Over the last decade, gender-related issues have gained increasing popularity both in Armenia and in the broader post-Soviet region. Gender and sexuality have entered into local discourses across the globe, and Armenia is no exception. As a result and in parallel, a global ideological phenomenon referred to as “anti-genderism” or “gender ideology” also entered into Armenian vernacular. It is no coincidence that, in this period, Armenia passed its own domestic violence law (hereafter DV law) in late 2017. This legislation has seen great evolution from then into the new package of amendments that was passed earlier this year. How did anti-genderism enter into Armenian discourse? And how did it affect the original version of the DV law from 2017? I argue that Armenia’s DV law took its most conservative form — particularly relative to later forms — in 2017 due in part to the rising anti-gender movement in this state. To demonstrate this, I will first examine discussions around the Law on Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (2013), later the DV law (2017), and finally anti-genderism in Armenia more broadly.
Laws in Armenia related to gender
In 2017, the DV law took its most conservative form — particularly in comparison to its modified versions in the following years. Prior to the first draft of the domestic violence law passed in 2017, Armenia’s laws on gender and sexuality remained as they were following the collapse of the Soviet Union. A pivotal moment in this era was in 2013, when Armenia was set to pass the Law on Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, formerly titled the Gender Equality Law. The goal of this law was to guarantee the same opportunities for success for both men and women in Armenia in a variety of fields, including labor, health care, education, entrepreneurship and politics. It was informed by a variety of documents from the European Union, Council of Europe and United Nations. Leading up to its passing, this law received minimal backlash from both lawmakers and the public. However, at the time of its passing, several nationalist, conservative groups in Armenia created an anti-gender discourse by skewing the meaning of the word “gender” and likening those who support gender rights with destroyers of traditional Armenian ideologies.
In May 2013, at the second public hearing for this law, a sudden shift in narrative occurred as numerous state officials — among them, those responsible for drafting the law — called for the removal of the term “gender” from the title as well as the body of the law. Attention turned to the meaning and perceived deviance of this term rather than the implementation of the law itself. As a result, the term “gender” was removed from the name of this law and replaced with “Women and Men.”
The dispute around the 2013 Law on Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Women and Men and its ultimate name change sparked what came to be known as the anti-gender movement in Armenia. A parallel phenomenon occurred in Russia in 2013, when a draft of an anti-discrimination law circulated, and leaders felt the need to pass a bill that safeguards children against “homosexual propaganda.” It is no coincidence that these and several other global movements began in 2013, as this movement began spreading from its birthplace in the Vatican throughout Europe and its surroundings. The term “gender” continues to have devious connotations in Armenia today, as it symbolizes a move away from traditional Armenian values.
Anti-genderism
Anti-genderism is in no way unique to Armenia. It is a global concept that spans countless countries, including but not limited to, France, Germany, Italy, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Brazil, Argentina and several African countries. Supporters of anti-genderism are typically conservatives who merge the term “gender” with a host of concepts that are considered “liberal” or “Western” — including homosexuality, transsexuality and pedophilia. Several academics have deemed gender an “empty signifier,” with a variety of meanings ranging from homosexuality to abortion. Each of these is meant to instill fear in the local public, who consider these concepts as deviations from the “natural order” of human life.
Anti-genderism is an international concept that is part of a conservative response to the global expansion of democracy. Since gender equality often symbolizes a shift toward democracy, as it embodies more inclusive representation, it is conflated with liberal, Western ideals in the public imagination — the foundation for which is democracy. As such, experts who study this phenomenon argue that the global conflict on gender is a microcosm for the future of international democracy. Politics, religion and gender are all interconnected as part of this conversation.
Followers of anti-genderism believe that gender has both fixed and flexible definitions within it. Certain facets of anti-genderism are fixed, such as the idea that “gender” works against the “natural order” of life and that it threatens reproduction, children and families alike. I argue that other aspects of anti-genderism are purposely left vague. Some equate it to homosexuality, perversion, pedophilia, transsexuality or a host of other seemingly unrelated “controversial” topics. Each of these are disparate concepts in reality but are compounded by the anti-gender discourse.
What is described as anti-genderism by its more progressive followers is referred to as “gender ideology” by those who are more conservative. Gender ideology is not to be mistaken for a synonym for Gender Studies. Rather, it is a conservative concept that opposes both women’s and LGBTQ rights as well as any scholarship that suggests the fluidity of gender and sexuality. According to its supporters, gender ideology is a threat to society and humanity, because it ignores the sexual dissimilarities between men and women, therefore constraining reproduction. Those against “gender ideology” consider themselves to be in favor of “family values” instead, as they see these two concepts in direct opposition to one another. For conservative groups, “gender” encapsulates an apprehension toward losing a state’s collective cultural values in favor of Western principles and of an all-encompassing Western influence. According to these groups, gender ideology represents the failures of democracy, while disagreeing with this ideology denies the “natural” social order of humanity.
In most cases, anti-gender supporters are also right-wing conservatives. This way of thinking is also often accompanied by a nostalgia for “simpler times” when gender-related terms were more basic. One of the central tenets of this fear of gender is a shift from a collectivist to an individualistic society, which those against “gender ideology” equate with feminism and Western ideals. Often, to reinforce the foreign nature of gender ideology, many anti-gender proponents from around the world borrow the English term “gender” rather than incorporating local vernacular in order to highlight that the concept of “gender” is imported and not part of the local way of thinking. The origins of gender ideology can be traced back to U.N. conferences in 1994 on population and development (Cairo) and 1995 on women (Beijing). Gender ideology as a concept solidified in the 1990s as sexual and reproductive rights entered the U.N. agenda. The 2003 Vatican publication entitled Lexicon: Ambiguous and Debatable Terms Regarding Family Life and Ethical Questions concretized much of the discourse around gender ideology. Over the next decade, however, gender ideology migrated from Rome to the majority of Europe, and protests began in many European cities in 2012 and 2013. Gender ideology’s popularity can be attributed both to the Vatican’s concerns about gender and the growing right-wing populist movement around the globe. Understanding gender and the conflicts that surround it is crucial to understanding global far-right uprisings and threats to democracy. Anti-genderism has been seen by most scholars who study it as a political tool used to oppose policies that afford individuals sexual and reproductive rights.
Anti-genderism in Armenia
Anti-genderism in Armenia presents itself through several parental committees and follows many of the same patterns outlined above. Their funding sources are not clearly stated, much of their activity is limited to social media and many of their pages have been inactive since 2020. These groups do, however, follow a model based on the global anti-gender movement. The anti-gender movement has also been successful in pandering to the emotions of undervalued members of society, such as parents. Under anti-genderism, parents are collectively proud of their roles while simultaneously angry at societal changes that make them feel undervalued. By making “gender” the enemy, these conservative actors portray leaders of civil society and more progressive politicians as corrupt members of a privileged social class. Thus, it is no coincidence that the majority of anti-gender groups in Armenia are parent groups. The most active of these at the time of the DV law’s passing was the Pan-Armenian Parental Committee.
Anti-genderism and the domestic violence law
The context of the Law on Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Women and Men set the stage for the eventual passing of a conservative version of the domestic violence law in 2017. A pivotal moment in the drafting of the DV law was at a public forum hosted by the Ministry of Justice on October 9, 2017. The forum was meant to be a calm, professional atmosphere in which experts on the law could share their recommendations as the final draft began to take shape. However, several buses filled with members of the conservative opposition arrived at the event, and it quickly devolved into chaos. These members of the anti-gender movement opposition caused upheaval by demanding time on the floor and refusing to follow the Q&A format. When they were given time to speak, these members stated that the DV law was an outside imposition on Armenia and that it lacked public demand from the population. The environment of this event was reportedly quite tense.
After a long and heated debate, four of those opposing the adoption of the bill were permitted to make a three-minute speech. Only one individual spoke on behalf of them all. He questioned the statistics on domestic violence and asserted that there is no such public demand and necessity in Armenia. Such a great deal of misinformation was discussed throughout the forum that the Minister of Justice, Davit Harutyunyan, was forced to repeat over and over again that the law did not establish any mechanism for taking children from their parents, and the bill exclusively aimed to prevent domestic violence and protect the victims of violence. Nevertheless, a group of citizens continued to assert their point of view, often insulting those who disagreed with them.
Conclusion
The discourses and the fear-based narratives created by these groups ultimately caused a more conservative version of the law to be passed in 2017 that was founded on reconciliation and preservation of the family. Since then, Armenia has seen a great deal of political shifts over a short period of time. In 2018, widespread protests in Armenia resulted in MP Nikol Pashinyan replacing long-time oligarchic Prime Minister Serj Sargsyan in what later came to be known as the “Velvet Revolution.” In many ways, Armenia adopted a new set of values following the “Velvet Revolution” that amplified civil society, human rights and democracy. This was a time of great hope for NGOs. Over time, Armenia accepted more donations from the European Union and adopted legislation more closely resembling their values of human rights and equality.
From 2020-2024, following the COVID-19 pandemic and the 44-Day War, much of the conservative faction’s attention turned to these issues and away from domestic violence. After the war, Armenia also made a larger political and ideological shift toward the West. This culminated in the passing of the new package of amendments in April 2024, which includes rights like protection against stalking and safety for non-legal relationships. The typical misinformation campaigns and public forum disruptions from conservatives were notably absent from the discussions around these amendments.
As outlined above, the domestic violence law has evolved a great deal in just over a decade. It will be fascinating to continue tracking its shifts in the next 10-year period and beyond.
Works Cited
Lori Pirinjian
Latest posts by Lori Pirinjian (see all)
- How anti-genderism entered into Armenian vernacular - December 4, 2024
Just a reminder: bother Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden considered homosexuality a sin. Does anyone really want to be on their side?
Adolf Hitler loved animals, Osama bin Laden enjoyed water to quench his thirst, should we stop doing both?
🙄🙄🙄
American culture is corrupt, decadent and degenerate.
It must never be allowed to infect Armenian culture.
Siren words like “tolerance” and “compassion” are how the Woke corrupted America in the first place.
The idea that everything Western and American is superior, is laughable.
Armenia must adhere to the values of the Orthodox world and reject American degeneracy.
Well, I guess I’m one of those degenerate Americans, but I cannot accept that a man striking a woman, especially his wife or daughter, is okay and should be accepted in Armenia, just because we are “Orthodox”. People are entitled to their views on homosexuality, trasgenderism, etc., but they are a small percentage of the population and still deserve protection and decent treatment by the rest of humanity. Move on, Armenia!
Bin Laden even spoke about the environment nothwithstanding the toxic asbestos rich cloud created by the destruction of the world trade centre, in his later videos guess we shouldn’t have concerns as that would be like him !
Domestic violence is a universal scourge which thrives on shame and secrecy and thus legislation to address such is welcome.