Upon reviewing USAID’s 2020 Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy, there are several gaps and areas that we find problematic, and which negatively impact the work of movements to advance gender equality and human rights. In particular, we chose to focus our comments on the section of the policy document focused on Gender-Based Violence (beginning on p. 25), given End Cyber Abuse’s focus on online gender-based violence.
1. No mention of online or technology-facilitated gender-based violence.
We know that online and technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TGBV) is increasing as access to digital technologies is growing around the world, and it is an arena of widespread and systematic discrimination against people of marginalized genders and sexual orientations. These forms of violence include image-based sexual abuse (the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, also known as “revenge porn”), voyeurism, hacking, cyber stalking, doxxing, creating deepfakes, impersonation and fake profiles, harassment and threats of violence, and much more. A Pew Research study, for instance, found that 41% of Americans have been subjected to at least one type of online harassment, with 18% who have experienced severe forms of harassment (e.g. stalking, sexual harassment or physical threats). In addition, studies have shown that young women between the age of 18 and 30 and girls are especially likely to experience abuse.
These forms of abuse can take place in the context of intimate relations, against public figures, politicians or feminist activists, or with other motivations – including the desire for financial gain and notoriety. It can be used to prevent the political participation of people of marginalized genders. Amnesty International India conducted a study on 114,716 tweets that mentioned 95 women politicians in India, over a three-month period. This uncovered that 13.8% of those tweets was problematic or abusive; on average, it meant that each woman politician received 113 problematic or abusive tweets per day. Their study also found that women politicians from marginalized communities (e.g. Muslim women politicians, or those from so-called scheduled castes or tribes) were disproportionately harmed and targeted.
Ultimately, USAID’s policy looks at technology primarily as a positive force for good, proposing ways we can bridge the digital divide. At the same time we must also look at online forms of gender-violence and how we can prevent the use of the internet for harm towards women, girls and LGBTIQA people.
2. No comprehensive definitions of gender-based violence, including domestic violence.
There is no comprehensive definition of gender-based violence, nor a definition of domestic violence. This means that the section on gender-based violence is quite narrow and incomplete, with a focus largely on forms of physical violence. The policy could benefit from a stronger, more holistic understanding and definition of what gender-based violence is. It leaves out forms of gender-based violence including those perpetrated by the state like forced virginity testing, forced sterilization, “honor” killings, sexual harassment, stalking, and more (including online violence, as outlined above). In the context of domestic violence, psychological, financial, and emotional abuse is also left out. The focus in the document is largely around the impact of intimate partner violence on children, which while vital to address, is not comprehensive. The document also doesn’t explain that domestic violence can be broader than intimate partner violence – looking at violence from members of the same household (e.g. parents, in-laws, siblings, elder abuse, and even landlords). In short, the document can benefit from clear and comprehensive definitions of the various forms of gender-based violence.
3. Lack of an understanding that LGBTQIA people also experience gender-violence.
The policy completely erases any mention of sexual orientation or gender identity, and does not mention at all LGBTQIA communities, who often disproportionate or differential forms of gender-based violence, intimate partner abuse, as well as added barriers of discrimination when they seek justice and accountability. For example, LGBTQIA people who seek legal help are often discriminated against by police and judges, who often hold biased views and beliefs about same-sex couples. In addition, LGBTQIA people experience specific forms of online violence – for example, sextortion and blackmailing, as well as the threat of sharing intimate images in an effort to “out” the individual to their family members. The document is largely stuck in a gender binary; it includes insufficient attention to the fact that people other than women can also experience incredibly harmful forms of gender violence. For example, the definition of gender-violence in the Executive Summary and Objectives sections, which states that USAID strives “to eliminate gender-based violence, which affects women’s ability to thrive and succeed […]” focuses solely on women, to the exclusion of LGBTQIA people, as well as men and boys, who can also experience forms of gender violence.
4. Lack of an intersectional approach.
In addition to gender identity and sexual orientation, we must recognize that the intersection of identities – like race, Indigenous identity, age, class, disability status, religion, citizenship status, and more – disadvantages some more than others and exposes some to disproportionate violence and discrimination, as well as a lack of equal access to justice. The policy as a whole, as well as the section on gender-based violence, does not sufficiently acknowledge and address these issues from an intersectional perspective.
5. Needs a more comprehensive approach to legal reform.
Page 27 of the policy refers to GBV and legal reform, but here, focuses largely on laws around domestic violence, sexual harassment, and FGM. Laws surrounding online gender-based violence are also lagging behind the rapid adoption of new technologies and need to be properly addressed and reformed. Social media companies and platforms are often immune from liability, making it challenging to have intimate content taken down. Finally, when discussing implementation challenges, the policy should elaborate on what that means. Survivors lack access to justice for many reasons including victim-blaming in the justice sector, lack of free or affordable legal aid, and further retraumatization by the legal system. Alternatives to criminal justice, including civil legal remedies, are often underdeveloped and inaccessible. These barriers to justice need to be mentioned and resources invested to address them.