The personal is global political: The antifeminist backlash in the United Nations
| Author | Irem Ebetürk,Jelena Cupać |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148120948733 |
| Published date | 01 November 2020 |
| Date | 01 November 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Symposium on Backlash Politics in Comparison |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120948733
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2020, Vol. 22(4) 702 –714
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148120948733
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
The personal is global
political: The antifeminist
backlash in the
United Nations
Jelena Cupać and Irem Ebetürk
Abstract
Antifeminist mobilisation is growing in the United Nations. It is led by a coalition of certain post-
Soviet, Catholic, and Islamic states; the United States; the Vatican; conservative nongovernmental
organisations, occasionally joined by the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, the League of
Arab States, the UN Africa Group, and the G77. Uniting them is the aim of restoring the ‘natural
family’ and opposing ‘gender ideology’. The group has become increasingly strategic, and its impact
can already be seen in a number of UN fora, including the Security Council. By surveying feminist
notions of backlash and comparing them to Alter and Zürn’s definition of ‘backlash politics’, the
article gauges whether the group’s activities can be characterised as such politics. The conclusion
is that they can, suggesting that we are looking at a group with the potential to alter not only the
global course of women’s rights but also how politics is done within the UN.
Keywords
antifeminism, backlash, family, gender, transnational movements, United Nations, women’s rights
Introduction
In April 2019, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2467, a ninth
resolution in its Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. The purpose of the resolu-
tion was to strengthen efforts in combating sexual violence in conflict, including provid-
ing victims with greater legal assurances and services. Unlike its predecessors, Resolution
2467 generated considerable controversy. It was adopted after 4 weeks of tumultuous
negotiations and fierce debates in the media. The controversial issue was the use of the
words ‘sexual and reproductive health’. These words, however, were not new. They had
been used in numerous previous UN documents, including WPS Resolution 2106.
However, the US administration under President Donald Trump sees these words as a
Author note: Order of authorship is alphabetical and shows equal authorship.
WZB Global Governance Unit, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Berlin, Germany
Corresponding author:
Irem Ebetürk, WZB Global Governance Unit, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Reichpietschufer 50, 10785
Berlin, Germany.
Email: irem.ebeturk@wzb.eu
948733BPI0010.1177/1369148120948733The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsCupać and Ebetürk
research-article2020
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial