More than a thousand women attended gender
equality advocates meeting recently at St. Joseph´s University near
Kimara, in the outskirts of Dar es Salaam.
Progress for women in the past 20 years after the
adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BDPfA) was
evaluated as slow with areas of stagnation and even regression. World
leaders were castigated for not doing as expected in operationalising
the commitments made in the visionary BDPfA.
In discussing some of the factors that hold gender equality back,
Laeticia Mukurasi identified attitudinal barriers, the tendency to
conflate “gender” with “women” and poor understanding of what feminism
is about as challenges. In this fourth instalment, she examines factors
related to the positioning and role of gender officers as challenges to
effectively promoting gender equality.
Last week we focused on feminism and saw how misconception and
limited understanding of the concept elicits a hostile response not only
against issues of equality but also against people whose work is to
advocate for it.
For emphasis, feminism is defined as a belief that women and men
are and have been treated differently by society, and in ways that women
have systematically been discriminated against in participating fully
in all arenas be they economic, political, social or personal.
This belief includes a desire that this situation should change so
that women have the same rights, resources, power and opportunities as
men and treated in the same way. As a corollary a feminist is man or
woman who believes in the equality of the men and women and advocates
for change.
This week I will examine the factors pertaining to the positioning
and role of gender officers as a challenge to effectiveness in advancing
gender equality.
As is well known, Gender Officers are normally part of the
machineries or mechanisms for the advancement of equality and women
empowerment.Although their functions tend to be widely diverse,Gender
Officers are staff members whose remit requires them to mainstream
gender across all organisational activities.
As such their day to day function is to translate gender equality
policy into action; to advocate and spearhead initiatives for gender
equality and give voice and visibility to women issues.
To achieve these objectives, gender officers develop, monitor and
report on the implementation of the gender policies and action plans;
coordinate gender mainstreaming activities; provide technical support;
develop and disseminate gender tools; facilitate training workshops and
seminars; mobilise resources; and promote inter-agency collaboration
among other activities.
Gender officers, however, are not a homogenous group. I
differentiate Gender Specialists (GSs) from a Gender Focal Points
(GFPs). For the purpose of this article, I define GSs as staff members
who have been technically trained or professionally equipped with
analytical, conceptual and practical skills that enable them to provide
expert opinion, analysis or advice and propose sound measures for gender
mainstreaming in diverse contexts, sectors, themes, research and in
operational work.
GSs are normally engaged to work on gender full-time. GFPs are
staff, usually female employed to work full-time in other areas of
expertise such as economics, law, education, infrastructure or financial
analysis but with added responsibility for gender work. Many do not
work full-time on gender issues and tend to be completely new to this
work.
And there is the rub, to use a Shakespearian phrase. As Christine
Warioba argues in her paper: The role of national mechanisms in
promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women: SADC experience,
not all people who are appointed GSs and GFPs, are technically
qualified to do gender work. The appointments of GFP tend to be
arbitrary, to favour females and there is often a presumption of
willingness or a positive psychological disposition to women wanting to
work in this minefield area. Experience, however, shows that the
perception of women to gender work cannot be assumed to be always
positive. The confession of one GFP who I met in Kenya is a case in
point:
“I am an agricultural economist. My training did not prepare me to
pay attention to gender/women issues. Not only did I take the existing
gender division of labour for granted but also I did not question it.
One day I was called by my director and told that in addition to my
work, I would also take on the role of the gender focal point for the
department. I reflected on how I deeply disliked the Women in
Development officers whom I saw as nuisances who were there to create
trouble for others. I told my boss that I was not happy to take on this
work as I was not trained to handle women/gender issues.
The real reason, however, was that I could not visualise myself
linked with those WID officers. I felt I was not trained and that I
could not handle the backlash or navigate such a controversial issue
that many people associated with “rebellious women,” and within a
patriarchal bureaucratic environment. The boss said I would have to
learn fast as it was urgent that I take on that role.
Although I could not openly reject to do the job, I refused to have
anything to do with it until I was ultimately threatened with the sack.
