimensions and the truth of violence. If we want to prevent violence, we use language accordingly. However, unfortunately, the violence in the language is mainly produced by politicians.
The tension in male politicians’ speeches, who are followed by the public, deemed important by a large part of the society, is obvious. But when politicians use a non-polarizing language, its effect also spreads to the whole society. Data on male violence during the peace period shows us this clearly. Violence towards women does not only come from husbands and lovers. Patients’ relatives use violence against doctors, clients are violent to lawyers, and sometimes passengers use violence on a bus to a bus driver.
I believe that the language of violence has a feature of invoking violence, which I call the domino effect of violence. If we reverse the equation, we want peace to have a domino effect, and I present the language of peace as a humble suggestion to politicians and the general public.
Finally, what would you like to say?
I get a lot of questions about other data that is collected in Turkey, like the data of the We Will Stop Femicides Platform . Let me explain this, the reason that our numbers are different from their numbers is that our methodology is different. The platform’s record of violence or our score does not challenge each other. What I want outsiders to understand is that they should be troubled not with these reports or the differences between tallies but the perpetrators of violence.
I wish there were not only two or, together with the one prepared by Jinnews, three reports on systematic violence against women but more, so we could prove the systemic nature of male violence more comprehensively. Information is researched and unearthed to empower the women’s movement.
Or I wish that another institution prepared a report on women’s representation in the media, like the reports prepared by KADER (Association for Supporting and Training Women Candidates). For example, we do not have a tally on the cases where the penalty given to the perpetrator is reduced. For example, we do not have data that explains the illegal ways men are tried in detention cases. For example, there is almost no one collecting data or producing information about violence against LGBTI + people other than Kaos GL.
I think the more information we generate and share, the more we get strength from each other, the stronger we can be against patriarchy. “There is no salvation alone, all together or none of us” is not a slogan but the truth.
Thank you for talking to me.
Thank you, Evrim.