Since July 2024, sexual harassment in public spaces has been a criminal offence in the Netherlands. While street harassment was long approached primarily as a public-order issue, it is now increasingly understood in relation to sexism, gender inequality and violence of which women in particular are victims.
How is this behaviour learned, normalised or, conversely, challenged? And what makes it possible to influence these social dynamics? We discussed these questions with Mischa Dekker.
'What are you looking at me for?'
Street harassment entered the political agenda around 15 years ago as a 'public-order disturbance' and was often associated with young men from migrant backgrounds. At the same time, feminist organisations and policymakers in France placed street harassment within the broader context of sexism, gender inequality and violence against women.
Recent figures show that more than one in three young women have experienced sexual harassment, compared with one in twelve men. LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities and people who are visibly religious are also disproportionately likely to experience harassment in public spaces. One consequence for young women is that they often take responsibility for their own safety: assessing risks, taking precautions and avoiding certain places.
High-profile cases sparked wider debate
Dekker: 'Research findings are now being incorporated more actively into public debate. Active and independent feminist movements have broadened the discussion around gender-based violence, as have high-profile cases such as MeToo and The Voice of Holland. As a result, policy now pays greater attention to perpetrators from all sections of society.'
Specialised government bodies focusing on gender issues also contribute to policies in which gender is considered more explicitly. In countries such as Spain and New Zealand, gender equality is a distinct policy area with its own government structures. Some cities have adopted a similar approach. Vienna, for example, has a gender-mainstreaming department and a city councillor whose portfolio includes women's affairs, rather than treating gender equality solely as part of emancipation policy or Diversity & Inclusion.
The consequences of framing
Dekker: 'in a context where street harassment is commonly associated with migration and racialized minority men, it becomes more difficult to address men directly and involve them in discussions about street harassment. Policymakers and professionals try to avoid certain forms of representation to prevent the stigmatisation of men of colour. Addressing men directly can therefore become uncomfortable.'
Campaigns on street harassment sometimes try to avoid stigma by depicting perpetrators not as people, but as predators or shadows. This can make the problem highly abstract, and less likely for men to recognise themselves in such campaigns. A politically safer option is to shift the focus towards victims and what they can do to become more resilient. It is easier to reach agreement on this than on changing perpetrators' behaviour. Dekker: 'This creates a paradox: men are increasingly described as part of the solution, while their responsibility is simultaneously diluted, displaced or abstracted.'