I came later to discover that it was a condition stipulated by the
donors that before they could sign off on the next round of aid money
for our ministry, a gender focal point must be on board and proof
thereof provided. I was forced to take on the job.
The lack of standard or criteria of who can and cannot work as a
Gender Officer is a factor, among others that impinges on the
implementation effectiveness of gender equality policy.
The implementation of gender policy is further hampered by
positioning of most GSs and GFPs in subordinate positions within the
organisational hierarchy and in ways that mimic gender relations in the
wider society.
A useful analogy about how GSs and GFPs are treated in some
organisations is provided by Joanna Sandler in her article
titled:Strategies of Feminist Bureaucrats: United Nations Experiences.
She identifies three strategies by which one UN entity responsible for
the advancement of women was structured for organisational inequality
vis a vis other entities.
The first strategy was silencing or at least reducing the voice and
ability of the women’s entity to manage its own business including
approving recruitments of its staff.
It also had to lobby for the opportunity to represent itself or
speak out for gender equality and women’s rights in key policy venues
and its leadership was considered not at a high enough levelto be
included on the podium at meetings. The second was constantly
questioning its right to exist.
The third tactic was strategic public and private demonstrations of
‘power over’ by putting in place an administrative arrangement in which
the women’s entity had to depend on another entity to co-sign its
cheques and make payment on its behalf.
This experience in which gender officers are rendered powerless is
regrettably not limited to this organisation alone. For example, in one
African regional organisation,gender issues were considered a priority
cross-cutting issue along with environment.
However, organisationally, gender was placed under male managers
who were invariably environmentalists and non-African. Not only were
these male managers untrained and therefore not in a position to
articulate the issues competently but other male colleagues seized upon
their lack of capability to ridicule and ignore their advice on gender.
The female Gender Specialist, who was highly qualified and capable
of giving voice and visibility to the issues, was placed at a relatively
junior position. In keeping with organizational practice, only the male
environmentalist managers could attend management meetings.
Thus the Gender Specialist could not participate in strategy
planning meetings where important policy and budgetary decisions were
made. Opportunity was therefore lost to advance gender/women issues.
This unfortunate state was exacerbated by the fact that sincethe
managers were non-Africans, it provided the other Africanmale managers
with an excuse to evade the issue and at the same time charge them with
trying to promote cultural imperialism!
The positioning of gender officers in marginal positions is an
impediment to promoting gender equality policies effectively. To occupy a
position whose remit spans the whole institution without being endowed
with power, authority and political clout to enforce compliance and
accountability is disempowering.
It signals the relatively low importance accorded to women/gender
issues. Although the marginal situation of gender officers has merited
considerable historical attention over the years the situation is only
changing very slowly.
Tokenism is another method by which efforts to promote gender
equality is thwarted at organisational level. In the words of Sara
Hlupekile Longwe in her paper From Welfare to Empowerment: The
Situation of Women in Development in Africa, this involves:
“Having a token woman in all discussions to address “gender issues”
and to acknowledge “the woman’s point of view”. In most cases, such
women are a token few – preferably one. Every committee can then give
token respect to the token ideas from the token woman, for at least five
token minutes.
The token woman may very well provide valuable advice on how to
adjust the wording of documents to take account of female sensitivities,
and to adjust the terminology to conform to the jargon and latest
fashionable rhetoric on women’s development. Tokenism is therefore an
institutionalised method for achieving improved lip-service and
frequently encountered at all management levels”.
Tokenism is harmful to organisations and detrimental to the
advancement of gender equality because it leads to recruitment of staff
mainly for window dressing purposes. It is also damaging to people who
do gender work because it creates inordinate expectations and the
pressure to deliver at the risk of being scattered all over the place
and failing to generate results.
So far I have discussed some of the obstacles to gender equality
policies at the organisational level as attitudinal barriers, lack of
clarity of the concepts “gender” and “women”; misconceptions over what
is feminism and who is a feminist and the marginal positioning of gender
officers as an indication of structural organisation inequality. Next
week, I shall look at the visualisation of women in development as an
impediment to gender equality.
