Is the family a sacred temple or a prison with walls inside our heads?

The vast majority of femicides, suspicious suicides, and child abuse and murders are committed by close family members. With terrifying statistics that place our country among the highest in global rankings, isn't it time to question the idea that the family is sacred and untouchable?

Is the family truly sacred, or is this institution an altar that patriarchal, misogynistic communities constantly sacrifice victims to in order to keep their misdeeds invisible? So much so that events veiled by the name of this sacred temple are either never heard of or are whitewashed by being poured into the mold of 'honor'.

According to UN data, there were 89 thousand murders of women and girls reported worldwide under the heading of 'Femicide' in 2022. In a world that we think is modernizing and moving closer to civilization every day, it is terrifying that these murders have reached their highest numbers in the last twenty years. I believe the impact of misogynistic patriarchal tendencies, which are rising in parallel with the totalitarian right-wing regimes growing across the world, on these figures is undeniable.

According to the figures provided, 55% of the victims, that is 48 thousand 800, were murdered within the family.

This means that more than 133 women or girls are killed in their own homes every day. The situation for boys is no different. In 2022, 12% of the boys who were murdered were killed in their own family homes by family members. In other words, they lost their lives in the very place they sought refuge to feel safest, because they had nowhere else to go.

Even though we know all of this, we cannot take the concept of family down from the sacred throne it has been placed upon, open it to criticism, or intervene to save women, girls, and boys who are in difficult situations.

The immunity of the concept of family also makes what happens within this structure untouchable. Even if people in the vicinity witness the violence occurring inside, no one intervenes because they are 'family matters'. When the same attitude exists within security forces and the justice system, it becomes impossible to even reach someone exposed to domestic violence, let alone save them.

However, it should not be forgotten that judges and police officers were also raised within the traditional structure of this country and their behaviors are shaped by that same traditional structure. Although it is possible for them to save a human life through an individual decision, the idea of being a hero cannot always overcome the traditionalist walls of the civil service principles for people working in these roles. Essentially, this duty is more about the legislator than the law enforcer.

In situations where such violent events occur, the family turns into a prison without walls or barbed wire. Because the person is born inside this prison, the idea of escaping and being saved does not form. Even if it does, the difficulties and impossibilities of the outside world force them to stay inside.

The idea of freedom and the opportunity to survive must be conveyed to this person from the outside world. The only institution with the power to provide this is the state.

In other words, this is a state matter. Even though the state is referred to by the nickname 'father' (Devlet Baba), it should not act like a traditional, real family father.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'STATE FATHER' AND 'CITIZEN FATHER' IS THIS

The state is farsighted. The state's tendency should not be to protect the traditional family structure inherited from ancestors despite its flaws, but to repair and improve the family—and thus the country—by modeling modern, developed civilizations.

The state uses the instruments at its disposal to reach its goal. Universities are at the forefront of these instruments. It brings together both the academics in its own country and the academics in the high civilizations it takes as examples. Statistical institutions, research institutions, project developers, and academics are brought together. Pilot projects are created, and experiments are conducted. The successes and weaknesses of the projects are evaluated, and the prepared reports are delivered to state institutions.

What happens as a result? The initiative is taken out of the hands of the dysfunctional family so that women and children can adapt to the modern world, stand tall as free individuals, and not be left to writhe in despair and be killed within the traditional family structure they are imprisoned in.

The initiative is handed over by the state to the woman and the young girl herself, and even to the child in a controlled manner. Despite a public that is attached to its traditions and rejects change, the state creates new laws and a civilized order that protects and watches over them.

In this context, the state does not have the luxury of acting with the values of a real family father. A family father is an individual, and individuals are not exempt from crime. They can be a murderer, a thief, or have the capacity to commit crimes. However, the state is responsible for acting as a legal family for every new individual born within the country's borders, exempt from all these deficient qualities.

As long as the 'state father' acts like a real family father, keeping the wrong patterns of traditions, the exaggerated sanctity of the family, and archaic tribal-style values above modern state criteria, and leaving them as obstacles in front of modernity, individualism, and rationality, it will absolutely not be possible to prevent femicides or child murders.

Before encountering the danger of death, women and children should have the idea in their minds that they can leave the family and build a life of their own. Because no one knows better than the person living within a troubled, sick, or dysfunctional family what they are experiencing. Just as it is impossible to understand this from the outside, it is also impossible to intervene without any report or the person's own request. For this reason, what should be protected and held sacred is not family traditions, but the individual's dreams for the future and their right to life.

A girl, woman, or boy within a structure that possesses the qualities of a 'good family' already has no demand to leave home early. However, if such an urgency has arisen, this person should have an idea in their mind from their early childhood years, as part of the education they receive at school: 'If I leave this house, I will not go hungry; I will have a home or a room of my own, I will be able to continue my education, and I will have time to acquire a profession. During this period, I will be supported both psychologically, financially, and with educational opportunities.'

Thus, neither a young girl, nor a young man, nor a woman will feel obligated to their torturer, and they will not call this torture a 'family bond'.