Content uploaded by Jayne Curnow
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jayne Curnow on Feb 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Lyons, T et al, 2004. ‘Developing gender mainstreaming and ‘gender respect’’, Development
Bulletin, no. 64, pp. 37-41.
Developing gender mainstreaming and ‘gender respect’
Tanya Lyons, Flinders University, Jayne Curnow, Australian National University,
and Glenda Mather, Flinders University
Introduction
Gender mainstreaming has become the dominant development discourse for achieving
gender equity in developing regions. It is the most recent in a series of strategies that
have had varying success in delivering the feminist goals of women’s emancipation and
gender equity in developing regions such as Africa, Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
Gender mainstreaming is arguably a depoliticised and toned-down version of its
predecessors, which attempts to avoid direct feminist confrontations while ultimately
aiming not to exclude or threaten stakeholders in the development process. Experience
indicates that as a result, gender mainstreaming is in danger of becoming yet another
ineffective tool to promote gender equity.
Much groundwork has been laid for promoting gender mainstreaming in developing
countries, and, since the 1995 International Women’s Conference in Beijing, there have
been some serious attempts to implement these strategies. Tempting though it may be
to resign ourselves to the status quo, we argue that the status of women can only be
advanced through gender mainstreaming strategies that are first adapted to each
specific culture, place and political context, and which address the concerns and
aspirations of locally active agents of change.
Essentially self-critical, our writing here is borne out of our own work with women and
men on gender issues and gender mainstreaming in Fiji, Indonesia and East Timor. This
experience of gender mainstreaming training has brought into sharp relief the pitfalls of
using generalised resources in strictly time-bounded workshops. At the same time, we
have identified opportunities to ‘do’ gender mainstreaming more effectively. The
challenge ultimately lies in attempting to merge feminist theory with bureaucratic
practice.
Defining and developing the theory
Typical official discourse in gender mainstreaming manuals tells us that
At the fourth UN International Conference on women held in Beijing ‘gender
mainstreaming’ was established as the internationally agreed strategy for governments and
development organisations to promote gender equality. This was in response to consistent
lessons that have emerged from at least twenty years of experience of addressing
women’s needs in development work (Derbyshire 2002:7; and see Overseas Development
Group 2004; Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada 2004).
However, gender mainstreaming continues to elude accurate definition because of
bureaucratic jargon that conflates policy and practice.
Gender mainstreaming was endorsed by the Beijing Platform for Action at the Fourth
World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995. The goal of this action was for,
‘governments and other actors [to] promote an active and visible policy of mainstreaming
a gender perspective in all policies and programmes, so that, before decisions are taken,
an analysis is made of the effects on women and men, respectively’ (United Nations
Women and Gender Mainstreaming 60
1995). Ultimately, the goal of gender mainstreaming is gender equality (see Baden and
Goertz 2001).
Gender mainstreaming seeks to include both women’s and men’s concerns and
experiences in overseas development projects and in the design, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of all legislation, policy and programs across government
departments, so that women and men benefit equally. According to the mainstreaming
rhetoric, men and women should participate equally in decision-making processes and
planning in order to influence the entire agenda. Often agenda setting becomes the
preserve of development practitioners and elite members of any given society, and an
international approach to gender mainstreaming may be limited by its capacity to change
the local distribution of resources.
Previously, Lyons has argued that Third World women are silenced by Western
feminist discourses ‘in the very speech intended to liberate [them] from oppression’
(Lyons, 1999). Western women and men continue to maintain the monopoly or
authoritative voice within the discourses of the WID, WAD, GAD parade and now within
gender mainstreaming (see Sylvester 1995; or, for more on the development and
evolution of these approaches, Baden and Goetz 2001; Crewe and Harrison 1998; and
Jahan 1995, 1997). In fact, several authors argue that very little has changed within
feminist development approaches, despite the emergence of gender mainstreaming as a
dominant policy approach since the Beijing conference. Are we just witnessing a
discursive shift in acronyms from WID to WAD to GAD to GM?
The existence of a dominant policy necessarily silences marginal voices and ideas.