More than a thousand women attended gender
equality advocates meeting recently at St. Joseph´s University near
Kimara, in the outskirts of Dar es Salaam.
In discussing some of the factors that hold gender equality back,
Laeticia Mukurasi identified attitudinal barriers, the tendency to
conflate “gender” with “women” and poor understanding of what feminism
is about as challenges. In this fourth instalment, she examines factors
related to the positioning and role of gender officers as challenges to
effectively promoting gender equality.
Last week we focused on feminism and saw how misconception and
limited understanding of the concept elicits a hostile response not only
against issues of equality but also against people whose work is to
advocate for it.
For emphasis, feminism is defined as a belief that women and men
are and have been treated differently by society, and in ways that women
have systematically been discriminated against in participating fully
in all arenas be they economic, political, social or personal.
This belief includes a desire that this situation should change so
that women have the same rights, resources, power and opportunities as
men and treated in the same way. As a corollary a feminist is man or
woman who believes in the equality of the men and women and advocates
for change.
This week I will examine the factors pertaining to the positioning
and role of gender officers as a challenge to effectiveness in advancing
gender equality.
As is well known, Gender Officers are normally part of the
machineries or mechanisms for the advancement of equality and women
empowerment.Although their functions tend to be widely diverse,Gender
Officers are staff members whose remit requires them to mainstream
gender across all organisational activities.
As such their day to day function is to translate gender equality
policy into action; to advocate and spearhead initiatives for gender
equality and give voice and visibility to women issues.
To achieve these objectives, gender officers develop, monitor and
report on the implementation of the gender policies and action plans;
coordinate gender mainstreaming activities; provide technical support;
develop and disseminate gender tools; facilitate training workshops and
seminars; mobilise resources; and promote inter-agency collaboration
among other activities.
Gender officers, however, are not a homogenous group. I
differentiate Gender Specialists (GSs) from a Gender Focal Points
(GFPs). For the purpose of this article, I define GSs as staff members
who have been technically trained or professionally equipped with
analytical, conceptual and practical skills that enable them to provide
expert opinion, analysis or advice and propose sound measures for gender
mainstreaming in diverse contexts, sectors, themes, research and in
operational work.
GSs are normally engaged to work on gender full-time. GFPs are
staff, usually female employed to work full-time in other areas of
expertise such as economics, law, education, infrastructure or financial
analysis but with added responsibility for gender work. Many do not
work full-time on gender issues and tend to be completely new to this
work.
And there is the rub, to use a Shakespearian phrase. As Christine
Warioba argues in her paper: The role of national mechanisms in
promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women: SADC experience,
not all people who are appointed GSs and GFPs, are technically
qualified to do gender work. The appointments of GFP tend to be
arbitrary, to favour females and there is often a presumption of
willingness or a positive psychological disposition to women wanting to
work in this minefield area. Experience, however, shows that the
perception of women to gender work cannot be assumed to be always
positive. The confession of one GFP who I met in Kenya is a case in
point:
“I am an agricultural economist. My training did not prepare me to
pay attention to gender/women issues. Not only did I take the existing
gender division of labour for granted but also I did not question it.
One day I was called by my director and told that in addition to my
work, I would also take on the role of the gender focal point for the
department. I reflected on how I deeply disliked the Women in
Development officers whom I saw as nuisances who were there to create
trouble for others. I told my boss that I was not happy to take on this
work as I was not trained to handle women/gender issues.
The real reason, however, was that I could not visualise myself
linked with those WID officers. I felt I was not trained and that I
could not handle the backlash or navigate such a controversial issue
that many people associated with “rebellious women,” and within a
patriarchal bureaucratic environment. The boss said I would have to
learn fast as it was urgent that I take on that role.
Although I could not openly reject to do the job, I refused to have
anything to do with it until I was ultimately threatened with the sack.
