Augusta DellÕOmo: Welcome to Right Rising, a podcast from the Center for Analysis of the Radical Right. I'm your host Augusta DellÕOmo. Today I'm joined by Dr. Jessica White and Claudia Wallner, who are both researchers at the Terrorism and Conflict Research Group at the Royal United Services Institute. And they're here with us today to talk with us about the role of gender and policymaking, especially in regards to the far right. Jessica and Claudia, thank you both so much for being here. Jessica White: Thanks for having us, Augusta. Claudia Wallner: Hello, thank you for having us. AD: So, Jess and Claudia, I wanted to start off with a big framing question, we usually do that on Right Rising to kind of set the stage for where we'll be going throughout the episode. So let's start with what does it mean to include gender in policy JW: So IÕll jump in on this one. It's a challenging question. It's very diverse, I think answer to that question. Often, I think when people think of gender and policy, they think of women and making sure that we're including women in in security policy. But ultimately, sort of the argument that I'm constantly making to people is that it is about more than just women, we need to think about gender analysis in that we are assessing everyone's, you know, sort of socially defined gender roles. So what does it mean to be a woman in a society? Or what does it mean to be a man? And how does that impact, you know, security solutions and security policy and sort of actions that are taken for security reasons, and I think we have there's multiple elements to that. Everything from from gathering, you know, sex-disaggregated data to record sort of the gender of those who might be participating in your program or being impacted by your policy, to conducting sort of more in depth gendered analysis and research and understanding the context, you know, where you might be implementing that policy and how those gendered roles might be different, and impacting people's agency differently, and why they get involved in security, programming or solutions. So I think, you know, it's a very, it can be a very big answer to that question, but essentially impacts everyone and sort of every individual's participation in security. AD: Well, Jess I love the way that you frame this at the beginning, right, that it's not just about women, and the way that I think our minds really go, when we hear gender and policy, let's talk about women or women's issues. But it's really the way that the concept of gender and the way that our different gender roles in society are having this impacted policy. It's not just about women. So as our listeners know, I'm right, rising, I am a historian. So I will ask you a little bit of a historical question, how has gender in security policy been approached in the past? JW: I think, you know, I think that's sort of the answer to this question is largely why we first think of women, you know, and when we think of gender, because I, you know, historically, if you look back sort of 20 years ago, was the beginning of the Women, Peace and Security agenda. And that's sort of was, you know, initiated with the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000. And that sort of cemented international commitment, at least at a very high policy level, to the idea that it was essential to include women, when you're thinking about sort of the impact of security policy, as well as meaningful peace and security solutions. And I think it was sort of unfortunate now looking back, I think in the last sort of five, maybe 10 years, there's been quite a progression within the, you know, the people who who research this area, and even policymakers in this area, to think that we really need to think about it more as Gender, Peace and Security rather than Women, Peace and Security. Because I think it was sort of that initial step into the Women, Peace and Security realm, that really focused policy in this area on women. You know, there has been some success, certainly related to the Women, Peace and Security agenda. We've seen, you know, an increase a female participation in peacekeeping missions and sort of more attention, perhaps, to the impacts that that security policies or security, you know, measures, behalf on women in sort of in, you know, insecure situations, but largely, I think, you know, it's fallen short in a lot of ways and sort of, it hasn't encouraged meaningful adaptations, I think of policy rather sort of some Yeah, some more progress, there's more progress to be made, certainly to improving approaches. AD: Well, it's really helpful to have that context. Also, you know, of just kind of reifying, again, that this over emphasis just on women's roles is really masking this broad spectrum of when we're thinking about gender and policy, what are the kinds of questions that we should be asking and all of us here come from academic background. So I'd like to just shift our focus a little bit and ask what are the academic conversations contributing to these discussions about gender in policy? JW: I think, you know, certainly there is a much more robust, you know, academic field, studying sort of feminist security, you know, and sort of applying that feminist perspective to security policy, critical terrorism studies, critical security studies, they're all sort of taking on board a more diverse approach to security and thinking about it. But historically, it's a very patriarchal system, sort of, you know, especially in western conceptions of security policy, it's a very male dominated environments, and because of sort of, perhaps, messed up in the approach of focusing so much on women, and unintentionally, perhaps links, the