Can violence against women be defined as terrorism? What difference would such a redefinition make to how violence against women is addressed and to the future of the term
‘terrorism’ itself?
Within the context of today’s globalising world the scope of violence against women appears
limitless and widening: female genital mutilation, domestic violence, stalking and the list goes on.
In 2006 Catherina A. MacKinnon penned the essay Women’s September 11th: Rethinking the
International Law of Conflict, discussing how “the number of people who died at these men’s
hands on September 11th, from 2800 to 3000, is almost identical to the number of women who die
at the hands of men every year in just one country, the same one in which September the 11 th
happened” (MacKinnon, 2006: p.4, italics in original text). MacKinnon continues by exploring
the differences in approaches to violence against women and terrorism in the post-9/11 context.
Throughout this essay, I position MacKinnon’s work within the context of Critical Terrorism
Studies (CTS), whilst exploring the multidisciplinary aspect of this question through the work of
geographer Rachel Pain and international relations scholar Cynthia Enloe. I begin with a
discussion of the definitions of both ‘violence against women’ and ‘terrorism’, followed by an
analysis of how this discussion can be placed within the context of international relations, and
what difference a re-definition of violence against women as terrorism could make. In section two
I examine counter-terrorism and its critiques, before questioning whether counter-terrorism would
serve as a valid response to violence against women. Section three investigates what an expansion
of the term terrorism could mean for CTS, while emphasising the social contracts which are at the
heart of understandings of domestic violence and state violence. Lastly I consider what a redefinition could mean for the eradication of violence against women. This essay concludes with a
1
reminder of the importance of maintaining an international perspective when tackling this issue,
realising that a simple re-definition of violence against women as ‘terrorism’ will lead to little
change without the cultural shifts that are so gravely needed.
Questions of Definitions
Violence Against Women
Violence against women has been defined by the United Nations as:
Any act of gender-based violence that results in or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or mental harm
or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty,
whether occurring in public or in private life” (WHO, 2016).
Beyond these definitions there are womens’ lived experiences: these vary from the aggressive
catcalls of ‘lads’ on Dublin streets on a Friday night (Stanley, 2015), to alleged revenge porn
groups on university campuses (Cullen, 2016), to the experience of domestic abuse that countless
women have experienced1, to the rapes women struggle to define (Dworkin, 1991: p.50, quoted in
Sjoberg, 2015: p.384). Living life as a woman conditions you to believe that every man is
Schrödinger's rapist2, whilst simultaneously reminding you that you are most likely to be harmed
at home; the most dangerous thing you can do is be born a woman. Despite this global context of
violence against women, MacKinnon (2006: p.20) highlights that these acts take place within
states, hidden from international focus and deemed too personal to be political. Definitions of
Since 1996 “1 in every 2 female homicide victims [… in Ireland…] has been murdered by a current or former
intimate partner”, making 86 women in the last 19 years (Women’s Aid, 2015).
2
“When you approach me in public you are Schrödinger's rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit
rape” (Starling, 2009).
1
2
violence against women too often fail to place these actions within the international sphere,
removing this terror threat from our lexicon of terrorism.
Defining Terrorism
To understand why terrorism and violence against women are not often connected, I must first
explore the complexities surrounding the definition of terrorism. Richards (2014) explores
existing classifications in order to reach a definition of terrorism as: “the use of violence or the
threat of violence with the primary purpose of generating a psychological impact beyond the
immediate victims or object of attack for a political motive” (ibid: p.230). Although this essay will
employ Richards definition, it is worth noting how numerous and varied definitions of terrorism
are. MacKinnon notes that “one evocative definition of terrorism is “bit by bit genocide”” (Lador
Lederer, 1974, in MacKinnon, 2006: p. 14), and that if women were seen as a large enough group
the term genocide – and therefore also ‘terrorism’– could be used to understand violence against
women. Given that definitions of terrorism are constantly under consideration and re-arrangement,
what role can this term have in combatting violence against women? Furthermore, does violence
against women fit in Richards above definition? These questions will be explored in section three.
War/Violence/Terrorism: Choices of Definition
Understanding the widespread and rampant nature of violence against women leads to questions
of how to define it within the context of international relations. Cynthia Enloe (1989: p. 196) urges
for a feminist understanding of international politics, to adopt the mantra ‘the international is
personal’. Retaining this perspective in mind the following questions emerge: can this be called a
war on women (MacKinnon, 2006), can some aspects of violence against women be named
3
‘patriarchal violence’ (Johnson, 1995, 2008, in Pain, 2014: p.534), can domestic violence be
termed ‘family terrorism’ (Hammer, 2002, 2003, in Pain, 2014: p.534)?
Catherine A. MacKinnon’s 2006 essay explores in detail whether violence against women –
specifically domestic violence – could be defined as terrorism and as a ‘war on women’.
MacKinnon explains that maybe if violence against women was called a ‘war on women’ it would
be covered by the Geneva conventions (2006: p. 8-9), while if it was defined as terrorism it would
have the weight of counter-terrorism against it. MacKinnon rebuffs the argument that violence
against women should not be treated internationally, as it is not state actors involved, by indicating
that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were non-state actors and the twin towers were non-state
buildings full of non-state employees (ibid: p.10). MacKinnon’s essay places domestic violence
within the international political field, exploring the blurred lines between state and non-state, and
highlighting the biases behind the definition of certain actions as ‘terrorism’: “if nothing else,
September 11th showed that the bounded view of sovereignty is an illusion that failed to protect
people across national lines. It does not protect women within them either”. (ibid: p.22)
The Value of Re-Definition
Following MacKinnon’s evidence, which illustrates the possibility of a re-definition of violence
against women as terrorism, comes the key question of what difference this re-definition would
make to women’s lives? Pain (2014: p.534) notes that:
Framing domestic violence as everyday terrorism draws attention to its horror and severity. It muddies
the boundaries between forms of violence that are usually framed as public, political and spectacular,
and forms that are usually framed as private, apolitical and mundane.
4
Critics of framing state violence as terrorism note that state violence already has its own terms:
genocide, crimes against humanity. These come with their own methods of punishment and
retribution. Since, the terms ‘genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ define the actions and allow
for proper action to be taken against them, there is no need for these actions to be further defined
as terrorism (***, 2016a). Can this argument be applied to violence against women? Punishment
of perpetrators of violence against women varies across the globe and culture plays a large role in
what is defined as violence and what is simply considered tradition. As Pain (2014: p.386) notes,
the gravity of violence against women is terrifying, and the description of it as intimate terror
would be an accurate description and a fitting way to draw attention to the problem: everyone is
terrified of terror. However, Pain ultimately decides that calling violence against women a form of
terrorism will not lessen the pain of survivors, nor prevent these everyday atrocities from
occurring. This jars with MacKinnon’s (2006: p.19) question:
What will it take for violence against women, this daily war, this terrorism against women as women
that goes on every day worldwide, this everyday, group-based, systematic threat to and crime against
the peace, to receive a response in the structure and practice of international law anything approximate
to the level of focus and determination inspired by the September 11th attacks?
Neither Pain nor MacKinnon wholly answer the question of what difference a re-definition would
make to individual women’s lives which are subject to this systematic terror. While this redefinition would not make a difference to a woman subjected to daily terror by her
husband/partner/boyfriend, it might make a difference to international frameworks, thus ensuring
that women in all countries have access to legal recourse and shelter. It might truly begin a global
conversation about the estimated 35% of women who experience physical or sexual violence by
intimate partners (UN Women, 2016). It is clear that defining this as a ‘woman’s issue’, to be
5
tackled by feminism and women’s group, has done little to end it. Perhaps this is the time for the
international community to truly recognise this as an act of terror across the world, and not an issue
to be tackled by individual country’s legal and political frameworks.
Counter-Terrorism
Current Responses
Counter-terrorism is commonly understood as the use of military action to defeat terrorists and
their allies (Keen, 2015: p.1). Keen (ibid: p.3) has argued that counter-terrorism has appealed to
the heart more than the mind: utilising the emotive appeal of ‘confronting evil’ to legitimise war
like tactics and often used alongside promises of aid to support chosen allies (ibid: p.5). Given
Keen’s critique, what could counter-terrorism accomplish in a possible war against the war on
women?
Counter-Terrorism: A Method to Combat Violence Against Women?
In the aftermath of the latest recession, cuts towards women’s services have increased rapidly. In
the UK there have been cuts of 31% to refuges and vital services tackling domestic violence, and
on a typical day 230 women seeking emergency refuge space are turned away (Baird, 2012, in
Pain, 2014: p.543). Meanwhile, in 2010-2011 the UK government spent £3.5 billion on counterterrorism and intelligence (Pain, 2014: p.543)3. Faced with these statistics the argument that
violence against women should be defined as terrorism in order to garner the full political weight
of counter-terrorism and all its resources is understandable to say the least – a point on which
3
Compare this to the £10 million pledged by the UK government in 2015 to be spent over a two-year period
(GOV.UK, 2015).
6
Zalewski and Sisson Runyan (2015) agree. However, Zalewski and Sisson Runyan (2015: p.445446) further argue that conceptualising everyday violence against women as terrorism would
dramatize and sensationalise the acts. This ‘spectacularisation’ only serves to sexualise this
violence, playing into “the shock-and-awe tactics and culture which have proliferated in the War
on Terror in an age of neoliberal (celebrity) humanitarianism” (Kapoor, 2013, in Zalewski and
Sisson Runyan, 2015: p. 446).
In light of these opposing views, I conclude that the problems arising from the re-definition of
violence against women as terrorism do not lie in the use of ‘everyday counter-terrorism’ (Sjoberg,
2015), but instead in the manner in which counter-terrorism is carried out today. The brief
summary above of Keen’s critique of the politicisation of counter-terrorism, used to further the
political agendas of governments in the Global North. Meanwhile, cuts towards women’s services
continue to ingrain the complacency and normality with which violence against women is
received. Theoretically, the full weight of counter-terrorism could completely transform the lives
of women. MacKinnon asks us to imagine what women’s everyday lives would look like if
international law such as Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was applied to violence
against women: if women lived without “murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture, and
outrages to personal dignity, especially humiliating and degrading treatment” (ibid: p.8). Adding
to the criticism of counter-terrorism as a preferable defence against violence against women is
Sjoberg’s (2015: p. 384) argument that the establishment of everyday counter-terrorism would
only lead to the re-direction of terror into the intimate sphere, as a result of the bi-directional
relationship between everyday violence=war/terrorism.
Considering these critiques, I conclude that counter-terrorism would not adversely affect the lives
of survivors of violence against women. Theoretically it could work as a method of ensuring that
7
international politics do not forget their intangible link with everyday violence, whilst
(internationally) ensuring that the budgets of governments shelled out for the protection of half of
their citizens. The arguments that counter-terrorist tactics would sexualise violence against women
and introduce war/terror discourse to the intimate sphere only serve to point out the issues with
our counter-terrorist tactics. If tactics can be improved – by exploring alternatives to mainstream
approaches as Keen does (2015: p.34) – then counter-terrorism could greatly serve the battle
against violence against women.
Future Terminology
Expanding the Term ‘Terrorism’
What would an expansion of the term terrorism mean for both the field of Critical Terrorism
Studies and the struggle to eradicate violence against women? Wight’s (in ***, 2016b) discussion
on whether state terror can be defined as terrorism guides this discussion. Wight’s argument is
based on the assumption of the state’s monopoly on violence, alongside a belief that there is little
to be gained from adding the state to the list of terrorist actors. By adding state terrorism to the
definition of terrorism the threat of terrorism is greatly expanded, thus justifying the argument that
terrorism is a ‘global threat’. Wight argues that an expansion of the term terrorism to include state
terror would lead to an unworkable definition which would justify unending military actions.
The emergence of the state’s monopoly on violence occurred alongside what Pateman called the
sexual contract: ““the law of male sex-right”, securing male sexual access to and dominance over
women” (Pateman, 1988: p.182, in Allen, 2011). Pateman argues that the ‘sexual contract’ has
been written out of social contract law, yet its essential characteristics remain in society today.
8
Within terrorism studies the state’s monopoly on violence is little discussed but still received more
attention than this ‘sexual contract’, which continues to affect the treatment of women today.
Much of the literature examined discusses what re-defining violence against women as terrorism
would mean for policy making (Sjoberg, 2015: p.386), for resources (Pain, 2014: p.532/543), and
for drawing attention to this continuing brutality (ibid: p.543/544). However, there is little
discussion of what this re-definition could mean for the future of the term terrorism within the field
of CTS. Wight’s arguments illustrate that the foundations of these discussions rest on early state
contracts and a willingness to utilise the term terrorism for only minor security threats. The
resonance this has with forgotten sexual contract theory and the down-playing of domestic
violence is clear.
Eradicating Violence Against Women
Women have no state, are no state, seek no state […]. Since this history never seems to get around to
including us, and genocide does not cover women on the basis of sex, and crimes against humanity were
implemented nowhere until the ICC (which still prioritizes state enforcement), what are women violated
by men to do? (MacKinnon, 2006: p.16).
To answer MacKinnon’s question I suggest that a collaboration of certain factors by state and
international actors could prevent this global terror: the use of the term terrorism to describe the
violations, a recalibration of what counter-terrorism means and the full weight of international law.
Returning to Richard’s (2014) definition of terrorism, – “the use of violence or the threat of
violence with the primary purpose of generating a psychological impact beyond the immediate
victims or object of attack for a political motive” (ibid: p.230) – I find that violence against women
falls under its terms. Very often the violence or threat of violence is carried out on children or pets
in order to generate impact on the women in question (DeMello, 2012: p.248). While the
9
psychological impact of the threat of domestic violence arguably carries far further than victims
themselves: to all women in society. Regarding the political motivation that is needed in acts of
terrorism it is long documented that the private is political. Pain argues that “everyday terrorism
and global terrorism are related attempts to exert political control through fear” and is not a trickledown or one-directional effect (Sjoberg, 2015: p.385), reminding us of Enloe’s (1989: p.196)
earlier counsel to adopt the mantra ‘the international is personal’. While violence against women
may fit the definitional terms and conditions of terrorism – which change and develop at an
exacerbating speed – what use would this be? Keen (2015) outlines ten drawbacks of mainstream
counter-terrorist approaches. These vary from the fact that emphasising order can mask the need
for social change (ibid: p.10) to how approaches often displace or postpone violence rather than
resolve it (ibid: p.28). Both drawbacks illustrate how counter-terrorism would not rectify culturally
embedded violence against women alone, change must include a complete transformation in
cultural norms, moving away from a world where “when women are violated, it is still called
culture” (MacKinnon, 2006: p.17).
~
This exploration of defining violence against women as terrorism spans many disciplinary areas
and topics. The early discussion of the definitions of ‘violence against women’ and ‘terrorism’
illustrated the complexities surrounding such contested terms: in the contrast between official
definitions and lived experience for the former, and in the wide disparities between definitions in
the latter. Following these questions came an exploration of defining violence against women as
terrorism within international relations, and the consequences this would have for the blurring of
the state and non-state binary. Subsequently I explored what difference this re-definition could
make to the eradication of violence against women. Section two briefly discussed the Critical
10
Terrorism Studies’ perspective of counter-terrorism, before examining the effectiveness of
counter-terrorism as a method against violence against women. I concluded in section three with
an exploration of what expanding the term terrorism could mean for the future of the term, whilst
examining the historical social contracts that provide lasting justifications (and understandings) of
state violence and patriarchal entitlement. Lastly, examining whether violence against women fits
terrorism’s definitions and concluding that despite fitting the definition the problems attached to
counter-terrorism necessitate too many changes for it to be a valuable re-definition.
I end with MacKinnon’s (2006: p.31) question: “what will be done for the women all over the
world whose own September 11th can come any day?”. Throughout this text a key theme arises:
violence against women must be placed within the international context to be fully combatted. The
field of international relations recent inclusion of feminist micro level behaviour analysis
illustrates the effect of countless feminist scholar’s work. From Pateman to Enloe to MacKinnon
a dominant theme runs through: the personal, the mundane, the normal is intrinsically connected
to the international. Pateman argues that male domination of woman – the personal – was
contracted by the state – an international actor, while Enloe places the one firmly within the other,
and MacKinnon exemplifies the clear parallels between forms of violence in both settings. All
three fundamentally connect the personal with the international. Pain, Zalewski and Sisson
Runyan, and Sjoberg have explored the complexities of these arguments within the field of
Terrorism Studies. This essay does not provide clear conclusions of the use of marrying these two
terms. However, by highlighting that you are more likely to die as a woman because of your
gender, rather than because of terrorism as we currently define it, it emphasises the need for this
discussion to take place; when will gender become political enough to be deemed a motive for
terrorism.
11
Bibliography
Allen, A. (2011) Feminist Perspectives on Power. Available at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/. [Accessed 17 March 2016].
Cullen, C. (2016) ‘University ‘found no evidence’ of revenge porn Facebook group’, The
Independent. 13 February. Available at: http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/news/university-found-no-evidence-of-revenge-porn-facebook-group34450339.html. [Accessed 17 March 2016].
DeMello, M. (2012) Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Relations. New
York: Columbia University Press.
***. (2016a) *** [Lecture], ***.
***. (2016b) *** [Lecture], ***.
Enloe, C. (1989) Making Feminist Sense of International Politics: Bananas, Beaches and Bases.
Pandora Press: London.
GOV.UK (2015) £10 million support for women facing the threat of domestic violence.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/10-million-support-for-womenfacing-the-threat-of-domestic-violence. [Accessed 14 June 2016].
Keen, D. (2015) Dilemmas of counter-terror, stabilisation and statebuilding. London:
Saferworld.
MacKinnon, C., A. (2006) ‘Women’s September 11th: Rethinking the International Law of
Conflict’, Harvard International Law Journal, 47(1), pp. 1-32.
Pain, R. (2014) ‘Everyday terrorism: Connecting domestic violence and global terrorism’,
Progress in Human Geography, 38(4), pp.531-550.
Richards, A. (2014) ‘Conceptualizing Terrorism’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 37, pp. 213236.
Sjoberg, L. (2015) ‘The terror of everyday counterterrorism’, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8(3),
pp.383-400.
12
Stanley, J. (2015) ‘Verbal abuse of women in public’, The Irish Times, 19 October. Available at:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/verbal-abuse-of-women-in-public-1.2395050.
[Accessed 17th March 2016].
Starling, P. (2009) ‘Guest Blogger Starling: Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to
approaching strange women without being maced’, Shapely Prose, 8 October. Available
at: http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99srapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-beingmaced/. [Accessed 17th March 2016].
UN Women (2016) Facts and Figures: Ending Violence against Women. Available at:
http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-andfigures. [Accessed 17th March 2016].
Women’s Aid (2015) ‘Remembering Stolen Lives’, 16 Days Campaign Blog, 10 December.
Available at: https://www.womensaid.ie/16daysblog/. [Accessed 17th March 2016].
World Health Organisation (2016) Violence Against Women. Available at:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/. [Accessed 14th March 2016].
Zalewski, M. and Sisson Runyan, A. (2015) ‘“Unthinking” sexual violence in a neoliberal era of
spectacular violence’, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8(3), pp.439-455.
13