social change

118 articles in category social change / Subscribe

Hello friends! This Friday, I’d like to introduce you to Zariya, an inspiring new organization working to support survivors of violence against women – currently in India – through an innovative, tech savvy new model. Check out what inspired Zariya’s Founder, Sahar Khan, in her journey towards tackling gender-based violence and founding a new model in this space!

  1. Tell me about yourself; how did you develop a passion for addressing gender-based violence?

Interestingly, in high school in Oman, I worked on women’s education because access to education is a cause that was and remains very dear to me personally. However, during my undergrad years at Stanford, my focus shifted slightly as I learnt more about the pressing problem of violence against women (VAW). I was exposed to grassroots women’s rights work to tackle VAW in India in the summer of 2012. In addition, I am struck by the visceral nature of violence which reminds us that, despite how educated and empowered a woman becomes, she can still be subject to the most debilitating form of abuse. In international law and rule of law studies, we often talk about an “enabling environment” that is required to ensure economic progress. It sounds abstract and you can’t easily measure the benefits of an enabling environment. And, when it’s there, you barely notice it. You only really feel its absence. I believe that a world free from violence is a woman’s enabling environment. And, we can’t just sit around waiting for international and national governments to hand us an enabling framework on a platter – we need to work with them to build the right institutions. This is why I work to end violence against women.

  1. What does Zariya do to address gender-based violence, and what is Zariya’s theory of change?

Zariya is an online platform which connects survivors of VAW with legal and counseling experts. Within 2 days, a woman can access the Zariya website on her smartphone, computer or other handheld device, provide just her email and pincode and thereafter access the resources she needs in her journey of rehabilitation. We use “hyperlocal” matching whereby a woman’s pincode is used to match her with a high-quality expert in her vicinity. We do this for a woman’s convenience, regional/linguistic specificity and to minimize costs relating to transportation. The experts that we connect women with are paid professionals at reputable organizations that Zariya has vetted such as MyChoices and Shaheen in Hyderabad, Swayam in Kolkata, Sneha in Mumbai etc.

And, we have a “third-party” theory of change. Zariya acts as a third-party advocate for a woman that drives all parties involved in a woman’s case to reach closure. Our role is to be a compassionate yet neutral assessor of a woman’s needs and match her with the right resources. We intentionally oversee and coordinate the various moving pieces of a case because this can be a serious hassle for survivors who do not have the kind of network to pull all the right levers. We are process agents rather than direct providers of the legal advice or counselling service. But, we make sure that the experts are doing a good job. This will be consolidated further in the future when we develop a ranking system for service providers in the anti-VAW ecosystem. An average case at most of our service providers’ organizations does not exceed 130 days. If that happens, we request an explanation and plan to immediately shift gears as necessary to bring a case closer to a satisfactory outcome.

Zariya’s long-term vision is to build an integrated referral network and a robust case management system customized for specific nations’ jurisdictions. After perfecting the entry-point which we are currently beta-testing, Zariya aims to build a case management system that empowers a survivor by providing her an enabling environment to drive her case from start-to-finish. We aim to infuse a small amount of coordination and accountability into the anti-VAW ecosystem. Ultimately, we endeavor to build a robust technology that governments can deploy.

  1. How does your model work?

Picture2We have a three-step process: triage (understand a woman’s needs), service delivery (match her with experts who can address her needs) and closure (an outcome that places the survivor in a more just, safe and happy material and mental state).

Zariya is currently a non-profit organization. The product and service will always be delivered to survivors at no charge. As we grow and scale our operations, we hope to initially be supported by grants and donations from foundations, corporations and individuals.

  1. What are the biggest successes you’ve experienced so far with Zariya? What challenges are you facing?

This is just the beginning of our journey, but we are getting a lot of traffic and more cases than we and our NGO partners ever expected. Every single time a woman initiates a case with Zariya and shows that she won’t endure abuse silently, we pat ourselves on the back because taking the first step of seeking help is the hardest. Our users have already commended us for quick turn-around and genuine care and concern for their problems. You can also check out Zariya’s website for user testimonials.

We have many challenges ahead that we need to overcome to make Zariya available to women in the future. The two classic challenges that most socially forward startup organizations initially face are financing and volunteer retention. We have only recently addressed our short-term financial needs through raising small amounts from multiple sources. In the long-term, we need to re-structure financially and organizationally so that we can focus on the actual substance of our work.  In the short term, we’ve had the steepest learning curve. Our volunteers have consisted of engineering and psychology students at IIT and other colleges, journalists, and designers who come on board to assist in case management, coordination and user design research & development. We are slowly starting to understand how to identify the right people and the best methods to motivate the right people.