women's rights agenda and sort of gender equality agenda to security policy and programming, especially in the context of the global war on terror, which sort of began at the same time in the same time in a frame, that it it has damaged, I think, in some ways, sort of, you know, securitized women's rights and gender equality in a way that can be damaging. So there's certainly a very robust academic conversation about the negative aspects that perhaps do come along with, you know, the linking of women to peace and security solutions. There has been this sense of, you know, gender policy, simply adding, I'm gonna say the phrase, add women and stir. And this was sort of a phrase that was developed when you're thinking about not rethinking the policy as it exists, and perhaps rethinking what assumptions that policy might make about the roles of women or the agency of women in these things. But simply saying, okay, in order to improve our gender equality representation, we'll add in five more women, make sure they sit this table, you know, make sure that they're involved in the process without really thinking rethinking the reasoning behind that policy or the implications of that policy. So you might end up with more women at the peace table, for example, but do they actually have a voice? Can they actually contribute to that conversation? That's a whole different issue. And certainly, as we've been saying, Augusta, there's certainly a need to, to take in on board a fuller consideration of what gender means not just to look at women, but to look at the role of masculinities and femininities and sort of these social conceptions of gender roles. CW: Just add to that. So one of the key areas of our research and both the academic debate, but also programming that we've we've looked at at RUSI is really the area of youth. So kind of in the context of extremism, terrorism. So the base in this area, are kind of mainly based on the premise that the youth that are actually at risk of radicalization are mostly males. So programming that focuses on youth tends to refer mainly to males. Whereas genders, so Jess has already mentioned this, but the base about gender tend to tend to focus mainly on females with kind of no distinction of age at all. So that obviously leads to an overwhelming focus out of interventions and also academic debates around youth empowerment. On really young males, with just very little regard for, for, for females in this group. And I think this area, and this, this understanding really kind of needs to be changed to truly remove gender bias. And this area, I think, it's also really important to, to acknowledge there's not a single concept of what it means to be man or what it means to be a woman. But there's really multiple models of masculinity and femininity that need to be considered. So firstly, obviously, there's geographical differences, global North versus global South, and, you know, many distinctions in those spaces. There's also kind of class differences there in those regions. And also, I think, especially if you look at the far right, I think there are real differences in the gender roles and gender identities and what is accepted, and what is not in in different subcultures and communities on the far right. So, for example, in some movements on the far right, people who identify as LGBTQ+ are very much accepted and sometimes even take on leadership roles. Whereas in other groups and movements on the spectrum, you know, they're incredibly homophobic and transphobic. And they would never accept somebody like that in their groups. And also just another another quick point, I think, really needs to be considered as context is the different roles and identities that women take on in in the far-right kind of in groups and movements on the far right. So we think ranging from the model of the Tradwive's very traditional understanding of the role of a woman as a mother and a wife, first and foremost, to women really taking on more action oriented roles are the roles of ideologues, etc. So there's a whole spectrum of of issues to consider when we talk about gender in this context. AD: That's incredible, helpful context Claudia, especially when we're talking about this, this spectrum of how issues of gender seem to manifest in the far right, if we're talking about sort of violent, toxic masculinity, if you were thinking about incels, if we're thinking about maybe tradwives. So if we're thinking about the roles that women will play in far right movements, that especially in the academic spaces, and we've had lots of people on the podcast talking about the role of gender, but there seems to be a little bit at least from my experience, a disconnect between how academics have been talking about the role of gender, particularly in far right extremism, and what that actually looks like in the policy spaces when we're developing solutions to what we would call PCVE Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism. So I wanted to ask you both how has the shift in far right extremism in this renewed emphasis on this as a security issue, in the security conversation really opened up more awareness about the role that gender plays in these kinds of extremist spaces? JW: I think if I can come in on this one, I think that sort of, there's a perspective that exists, you know, especially I think, in the generalist audience that far-right and Islamist extremism are opposing each other right, one feeds off the other, that there are totally different ends of an extremist spectrum that you know, that perhaps hate each other. But really, when you think about it, they are opposite sides of the same coin. They're both at the far right, conservative