By Leah McCabe
Women’s movements often play a crucial role in highlighting the problem of violence against women and girls (VAWG) and driving policy change, but what happens when feminists cannot agree on the most effective way forward? In my recent article published in Policy & Politics, I discuss how this very dilemma unfolded within the Scottish VAWG movement. While the movement has made significant gains in incorporating feminist concerns in domestic abuse/VAWG policy, making effective use of the new structures facilitated by devolution, it encountered difficulties in reaching a consensus on the definition of domestic abuse.
Specifically, my study revealed an enduring internal disagreement around the dominance of (single-axis) gendered frames. This policy framing conceptualises domestic abuse as a cause and consequence of gender inequality and patriarchal structures – a perspective subsequently integrated in national policy in 2000. However, organisations supporting Black and minority ethnic victims/survivors have argued that this conceptualisation of the problem oversimplifies the issue, failing to account for the complexity of violence. Instead, feminists from these organisations have advocated for intersectional frames which acknowledge the interlocking gendered, classed, and racialised dynamics of violence. Ultimately, these actors have not been granted similar access to policymaking processes, resulting in the marginalisation of their perspectives. Significantly, these internal debates have endured in the decades following devolution.
While gendering the problem of domestic abuse in Scottish policy marks a substantial win for the women’s movement (particularly as it contrasts with the gender-neutral definitions used in England and Wales), emphasising gender as the central focus in policy has closed off opportunities to apply more inclusive and intersectional approaches. With policy progressing along this particular path for over twenty years, altering it is proving increasingly challenging.
What is more, resistance towards gendered and feminist understandings of the problem by actors outside the movement has fed into internal disagreements. Within my study, feminists frequently emphasised the necessity of ‘protecting’ gendered frames from ongoing efforts by resistors to de-gender the policy debate. Consequently, they were cautious of adding further complexity to the problem by, for example, applying intersectionality. I argue that resistance has created a self-policing dynamic within the movement, causing an unintentional barrier to engaging with intersectionality.
In a time of rising anti-gender resistance in Europe and beyond, my article provides important insights for feminists and policymakers on the short and long-term effects of resistance on feminist strategies and policy development. I stress the significance of feminist activists reflecting upon internal debates and refining their shared perspectives to successfully counteract resistance and promote inclusivity within their agendas.
Leah is a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow in Politics and International Relations at the University of Edinburgh. Find out more about her research here.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics:
McCabe, L. (2023) An intersectional analysis of contestations within women’s movements: the case of Scottish domestic abuse policymaking, Policy & Politics, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000021
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Calderaro, C. (2023). The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 413-438. Retrieved Apr 9, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16832763188290
Caravantes, P., & Lombardo, E. (2024). Feminist democratic innovations in policy and politics. Policy & Politics, 52(2), 177-199 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000009
Lombardo, E., & Meier, P. (2022). Challenging boundaries to expand frontiers in gender and policy studies. Policy & Politics, 50(1), 99-115. Retrieved Apr 9, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16309516650101