  1. What are the biggest gaps and challenges with respect to service delivery and the support that survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault require to move forward?

At Zariya, we call these challenges “supply-side” challenges (as opposed to demand-side challenges which comprise problems relating to under-reporting). We have noticed that, while there is a proliferation of organizations in the space, the supply-chain is not highly integrated and all organizations do not provide the same quality of help at a given standard. A highly comprehensive  report by Dasra has suggested that there needs to be some sort of a coordination mechanism between various types of help (legal, economic, medical, financial) so that a woman can resolve all separate yet inter-connected problems in a systematic and holistic manner. The case process is usually messy and non-linear, and is not something that a single service provider can be expected to manage in addition to providing her service.

In the anti-VAW ecosystem, there isn’t really a third party that vets service providers and provides a coordination mechanism. This is the role that Zariya plays for a woman. The better we get at understanding their problems, the more adept we get at making the smartest connections for her and overseeing the constantly moving pieces of her puzzle. In the duration of a case, we sometimes end up connecting a woman with 4-5 services until she finds a service provider who shows compassion for her and provides useful & actionable guidance. The compassion part is key as we have noticed that that’s what makes a survivor stick with a service provider. We are also currently in the process of developing a “compassion quotient” indicator for the anti-VAW ecosystem.

On the demand-side, there is lack of knowledge about existing services. So many women come to us and say that they filed a report with the police and then there wasn’t much follow-up or recourse. We need women to understand that, besides filing a report with the police (which is recommended), there are so many other options. For instance, women may not know about alternative dispute resolution and other mediation measures that can be delivered to them in a cost-effective manner. We hope to educate them about these services.

  1. What is the role of government in providing holistic services to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault? Is the government currently fulfilling its duties? If not, how can we change this status quo?

Globally, most governments and legal systems are over-burdened and resource-constrained. And, even when governments take steps in the right direction with ambitious plans and infusion of funds, plans take time to implement and funds take time to be disbursed. Sometimes, if these plans are not viable, they fall apart. In my view, private citizens can play a crucial role in pushing their governments to expedite anti-VAW policies and programs. This can take on the form of activism or advocacy. We can also very substantially challenge the status quo by collaboratively creating innovative and novel solutions to learn about survivor needs. Half of the work that we do at Zariya is understanding and triaging a survivor’s need; the other half is catering to her needs.

In doing so, non-profits and private organizations can build a repository of knowledge and case precedent that can be presented to governments as a proof-of-concept that works. Governments may be able to provide personnel or funding for such projects and the project organizations can retain their intellectual capital. Essentially, deals need to be brokered and structures set up between public and private entities to make projects such as Zariya national, scalable and financially self-sustaining. India has a Delhi Wi-fi Commission that considers projects for scale-up once they have been operational in a city for a considerable amount of time. So, while some may argue that governments have a duty to directly provide services to female survivors of violence, there’s no saying that we can’t assist our governments in fulfilling their duties. In turn, governments can financially support and provide the personnel, connections and the kind of national scale needed for projects to reach their full potential.

At the Nobel Prize Series event in India in January 2017, Zariya India is emphasizing precisely this message of collaboration between government and innovative organizations. In addition to sharing Zariya’s lessons, successes, and challenges with the honorable Nobel Laureates and other delegates, we endeavor to start the right conversations with government and industry leaders about how to co-support purposeful ideas in a sustainable fashion.

  1. In addition to working to remedy sexual assault and domestic violence after it occurs, how can we work to prevent and end violence against women in the first place?

Hotlines that are reliable and actually work are the short-term solution. And, social education is the long-term solution to change a culture in which, somehow, violence against women is still okay in the 21st century. However, in terms of viability, culture is a rather uncontrollable animal with a will of its own. So, we can’t conclusively or even inconclusively identify when there will be a sea change in culture that will liberate society from violence against women. As you know, a policy reform can be made overnight, but reform in culture can take generations. Still, it’s important to mention that social education efforts need to be benevolently fashioned in a way that they genuinely inspire change in behavior towards women instead of inflaming more aggression. Don’t vilify “perpetrators” but inspire them to be better people.

team

Zariya’s team in action

Furthermore, at Zariya, we believe that remedy is inextricably connected to prevention. The more women who stand up for themselves and demand remedy, the more people will learn about this problem and come to realize that VAW is unacceptable. We think that those demanding remedy are the best and most effective anti-VAW advocates. At Zariya, our interest is ensuring that these women can stand up on their feet again and speak for themselves. Through our research in multiple cities across India (New Delhi, Lucknow, Mumbai, Bangalore and Hyderabad), we have learnt that silence prolongs violence. Of course, breaking the silence and speaking out needs to be done carefully in a manner that doesn’t hurt a woman’s case. Violence is bound to continue when there is an individual and collective silence around the issue. Zariya aims to break the cycle of violence by ending the silence in a safe, secure and confidential manner.

  1. How can people come forward to support Zariya’s mission?

Spread the word! Share Zariya’s website and updates on your social media. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Please also sign up for our mailing list to remain up to date with features, testimonials, vacancies and other developments at Zariya.

Please talk to women you know who are facing violence, show them Zariya’s website, and encourage them to reach out.

Visit our website and send us any feedback on product, content and design. We are always open to hear your valuable thoughts and comments on how we can continue improving Zariya to best serve survivors’ needs.

About SaharPicture1

Sahar Khan is the Founder of Zariya, a 501c3 non-profit that tackles violence against women. An
American raised in Arabia (from the age of 6 months), Sahar is a Stanford alumni who previously worked in The Hague and studied development in Cambridge.

Share

As someone who is a big proponent of a “holistic legal services model,” I was incredibly excited to hear about a program launched in 2013 with support from the Kresge Foundation. The program, the Holistic Legal Assistance Network (HLAN) is hosted within Rhode Island Legal Services, and utilizes a holistic approach to identify and address the underlying social problems preventing an individual from moving forward out of poverty.

This program implements exactly the model I have been advocating on this blog for a while. The program integrates both legal and non-legal support and strategies and provides a continuity of care across the spectrum of a client’s social and legal problems. This holistic approach allows the program to attack the root causes of poverty as opposed to simply addressing the symptoms at a surface level, and by linking to other social service organizations and partners, aims to vastly increase the client’s access to necessary services. In addition, the program continues to follow-up with clients even after specific legal and social problems are addressed.  An initial evaluation seems to reveal positive results, but I think more robust measurement of impact in this and similar models will be helpful to test assumptions and also provide a persuasive force to other legal service providers across the country.  This powerpoint is incredibly helpful and captures many of the underlying goals of a holistic program; the barriers; and how to address them.

Indeed, the presentation accurately points out two key barriers: funding for such programs, and internal culture. Funding is often a challenge, since providing holistic care requires deeper support to each client, and can be enhanced by the hiring of an in-house social worker. This would be a great place for foundations to intervene and work with legal services organizations to supplement their work. However, even without additional funding, legal services organizations can reframe their referral process to develop close connections with social service organizations in the area, enabling greater continuity of care for clients. In addition, the culture of legal organizations is often such that there is a reluctance of lawyers to become involved in clients’ non-legal issues – often because of time – but also at times because lawyers do not feel well-equipped, perhaps are uninterested in addressing such issues, or feel it is not their role. Additional training and support can enable lawyers to think more “holistically” when working with clients, even without the addition of substantial additional resources or financial support.

Regardless, I am incredibly heartened to see a legal services organization taking this on and combining the language of holistic services with community lawyering – and at the same time, to see a foundation beginning to invest in this particular model. With more measurement to prove that this does, indeed, work, more funding may also come into play as donors want to support models that they believe will succeed.

Share

This weekend, I have spent a lot of time scrolling through my newsfeed, reading about and mourning the horror of the terror attacks in Paris that killed over 120.  My heart goes out to the victims and their families and loved ones, and the French people.  I am deeply saddened and stand in solidarity with France in this moment.

12241360_10153784615068760_827623273605806462_n

A poem by Warsan Shire, capturing some of these sentiments more beautifully than I ever could. (H/T to my friend Asiyah for this image)

And yet, in the depth of my heart, I admit that I have found myself thinking:  why has the world paid so much attention to attacks on lives lost in Paris, but so little to lives lost elsewhere in recent months and even days — like the bombing in Beirut just a few days ago in which ISIS killed over 40 people and left over 200 injured or the attack in Baghdad which killed at least 18 and wounded over 40?   Why has the mainstream media reported so heavily on the attacks in Paris, and less so on the recent tragedies in Beirut, Baghdad, and elsewhere in the world — Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Kenya — the list goes on.  Why are many of us, ordinary citizens, taking to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to show our solidarity with the French people – even changing our profile pictures to the colors of the French flag to show support – while often not even being informed of what is happening in other parts of the world, let alone posting about such tragedies? Why did Facebook activate a “safety check” feature for the Paris attacks, but neglect to do so for any of the other attacks that have recently transpired?

