Message 26: Deepa Joshi
I recall sitting on a GWA formative session in Paris just after the 2nd World Water Forum, where several of the (then) potential members announced that there was a clear strategy at hand to mainstream gender, what was lacking was the institutional funding for taking ahead the task. More than 5 years down the line, it is humbling to know that we are still grappling with the ambiguity and the challenge of the hows and whats of mainstreaming gender, despite as this note outlines donor support and the involvement of countless gender experts and advocates.
Reverting to a general focus on mainstreaming gender – one does need to look into why the goal continues to remain elusive? Is it a case of non-reformable individuals and institutions; failed interventions; or is it a case of evolving and/or misinterpreted goals and objectives?
Theory tells that there are 2 distinct but inter-related goals of gender mainstreaming:
- The technical aspects of integrating gender in organisational policies, programmes and projects and
- The transformative agenda which calls for a redistribution of power, resources and opportunities in favour of the marginalised
Gender advocates are of the opinion that development practice only tolerates and therefore allows the first of the goals, and that too only in ways in which they support and promote dominant development policies. It is reported that there is a strong resistance to transformation or change – whether in institutional structures, cultures, policies and/or practice.
In the Beijing Platform for Action, ‘gender mainstreaming’ was defined to include systematically promoting equality by gender into all aspects of an organisation’s work. Examples of measures include: formulating and implementing gender equality policies and strategies; developing and using data disaggregated by sex; gender-specific studies; gender analyses of organisation and programme budgets; establishing gender focal points within the organisation and strengthening staff capacity to integrate gender perspectives into policies and programmes (Woodford-Berger, 2005).
Indeed, as Molyneux (2005) points out, there is hardly any organisation of repute which lacks gender-sensitive guidelines and most agencies report to have ticked off as completed most of the above listed activities. In fact, most of us who have been working in the field of gender, will recognise the distinct ‘gender fatigue’ expressed by colleagues and/or agencies we have visited/evaluated as well as agencies which demanded these assessments.
A quick glance at what has happened on the ground also reveals that over 3 decades of focus on gender (under evolving names of WID, GAD and now gender mainstreaming) several agencies, including state bureaucracies have indeed ventured on integrating gender (understood as women) in development. So much so, that certain sectors like the domestic water is called a women’s sector. Reasonable successes of engaging women or women’s participation can similarly be heard in forestry, education, health.
However, this success – declared by many as having now mainstreamed gender reveals little changes in having tackled inequality in gender relations. Whose fault is this? Agencies which were explicitly asked not long ago to (just) involve women are indeed bewildered and fatigued that they are now scolded for the sin of meeting only women’s practical needs and ignoring strategic gender issues (Standing, 2005). Expert criticism is also on the singular focus in gender mainstreaming on ‘involving women out there in the fields’. It is noted that, if at all, addressing gender in organisations has resulted only in a mass recruitment of women (and yes some at decision-making levels, too). However, only a few of these changes have been complemented by a transformation in attitudes and cultures, both of the recruited women and in the dominant masculine ways of working of agencies. The gender mainstreaming goal of transforming organisational cultures and politics towards equity and social justice is said to have remain largely unaddressed.
I think it is integral that this exercise devotes some attention to these underlying issues of ambiguity rather than rushing into announcing tools (guidelines and manuals) for (now having integrated women, to) addressing ‘strategic gender issues’. In not stretching this note too wide, I take just 2 issues that I feel require an urgent attention:
1. Gender theorists have long mourned the dilution and co-option of principles of gender equality in their transformation in development practice - to how to do gender tool-kits.
The over-riding concern is that women’s involvement under the guise of ‘participation’ has been promoted to address development efficiency. Countless examples of women’s unpaid work in social sectors (as water managers especially) are noted, which added to and did not relieve the unequal roles by gender; and was a consequence - not of promoting women’s empowerment, but a strategy to assist in the roll-back of state social responsibilities. The underlying principles of gender equality prioritise goals of human well being and equity in favour of the dominant efficiency goals of development. Especially in relation to addressing gender equality, it is mentioned that levelling the playing field will conflict with economic growth.
Gender mainstreaming strategies have often skirted around these issues. The question here is - do we plan, design and promote tools that will help meet mainstream development goals or do we work towards the development of strategies that are focused on equity?
What also needs to be asked is who takes on, if at all, this transformative agenda and where can it be best operationalized? Can a sprinkling of gender experts in various agencies in the development hierarchy be given and then policed for achieving social transformation? Many researchers are of the view that transforming the development agenda is beyond the reach of individual institutions and calls for a wider strategy of political and social change (Subrahmanian, 2005). This does not however, preclude the do-able task of making a wise selection of institutional strategies that promote and not reinforce existing patterns of inequality.
2. Why gender alone?
As Pay Drechsel from IWMI Ghana, writes - gender issues of inequality cannot be singled out and addressed in isolation if the larger objective is achieving social justice. In fact gender theorists have long claimed that inequality by gender is never pure and also never absent (i.e. is mutually reinforced across various institutional levels).
As many of the other respondents have clarified access to and control of resources (here, land and water) as well as the structures and workings of institutions managing these resources at various levels – are defined by social relationships of inequality which are woven into the social and political cultures of these agencies. Institutional cultures evolve with changing global and local contexts. Mainstreaming gender will need to take into account these issues and given that these are context-specific, there will not be one correct way of doing gender. Should our emphasis be on promoting a standard range of toolkits for different situations and institutional cultures or should the emphasis be on promoting a wider understanding of the concepts of (a cross-cutting) inequality by gender and allowing institutions to evolve their own strategies and methodologies?
As pointed out by Barbara, there will not be one strategy or fit. In India, where Hindu women have recently been granted inheritance rights to ownership of land; the range and pace at which women will take ownership and/or control the process of productive agriculture will vary within regions and communities.
To conclude, there will be no one solution on - how or what to mainstream, but we can certainly agree on why to mainstream gender.
Deepa Joshi
