When talking to women in politics, Mona Lena Krook asked if they had ever experienced violence — and was often told “no.” But when she insisted and described certain types of violence — abuse, intimidation and threats — the same women often said, “Oh, yes, that’s what I suffered.”
The political scientist says that this recognition often comes up against language, as psychological aggression is often not considered a type of violence. Through videoconferencing, she says that awareness needs to be raised to solve the problem: “Naming it, saying it’s not acceptable.”
Professor of Political Science and Head of the Doctoral Program in Women and Politics at Rutgers University (USA), Krook participated in May in the webinar “Political Training for Women”, promoted by FGV (Fundação Getúlio Vargas) in partnership with the US consulate .
Violence against women in politics is a negative response to the increase in their participation in these spaces? It is an old and enduring resistance, but greater now because there are more women in these positions. My first area of study was quotas for women in politics. When I asked questions about their impact, I thought they were going to answer ‘quotas made everyone more receptive to women leaders’ or ‘quotas changed ideas about who can make decisions’. People confirmed these transformations, but they also said that there was resistance, with violence, harassment, intimidation.
What are the most common forms of violence against women in politics? Physical, psychological, sexual, economic. These are four forms that are widely recognized in international law. In my book I add a fifth type, which I call semiotic violence: using very degrading images and words to address women in public life. I know there’s a lot of that with [a ex-presidente] Dilma [Rousseff]. It’s about trying to degrade not just a woman, but women in general who dare to participate in politics. It’s a message to everyone: ‘You don’t belong in this space, this will happen if you try to participate in politics’.
Many women, at least at first, do not recognize themselves as victims of this violence, right? We often think of politics as a violent space of conflict. So perhaps it is not surprising that when women enter these spaces, they encounter violence. One thing that I was very intrigued by is that once you explain the different types of violence, they say ‘oh yes, that’s exactly what I suffered’. One of the biggest barriers is that the word violence refers to physical violence, which, we know, is one of the less common forms. There is a tendency to think that the other types are unimportant. The word violence is difficult, but if you ask “have you ever been threatened?”, “have you ever received an abusive online message?”, they answer “yes”. If you ask, “Have you ever experienced violence?” they say, “No, but I’ve experienced intimidation, threats, and abuse.”
How to differentiate common violence in political spaces and that based on gender prejudice? Violence in politics is against your opponent, men and women can go through it. Violence against women in politics is based on identity. It’s about who can participate in politics. It is rooted in the idea that women should not be in politics, so you use violence to expel them. This also helps us to explain why the women who face this violence the most are the younger ones, from minority ethnicities. They also don’t look like the traditional politician.
So not all violence against women in politics is gender-motivated. Exactly. I looked, for example, at the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, who was prime minister in Pakistan. It was a case of violence against a politician, there were some gender aspects, but it was motivated by politics almost exclusively. But there are cases that are difficult to disentangle. In case [da morte] of Jo Cox, who was a member of the British Parliament, there were political and identity aspects.
the case of Marielle Franco seems to be an example. Was she murdered for being a black woman in politics or because she hit militia interests? It can be both, we must not neglect the identity aspect. She had threatening ideas for people in power, but there was also the fact that she was a black, lesbian, favela woman. One of the criteria is to identify whether the community felt this was an identity-based attack. Jo Cox was an example of gender-motivated violence because the women in Parliament were the ones who really fought back against the crime. They felt it was an attack on them. What I do know about the days and weeks after Marielle’s murder is that it was also like that, as one of the slogans people used, “they killed one of us” shows.
What are the short-term solutions to violence against women in politics? We have regional and international declarations, international laws, especially in Latin America. We have parliaments adopting codes of conduct, increasing security for politicians. But the underlying solution is raising awareness. Talking about the problem, naming it, saying it’s not acceptable.
X-RAY | Mona Lena Krook, 47
Professor of Political Science and Head of the Doctoral Program in Women and Politics at Rutgers University (USA), she holds a PhD in Political Science from Columbia University (USA). She is also the author of “Violence against Women in Politics” and “Quotas for Women in Politics”, both unedited in Brazil.