end of the spectrum of, you know, political, religious, or ideological beliefs. And I think sort of so there are some lessons that can be taken, perhaps, from what we have learned from 20 years of, you know, sort of CT and PCVE focused, you know, security policy in the Islamist, this context and the Global War on Terror and sort of this extreme focus on that ideological threats. We've learned a lot about sort of mistakes were made and assumptions about the roles that women can play about their agency, do they have agency, you know, should they be prosecuted as you know, violent or as terrorists, and sort of a lot of these lessons perhaps can be taken on to be part of the consideration as we think about foreign extremism, and as especially Western security organizations, you know, shift their attention more so to the issue of far right extremism, I think there definitely are parallels to be drawn from the participation of women and sort of the roles they were allowed in Islamist organizations versus far-right organizations, you know, and sort of how the misogynist narratives that are behind to take on the role of motherhood, whether that is to to raise the next generation and the caliphate or whether it is to raise the next white generation sort of that is very similar narratives and sort of, you know, in that go in behind the roles that women are allowed in these organizations. And I think you can definitely see women in some cases in both, you know, both ideological context trying to push the roles that they are allowed to take into more action oriented roles. And sort of I think, you know, with that you can look at the different types of far right extremism, you know, lending sort of difference allowances of agency to women is such an umbrella term that pulls in a lot of different levels of misogyny and in the different types of far-right extremism. Claudia I donÕt know, if you wanted to add to that? CW: Yeah, no, just on on the point of misogyny. I think one thing that's, that's often highlighted in this context is obviously, Augusta, you already mentioned this, the emergence of in incel-related violence, kind of on the radar of, of extremism and terrorism. So for example, in the UK, it's kind of reemerged on the radar with the Plymouth mass shooting not too long ago, where the shooter was apparently involved with, with incel subcultures online, but really think it's just important to keep in mind that that all far-right ideologies and as Jess mentioned, also other extremist ideologies are really gendered. But if you talk about the far-right in specific, I think one of the gendered narratives that is incredibly popular on the on the far right is the narrative around victimhood of the white race. So this is obviously rooted in kind of in the idea of the of the emasculation of, of white males, both by undeserving immigrants, and out groups that they don't agree with and also by empowered women who can have thought to limit the the economic opportunities, and also the historical supremacy of white males, both in society but also in the context of the, of the family. And its changes in society like increasing multiculturalism and the emancipation of of women are sort of portrayed in these narratives as having led to kind of a war against heterosexual white men who feel they're suppressed by the the continually changing social norms and the increasing progressive norms that that they feel are changing the game for them. And then in contrast, if you look at concepts of femininity, the far-right traditionally portrays portrays women as pure and as weak, and in need of protection by, you know, real, real men, real white men and, and they believe that the birth the source of the as Jess already mentioned that that kind of the main main role of, of women in society is really to, to ensure the survival of the nation by bringing white children to the world and raising them. JW: I think there's a point to bring back to the policy question, I think that, you know, there's a really a difficult element here for, for police, you know, and for intelligence agencies, as the CT frameworks and sort of the, you know, the counter extremism concept has been developed so securely in the sense of Islamist threat being the most prominent threats, that they almost don't know how to qualify violence, that maybe is related to extremist ideology that might follow to the far right, but incel is a new idea, in a sense to them up, you know, Can you can you label, a murder or beating or, you know, sort of the small scale levels of violence as terrorism, should you label it as terrorism? Or should it be labeled as murder, and sort of this issue of different ideologies, feeding into that different ideologies that are perhaps less well understood by security services who have had such a focus on Islamist extremism, that there isn't a system in place yet, or they're just now developing a system of sort of policy being able to reach these other and include these other types of ideological extremism. And certainly, there's a challenge, I think, within the legal system, as well, sort of legal definitions of terrorism, or acts of violent extremism. And does that include an understanding of something like incel violence or you know, something that is not traditional, you know, to what's been developed over the last 20 years? AD: When you go back to something that Claudia mentioned a couple minutes earlier about the, there's so many different forms of what masculinity and femininity look like, even within the far right, right, if you're in the Global North context, if you're in the Global South, what far-right extremism looks like in India is not the same as what it looks like in the US there are similarities, but they're not having the exact same conversations around gender roles that you may see in the UK. So I wanted to ask you both perhaps a slightly unfair question. But since you all are in the policy space, how has gender been included in these conversations about preventing violent extremism, combating far-right extremism and how should it be included, especially for taking into account that these are not the same conversations in every space where far right violence is really starting to become a serious security consideration? JW: So I think, you know, in the history of preventing and countering violent extremism, which has existed for just over 15 years now sort of in the content in the modern sense of what it means to to have a PCVE policy. You know, it originally began with sort of a sense that women should be included in their roles as mothers, and as, you know, people who are closely connected to their community, people who are inherently more peaceful and could therefore bring sort of that that sense of peacebuilding to community conversations, and perhaps, you know, as mothers, they should have an inherent understanding of their child's, you know, radicalization process, whether they are being radicalized. And I think, you know, sort of looking back on that now, the academic conversation certainly has become more critical of that assumption. We shouldn't assume the sort of generalized stereotypes about women that there are more peaceful because they do have agency and violent roles in these organizations. And certainly, you know, I think a conversation about the support roles that women play while they may not be obvious, and sort of, you know, taking up arms and committing that frontline violence, they are certainly playing those support roles, so violent extremist organizations and not recognizing their agency in doing that is sort of damaging to how you include women in preventing and countering violent extremism. Because if you're making assumptions about how they are involved, then you're making sort of the mirror assumptions about how to use them in the fight against violent extremism. So I think, certainly historically, you know, there's there's a need. Now we see to include more examination of the roles that men take, you know, and versus the roles that women take and how they are the same. And perhaps the same, some of the same reasons why they get involved, or why they take up certain roles, there's a need to, you know, include more research in each context where you're implementing this type of program. And this comes to your global question, right? Like I said, that sort of it is different. And in these places, you know, and you can't really have one policy or one program and expect it to work the same when you are implementing transnational, preventing and countering violent extremism. And then when you need to implement it in your domestic space. Certainly, you know, there are different challenges that come with implementing PCVE programming in a domestic space with the majority population versus a minority that you're sort of concerned about being linked to an extremist idea, as often was the case, you know, we saw what sort of the Muslim community is being targeted with PCVE you know, against Islamist extremism. So there are certain certainly different challenges, you know, that present with with far right extremism and sort of counter extremism programming. And the same sort of challenges I was referring to earlier with the legal systems and the CT frameworks aren't set up very well to sort of consider a wider array of ideologies and while far right. extremism is certainly on the radar right now. You know, the extremists threat spectrum is always evolving, you know, so I think it needs to be more flexible. And in considering how to include women, but also how to include this wider gender analysis and perspective in prevention programming, and sort of the, you know, the immediate, even security actions, military actions that are taken to secure an area, and in the deradicalization programming that needs to occur and rehabilitation and reintegration programming. I mean, all these different elements need to be considered. And sort of the implications of wider gender analysis on them. AD: Thanks for that Jess, it's really, it's really helpful to think about not just this transnational, there's this huge emphasis right on creating global counterterrorism policy, that there is a sense in it. And it is justified, right, that these movements are interconnected that they're pulling from one another, that they are connecting in ways that have this international scope and an international reach in ways that we haven't seen before. But it is important to retain the reality that these are still in some ways, very domestically focused organizations that they have a domestic agenda that they have, that they're infused with the particular gender ideas and roles that are coming from the societies in which they're based. So I wanted to ask, because we've kind of touched on this a little bit that a lot of the PCVE programming is really rooted in a countering Islamist extremism past. And now we're shifting the focus to really focus on far right extremists. And so what are the implications for PCVE programming overall, now that we're aiming it to focus on the far right? CW: So I think one thing, and Jess already is slightly touched on this earlier, but one of the issues is that with with programming aimed at aimed at the far right, we're talking about, you know, directing program at majority populations in Western cultures, Western countries, as opposed to, you know, directing it at at minority populations. So obviously, there are different types of, of gender stereotypes that you're working with, with these these different populations. And then another point, I think this is linked to something I've mentioned earlier on the the focus on young males, especially in the context of youth, obviously, interventions predominantly focus on on men, especially in the context of youth. But at the same time, male specific gender issues are often really not addressed in PCVE interventions, Jess mentioned earlier, that there's, you know, focus on including women and, you know, looking at different roles of women. But, again, when you look at men, these gendered issues that might be driving them towards violent extremism, including the narratives around victimhood, that I, that I mentioned earlier, are really not addressed very well. So I think in order for for intervention is really addressed a full spectrum of driving factors toward violent extremism, gender specific issues, both of men and women, really, really need to be included, even includes issues like emasculation, humiliation, delayed adulthood, failed adulthood. In some, in some cultures where you need to achieve certain things to really be considered an adult. So there are many issues there. But I think what's just really important to consider and all PCVE programming is that you really need to address the factors that, you know, drive people into extremism in the first place. So, obviously, for some people that will be ideology. And I think for those people, it makes a lot of sense to address the ideological components to, you know, try to get them out or to, you know, prevent them getting further into it. But, you know, as we've seen in a research, and as I think a lot of people are coming to terms with now, gender and gender narratives really are also playing a massive role for many people and in their pathways toward violent extremism, terrorism. So I think, especially for those people, you just need to address those issues. Obviously, they won't be relevant for every single person, but they just need to be part of the wider debate. JW: I might just add something here. I think, you know, one of the unique things about this transition now and thinking about changing in or adjusting PCVE to be more fit for extremism is that I think if you look to the academic conversation about far-right extremism, its focus has largely been on masculinities, which that was not the case of Islamist extremism. So Islamist extremism really approached gender and looking at women's roles on how we can how they can engage women and PCVE agendas. But it's kind of flipped on its head with far right extremism, and that masculinity has been the focus of this and sort of toxic masculinity that goes with these various chauvinist organizations. But I think it's important to realize, you know, sort of that it is it needs to be a full picture. And I think this is what I always bang my drum on about sort of gender applies to everyone and sort of even the ultra-nationalist and xenophobic, you know, sort of the ones that you wouldn't think of as misogynist per se, there are tones of misogyny running in the narratives of of those ideologies, and those organizations, as well, and sort of the implications that that makes, or that that leaves for how women engage with these organizations, in some cases, support them, you know, contribute to them, recruit for them, you know, the all these different roles that that women take and why they take them. I think these are all elements of this sort of why their gender analysis that I certainly we are advocating for. And I think, if I think about looking to the wider policy question that it really does go all the way to the top, right? So because security has been such a, you know, historically masculine dominated policy arena and research arena, even, we need more women involved in more diversity of all of all kinds, not just gender, but you know, more gender diversity, certainly in people who are policymakers in this arena, and who are researchers, you know, and sort of to get that perspective, from the very top of people who are thinking about, you know, appropriate policies and solutions, it needs to start there. Otherwise, it's never going to filter down to sort of on the ground implementation of, you know, more gender awareness in programming, and then, you know, policy implementation. AD: Well, I think that is a fantastic note and call to action to end on. So Claudia and Jess I wanted to thank you both so much for joining us on the podcast. And I wanted to ask for our listeners who may be wanting to learn more about this. Where can they find more of this work? Where can they find the kinds of reports that are coming out of RUSI? Where can they connect with you? Where can our listeners learn more? JW: Yeah, so the RUSI, the Royal United Services Institute, we have a website up and we have, you know, a range of projects that we're looking at relating to sort of CT and PCVE, we have a very specific far right extremism and terrorism program. That is sort of we've sort of set that up over the last year. We're excited about it. So there are project pages up so please do come have a look at and sort of look at what we've produced so far. We also have a Terrorism and Conflict Twitter handle, which I'll leave to Claudia to tell you what it is. CW: That's RUSI_ terrorism. So should be should be easy to find. AD: Perfect. Yeah, we can we can do that. We will press the follow, like and subscribe. Yeah. Awesome. Well, thank you both so much for joining us today. JW: Thank you very much, Augusta. CW: Thank you for having us. AD: This has been another episode of Right Rising. We'll see you all next time.