The solution to extreme misogyny is more representation, not restricted speech

After decades worth of hard-won progress towards gender equality, we are witnessing an alarming revival of misogynistic rhetoric that ought to have been consigned to the history books.

I myself have spoken publicly about my own experience of male violence. I am a passionate advocate of the #MeToo movement, and I am fully aware of the alarming rise of misogynistic online communities.

On too many occasions, we have seen how these virtual tribes contribute to the most horrific crimes. The infamous case of Elliot Rodger, who murdered six people in 2014, stands out as a particularly devastating example of extreme misogyny that inspired several brutal copycat killings.

So let me be perfectly clear. I will never condone these hateful ideas. In fact, I believe that we have reached a critical junction in our journey towards gender equality, and now is the time to push forward – or else we will start going backwards, just as the UN has warned.

But as the granddaughter of a man who sacrificed his own liberty for that of others, I am concerned by the way that governments are choosing to respond.

In the UK, for example, the new Home Office has accelerated its plans to review the country’s counter-extremism strategy. But its decision to include ‘extreme misogyny’ alongside more traditional forms of extremist rhetoric has raised more questions than answers.

Similar measures are likely to be adopted in the EU, where the Council and Parliament have finally agreed on their first ever law to specifically address violence against women. The law focuses heavily on so-called ‘cyber-violence’, promising to introduce strict penalties for online stalking, harassment and incitement to hatred or violence.

The problem is that there is no clear definition of ‘extreme misogyny’ or any identified form of ‘cyber violence’. What some see as an innocent comment, others perceive as being deeply hateful of women. So, as governments crack down on online trends and restrict the purview of online forums, they could end up inhibiting people’s ability to speak their minds.

I have seen this happen before. Under the apartheid regime, communication to and among South African citizens was strictly suppressed. We were not allowed to voice our own thoughts, and those who did so could be exiled or detained without trial.

So, while I am delighted to see resources being dedicated to tackling misogyny, I squirm in response to the favoured methods.

By ramping up legislation and cracking down on opinions expressed online, we risk exacerbating the ‘us vs them’ mentality that simmers beneath the surface. The more we try to silence extremists, the deeper underground they will go. Technology will continue evolving, new loopholes will always be found, and when we try to make an example of prolific offenders, their worshippers will anoint them as martyrs.

This is why, if we are to fix this tidal wave of regressive online hate, we must do something even more difficult. We must tackle the root causes that allow misogynistic ideas to fester in the first place.

What we need is not less communication, but more. If we can elevate women’s voices, welcome them into the spaces where decisions are made and usurp the prevailing powers who exploit ‘traditional values’ as cover for their denigration of women, we can expose extreme misogyny for what it is.

There have been some signs of progress. Ursula von der Leyen has held on to her position as the first female President of the European Commission and Kamala Harris has a strong chance of following suit in the US.

Whether it be COP climate summits or the Munich Security Conference, women and girls are finally being heard on the global stage. The Open Society Foundations recently hosted an event on the sidelines of the G20 Youth Summit in Brazil. The Open Futures Forum convened young women leaders from G20 countries to participate in a full day of discussions, workshops and presentations on topics ranging from youth empowerment and food security to decolonial pathways towards progressive change.

Notably, the Open Futures Forum was not devoted solely to women’s experiences of ‘women’s issues’. Instead, it focused on empowering women and girls to make their voices heard on challenges that will impact us all.

This is the representation we need, but one event is not enough. France and Spain have shown how gender quotas could be introduced in elections to improve the balance of power. If this were mandated on an EU-wide basis, both in Parliamentary elections and in various leadership contests, then the gap would begin to close.

However, women should feel that they are more than a legal necessity in political settings. They should be actively encouraged to pursue power by linking public funding and campaign support to parties that excel in gender equality. Parental leave should be equal between men and women to ensure that they are not locked into outdated societal roles. Flexible working arrangements should be an option, including the provision of affordable childcare.

Of course, there is also a dire need for more awareness and education. Children should be taught to value gender equality from a young age, and girls should be made aware of the paths that are now open to them. The media has its role to play, but governments could introduce guidelines on reducing gender bias in political coverage, such as the tendency to focus on what women politicians are wearing. Media outlets could also work alongside government and non-government organisations to push out public awareness campaigns that change public attitudes and encourage women’s participation.

Ultimately, we cannot put extreme misogyny back in the box because its underpinning ideology has always roamed free. Instead, we women must confront it out in the open.

The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.