I came later to discover that it was a condition stipulated by the
donors that before they could sign off on the next round of aid money
for our ministry, a gender focal point must be on board and proof
thereof provided. I was forced to take on the job.
The lack of standard or criteria of who can and cannot work as a
Gender Officer is a factor, among others that impinges on the
implementation effectiveness of gender equality policy.
The implementation of gender policy is further hampered by
positioning of most GSs and GFPs in subordinate positions within the
organisational hierarchy and in ways that mimic gender relations in the
wider society.
A useful analogy about how GSs and GFPs are treated in some
organisations is provided by Joanna Sandler in her article
titled:Strategies of Feminist Bureaucrats: United Nations Experiences.
She identifies three strategies by which one UN entity responsible for
the advancement of women was structured for organisational inequality
vis a vis other entities.
The first strategy was silencing or at least reducing the voice and
ability of the women’s entity to manage its own business including
approving recruitments of its staff.
It also had to lobby for the opportunity to represent itself or
speak out for gender equality and women’s rights in key policy venues
and its leadership was considered not at a high enough levelto be
included on the podium at meetings. The second was constantly
questioning its right to exist.
The third tactic was strategic public and private demonstrations of
‘power over’ by putting in place an administrative arrangement in which
the women’s entity had to depend on another entity to co-sign its
cheques and make payment on its behalf.
This experience in which gender officers are rendered powerless is
regrettably not limited to this organisation alone. For example, in one
African regional organisation,gender issues were considered a priority
cross-cutting issue along with environment.
However, organisationally, gender was placed under male managers
who were invariably environmentalists and non-African. Not only were
these male managers untrained and therefore not in a position to
articulate the issues competently but other male colleagues seized upon
their lack of capability to ridicule and ignore their advice on gender.
The female Gender Specialist, who was highly qualified and capable
of giving voice and visibility to the issues, was placed at a relatively
junior position. In keeping with organizational practice, only the male
environmentalist managers could attend management meetings.
Thus the Gender Specialist could not participate in strategy
planning meetings where important policy and budgetary decisions were
made. Opportunity was therefore lost to advance gender/women issues.
This unfortunate state was exacerbated by the fact that sincethe
managers were non-Africans, it provided the other Africanmale managers
with an excuse to evade the issue and at the same time charge them with
trying to promote cultural imperialism!
The positioning of gender officers in marginal positions is an
impediment to promoting gender equality policies effectively. To occupy a
position whose remit spans the whole institution without being endowed
with power, authority and political clout to enforce compliance and
accountability is disempowering.
It signals the relatively low importance accorded to women/gender
issues. Although the marginal situation of gender officers has merited
considerable historical attention over the years the situation is only
changing very slowly.
Tokenism is another method by which efforts to promote gender
equality is thwarted at organisational level. In the words of Sara
Hlupekile Longwe in her paper From Welfare to Empowerment: The
Situation of Women in Development in Africa, this involves:
“Having a token woman in all discussions to address “gender issues”
and to acknowledge “the woman’s point of view”. In most cases, such
women are a token few – preferably one. Every committee can then give
token respect to the token ideas from the token woman, for at least five
token minutes.
The token woman may very well provide valuable advice on how to
adjust the wording of documents to take account of female sensitivities,
and to adjust the terminology to conform to the jargon and latest
fashionable rhetoric on women’s development. Tokenism is therefore an
institutionalised method for achieving improved lip-service and
frequently encountered at all management levels”.
Tokenism is harmful to organisations and detrimental to the
advancement of gender equality because it leads to recruitment of staff
mainly for window dressing purposes. It is also damaging to people who
do gender work because it creates inordinate expectations and the
pressure to deliver at the risk of being scattered all over the place
and failing to generate results.
So far I have discussed some of the obstacles to gender equality
policies at the organisational level as attitudinal barriers, lack of
clarity of the concepts “gender” and “women”; misconceptions over what
is feminism and who is a feminist and the marginal positioning of gender
officers as an indication of structural organisation inequality. Next
week, I shall look at the visualisation of women in development as an
impediment to gender equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment