nrc.nl
Netherlands: Censorship of Gender-Related Terms Amidst Increased Awareness of Violence Against Women
Following the murder of 17-year-old Lisa, the Netherlands faces a paradox: rising awareness of violence against women alongside government censorship of terms like "gender" and "gender equality" in policy documents, hindering effective policymaking.
- How does the current situation in the Netherlands connect to broader trends in the treatment of gender-related issues?
- This censorship reflects a broader conservative backlash against gender-related discussions and policies. This trend has fluctuated historically; for example, the 2002 cabinet note on domestic violence presented it as a problem affecting "men, women, and children," minimizing women's disproportionate vulnerability. This current push for neutral language mirrors similar trends in the US, where research on women's health and gender-related topics is facing increasing restrictions.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this censorship on research, policy, and societal progress in the Netherlands?
- Continued censorship will likely lead to direct censorship and attacks on academic freedom. The silencing of gender-related terms undermines open dialogue, violates educational freedoms, and contravenes international agreements. The Netherlands risks hindering progress on gender equality and repeating the concerning trajectory observed in the US, where research and funding are being impacted by similar restrictions.
- What is the immediate impact of removing gender-related terms from Dutch policy documents on addressing violence against women?
- The removal of terms like "gender" and "gender equality" from policy documents hinders the creation of effective strategies to combat violence against women. It prevents the acknowledgment that women are disproportionately affected, masking the reality of the problem and hindering targeted interventions. This is further illustrated by the criticism received in 2020 for not specifically naming women as a risk group in the action plan "Violence has no place here.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view by showcasing both the increased awareness surrounding violence against women in the Netherlands and the paradoxical censorship of related terms in government documents. The framing highlights the contradiction effectively, allowing the reader to understand both sides of the issue. However, the focus on the censorship could be perceived as giving disproportionate weight to that aspect, potentially overshadowing the broader progress being made.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective, employing quotes from the interviewed expert to support claims. While the article uses terms like "censorship" and "conservative backlash", these are descriptive rather than inflammatory and reflect the subject matter. The use of quotes from the expert, Professor Römkens, provides a balanced perspective rather than promoting a specific viewpoint.
Bias by Omission
The article could benefit from including more diverse perspectives beyond Professor Römkens. While her expertise is valuable, incorporating views from government officials or representatives from different political parties could offer a more complete picture of the situation and the reasons behind the censorship. Additionally, statistical data on the prevalence of violence against women, both before and after Lisa's murder, could strengthen the analysis and provide a quantitative context for the qualitative observations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the removal of terms like "gender equality" from official documents, hindering efforts to address gender-based violence. This directly impacts SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by obstructing effective policy-making and data collection related to violence against women. The deliberate avoidance of gender-specific language prevents accurate assessment of the issue and the development of targeted interventions. The silencing of researchers and the suppression of gender-related research further exacerbates the problem.