To put it bluntly: are we – as a global society – acting on an assumption that certain lives matter more than others? Does the disparity in attention show how little the lives of people of color in the “global south” are valued in comparison to Western lives?  If so, this is deeply problematic. As Paul Farmer has said, “The idea that some lives matter more than others is the root of all that is wrong with this world.”

The truth is that certain tragedies have been getting more airtime than others, and we do need to critically interrogate why.  The world is bleeding in so many places, and particularly for those of us who work on human rights issues across the globe or those who are directly affected, it can be disheartening to see the lack of attention to the hundreds of victims we know are suffering, literally dying for this very lack of attention.  Activists and journalists spend their lives trying to raise this kind of awareness – they meticulously document human rights violations, report on abuses, and try to get policymakers and the public to care.  But even a portion of this show of solidarity rarely comes through for some of the most marginalized groups. It can feel like a losing battle at times.

Many others have begun sharing similar sentiments of anger and frustration via social media as well.  Certainly, we should all be critical and ask these questions — and indeed, question our own reactions to crises like these as well.

But while doing so, we must keep in mind that we cannot “rank” injustice.  We should not be turning this into a game of “oppression olympics.”  While criticizing the way the world pays attention to tragedies in different regions, we should not devalue the lives lost in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad, or elsewhere.  Each life is important, and this tragedy in Paris was horrific and unprecedented.  Many people are genuinely grieving, and they grieve in different ways. It will take some time for those affected and the broader community to understand, process what has happened, and fully grieve.

In this time of grief, is anger really right response?  Is it right to deny someone else’s right to mourn? There is much to be frustrated about, no doubt, but perhaps the core message must be that we do not need less empathy, but more – much more empathy.  We can all show more empathy for tragedies and victims and survivors in our own backyard but also across the world. We can all take moments in future tragedies to seek out information, read what is happening on the ground, understand, share with our networks and take action. We can all do more to highlight on our newsfeeds what is happening not just in our own countries, but also in the most marginalized of communities. We can seek out alternate media and figure out new, different ways to inform ourselves about what the mainstream sources are not always reporting. More empathy paired with action could be crucial in changing the status quo.  And so, let’s call for this change with empathy for all those lives lost, without devaluing a single person’s grief, and with a change in our own behavior and the way we consume and process media.

Share

The open letter from the protestors will always stick with me:

For 108 days, we have continuously been admonished that we should “let the system work,” and wait to see what the results are.

The results are in.

And we still don’t have justice.

This fight for the dignity of our people, for the importance of our lives, for the protection of our children, is one that did not begin Michael’s murder and will not end with this announcement. The ‘system’ you have told us to rely on has kept us on the margins of society. This system has housed us in her worst homes, educated our children in her worst schools, locked up our men at disproportionate rates and shamed our women for receiving the support they need to be our mothers. This system you have admonished us to believe in has consistently, unfailingly, and unabashedly let us down and kicked us out, time and time again.

And this is the heart of the matter – the real truth of what’s happening.

We can talk about the Ferguson decision. There was a lot of injustice in this case; as I understand it, a grand jury should almost always be able to indict in such a case, and the evidence presented certainly meets the probable cause standard. But the prosecutor simply didn’t try, and he may have been biased – I believe – due to his own family background and relationship with the police. We didn’t have an unbiased grand jury hearing here. The fact that we couldn’t even get to a trial where there is clear evidence that Darren Wilson shot a young man — Wilson has admitted to this himself — clearly shows that something was up. Something was wrong.

This case is emblematic of the larger issue of injustice and structural racism in our courts, our deeply flawed justice system which always works for the rich and never for the poor, for the White but never for the Black. We have an issue of racism in the justice system in this country.  This is why the famed Bryan Stevenson supposedly wrote and filed a “Motion to Treat My 14 Year-Old Client As a 75 year Old, White, Privileged Corporate Executive.”  Because our system is not neutral. The law is not neutral and it is not just. The system is actually skewed from beginning to end against Black people and racial minorities, because most of it has been created and perpetuated by White people.

But let us also not forget that this is a matter of structural injustice. Yes, it is about racism and police brutality, the brutal racism that causes a cop to view an unarmed young man as a threat, that makes the police consider a man as an animal who “charged” at him and looked like a “demon.” It’s racism that is making cops view a 6’4″ Black man automatically and inherently as a threat. And then it’s racism built into the very fabric of our laws and court systems that makes him be able to get away with this.

But it’s also about the broader subjugation of African Americans in this country since slavery. It is about the continued legacy of subordination and discrimination and oppression. As the protestors wrote, we are in this position because we have never fully ended the harms of slavery. This ‘system’ is continually making sure that Black people are sent to prison at high numbers, unemployed, in the poorest housing and in the worst schools. Michelle Alexander writes in the New Jim Crow about this legacy and about how the mass incarceration of Black people is just a continuation of the Jim Crow laws, but in another name. And the foundation is racism: which allows the justice system to see Black people and Black men as threats, as dangerous, and as criminals. This is just another system, a system of keeping Black people in the underclass of our society. Ferguson is about Mike Brown, it is about all the people killed unjustly  by police brutality. But it is ultimately (I think, echoing only what the protestors say and not trying to displace their movement!) about structural injustice and racism in our country in every arena that works so hard to subjugate Black people in America, decades after the civil rights movement.

The results are in. And we still don’t have justice.

Share

Last Friday, I organized a symposium at Harvard Law School hosted by the Harvard Law & International Development Society (LIDS) and titled “Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Rebuilding from Emergency to Development,” which brought together practitioners, experts, and academics across the country and world to discuss issues of economic growth and development, and supporting the rule of law in countries arising from conflict.

It was a great success, with lots of insights gained and ideas exchanged.  It was my first real time organizing an event of this scale, and I was so excited to see the vibrant outcomes and exchanges from it!  Especially close to my heart was the second panel, focusing on justice and security reform after conflict. Vivek Maru, of Namati, spoke about their work promoting the use of grassroots community outreach workers (modeled after the “community health worker” model), and how this model of “community paralegals” can be especially effective in supporting ordinary people in accessing justice in fragile countries such as Sierra Leone, post-conflict. In such situations where the justice infrastructure is damaged and often difficult to access by much of the population, supporting justice can be done through the use of paralegals who can help mediate disputes, access information about their legal rights, and address injustices both individual (e.g land rights disputes, family law matters) and collective (mining abuses, collective actions). In the absence of a strong formal justice system in post-conflict countries, the grassroots justice model offers a place to start — and to start with the people rather than at the top-down institutional level.

Here are a few pictures below! Click here for the LIDS website and to access more information on the event, photos, and videos.

IMG_0572Keynote speaker, Dr. Donald Kaberuka – President of the African Development Bank – talks about post-conflict reconstruction and promoting economic growth across Africa.

DSC_0848The first panel focused on building institutions and driving economic growth in countries after conflict. 

DSC_0854The panel included practitioners from across institutions such as The Asia Foundation, USAID, and the World Bank. It was a great look into the tricky challenge of how to rebuild institutions in fragile states.

IMG_0648The second panel focused on developing the rule of law, stability, and security in countries after conflict.

IMG_0669

Share

Here’s quite a fascinating TED talk by Kimberley Motley,who I know has been somewhat of a controversial figure in Afghanistan in the past. She has some interesting thoughts on what it’s like to be a lawyer, representing clients and promoting rule of law in fragile states such as Afghanistan. She represents an interesting array of cases, including gender-based violence and human rights cases in Afghanistan.

Her main thrust in this talk, which I have always agreed with  – is that in many countries, there are already many laws on the books that could protect and promote human rights. Even within Shari’a law, there are ways to interpret key statutes and the Quran in ways that are gender-equitable. There are many laws relating to family and criminal law on the books in Afghanistan and elsewhere that are indeed, good for rights. The problem is that these laws are not being used. When they are implemented effectively by lawyers who are good at advocating for their clients, you can truly foster a culture of ‘rule of law.’

Share

article25

This Saturday, Article 25 – a new global movement of people who believe health is a human right – will be launching the first-ever Global Day of Action for the Right to Health. This is incredibly exciting, as health activists and everyday people in 58 countries will be coming together to launch a rising global, grassroots movement to combat global health inequity.

The Day of Action is being coordinated by Article 25, a nonprofit advocacy group working with more than 50 partners to build a global movement for the right to health. On Saturday, public health and social justice activists will hold teach-ins, rallies, workshops, and candlelight vigils to raise awareness of health disparities across the globe and demand political action to address them.

The day of action is particularly important to highlight how stark global health inequity is, and to begin building and mobilizing communities around the world to demand political action to change the status quo.  Only political action will pressure states, governments, and intergovernmental actors to make the right to health a reality. I think this quote by one of Article 25’s activists sums it up perfectly:

 Collective action is change in itself. A social movement for the right to health can change everything by incorporating grassroots organizations that really work closely with their communities and have passion for change and transformation. We have to show that this is a health crisis to our leaders and make them know that health is is not a privilege — health is a right. And citizens or communities can demand it any time they it has been deprived from them. — Chacha Baru Peter, Kenya, U-Terna

Check out Article 25’s website to find an action near you, and participate! Join in on October 25th to show your support and solidarity for a movement for the right to health.

If you’re in Boston this weekend, I’ll be attending the Rally for the Right to Health, held on Sunday October 26th. Come and join the movement!
Share

As someone who works on issues of domestic violence, one question I frequently ask is: how can we rely on the state’s violent, coercive power to counter and resolve another issue of ‘private’ violence? The criminal justice system and prosecution of domestic abusers is a solution often put forth when it comes to providing accountability and promoting deterrence in cases of gender-based and domestic violence. Perhaps if we prosecute more often (considering the rate of prosecution is incredibly low for a variety of reasons — patriarchal beliefs among police and the justice system, the intimate relationships between abusers and survivors, the mistrust of many communities of the police and criminal justice system, etc) we can drive down the rate of violence by sending a clear message that this kind of behavior is not tolerated in our society, that we are on the side of victims and survivors.

But I often question our ability to turn, automatically, to the criminal justice system to resolve GBV and DV cases. This system is in itself incredibly violent, unjust, and racist, at least in the United States. Here, the criminal justice system is in essence mass incarceration of minorities, especially African American men, as expounded so perfectly by Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. There is a disproportionate incarceration and conviction of black men, so the justice system is not enforced equally on all racial and ethnic groups that may be engaging in violence against women at equal/similar rates. Beyond this, the prison system is incredibly flawed. The conditions can be horrific — not just in the U.S. but around the world. In the U.S., prison rape is incredibly common, frightfully so. There are gendered dynamics and hierarchies within prisons, and prisons can be incredibly violent places that create more trauma.  Can a system that produces more injustice, including violent rape, be used to help solve patriarchy? I simply don’t think so, and I am deeply disturbed by these dynamics.

My question is — can we really rely on one inequitable, incredibly unjust system to fix another problem of injustice? In my mind, the criminal justice system involves deep inequity and oppression; and so does patriarchy. We cannot really depend on criminal justice until this system is fair and equitable, in itself.

This excellent article by Victoria Law speaks to this problem in a more eloquent way. She writes,

Casting policing and prisons as the solution to domestic violence both justifies increases to police and prison budgets and diverts attention from the cuts to programs that enable survivors to escape, such as shelters, public housing, and welfare. And finally, positioning police and prisons as the principal antidote discourages seeking other responses, including community interventions and long-term organizing…..

As these examples demonstrate, strategies to stop domestic violence frequently require more than a single action. They often require a long-term commitment from friends and community to keep a person safe, as in Piepnza-Samarasinha’s case. For those involved in devising alternatives, like the women in Halifax, it may require not only creating immediate safety tactics, but long-term organizing that addresses the underlying inequalities that exacerbate domestic violence.

By relying solely on a criminalized response, carceral feminism fails to address these social and economic inequities, let alone advocate for policies that ensure women are not economically dependent on abusive partners. Carceral feminism fails to address the myriad forms of violence faced by women, including police violence and mass incarceration. It fails to address factors that exacerbate abuse, such as male entitlement, economic inequality, the lack of safe and affordable housing, and the absence of other resources.

I would agree that a sole focus on criminalization is not necessarily productive. We need a more holistic, deeper look at the origin of violence against women and patriarchy, and the social determinants and results of this problem. Moving to criminalization means we are relying on one unjust and patriarchal system (which too often fails survivors and even imprisons them, as the article talks about) that fails to empower anyone or attack the root causes of violence. Until we fix the criminal justice system, in the U.S. and internationally, I don’t think we should feel too comfortable pushing for criminalization as a solution to gendered violence.

Share