According to Mbilinyi, ‘other perspectives find it increasingly difficult to be heard or to get
funding’ (Mbilinyi 1993:956, see also Mikell 1997; Alcoff 1991; Nzenza-Shand 1997 and
Lal 1996). What, in fact, has been the point of the discourse of the ‘politics of positioning’
when Western-based gender mainstreaming experts continue to control the agenda and
resources and to espouse a particular policy framework that may not be useful in a
particular local context? Even with the best of intentions, is gender mainstreaming about
assisting women in developing countries, or more about promoting a Western, white
feminist middle-class consciousness?
If reflections on feminist struggles and gains have taught us anything, it is that the
advancement of women is achieved through a nexus of activists, pressure groups,
leaders and various stakeholders. They act as individuals or in concert to apply pressure
and ultimately bring about change using strategies that make sense and are effective in
a particular cultural paradigm. Whether radical or conservative, action is inevitably
underpinned by a sociocultural logic that makes sense in that context.
Avoiding the pitfalls of gender mainstreaming
Across the globe, many people strive to improve the status and quality of life of women.
As an international movement, there is power and strength in this solidarity. However,
this unity does not, and should not, translate into a transnational blueprint for the
advancement of women. In the current situation, gender mainstreaming templates may
serve to cut across important local activities that are fundamental to the success of any
change in the gendered order. Although Sylvester has noted that many gender experts
are now indigenous women, Western women tend to retain control or monopolise the
‘global funding and resources such as publications and consultancy work’ (Sylvester
1995:956)
Despite good intentions, both ‘gender experts’ and the gender mainstreaming
discourse can arguably fall into the trap of ‘neo-imperial’ discourses. As Western
Development Studies Network 61
feminists concerned with the position of women in many developing regions, how can we
overcome this labelling? How can we ensure that we are not snared in the trap? This
goal should be considered just as important to any development project or plan as
locating (situating) the local cultural context. Lyons has argued that we can achieve this
equality in development through engaging in a dialogue with the women we intend to
‘help’ (Lyons 1999). If we cannot do that, then there will be no useful engagement,
development or change in the foreign aid recipient country, or indeed in the status of
women.
One of the challenges faced by gender experts is that as soon as dialogue or
interaction extends beyond groups of individual researchers, local networks and/or
NGOs, they lose their ability to make targeted and locally relevant changes for women.
That is, when it gets to the level of bilateral aid between states, local women’s issues,
concerns and needs are usually silenced. Gender mainstreaming, even while being
ranked as a priority in the post-Beijing euphoria, has failed to deliver the anticipated
results. The gendered components of development aid projects have typically become
tokenistic, and thus increasingly ineffective. This may reflect the policy vacuum within
which gender mainstreaming continues to operate, or indeed may reflect the practical
limitations of a gender mainstreaming policy that is primarily based upon Western
feminist conceptions of women’s equality with men.
Furthermore, True and Mintrom have argued that ‘the diffusion of gender
mainstreaming’ has been driven by ‘the transnational networks of non-state actors’
(2001:50), for example, NGOs and the UN, which continue to keep gender
mainstreaming on the agenda. Countries that adopt gender mainstreaming within their
institutions through alliances, networks and agreements do so because of their intrinsic
links to international society. However, a gendered policy approach will ultimately
depend upon whether countries create a high level institution specifically to address
gender equality policy. Importantly, there also needs to be sympathetic people in
decision-making positions, but this relies upon the ‘implementation and effectiveness of
these mainstreaming institutions’. This scenario does little to guarantee women’s access
to equality (True and Mintrom 2001:50–51).
Another example of the challenges facing gender mainstreaming approaches can be
seen in the New Partnerships for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) document that includes
gender equity as a principal aim. As de Waal has noted, however, ‘in common with most
high-level African initiatives, the involvement of women has been at best marginal, and
commitments to gender equity such as those adopted in Beijing have not been accorded
mainstream status within NEPAD’ (de Waal 2002:473). This same also holds for Fiji,
where a Women’s Plan of Action was developed by the Ministry of Women and Culture
to be implemented between 1999 and 2008 (Ministry of Women 1998). Broaching four
areas of concern for women — the law, microenterprise development, decision making,
and violence against women and children — this document offers more scope for policy
evaporation than it does for positive development for women in Fiji. While there may
have been many hours spent on consultation and development of these plans, arguably,
gender mainstreaming is often only a recent addition to the ‘good governance agenda’, a
response to foreign donor expectations. However, a successful gender mainstreaming
policy would substantially shift and change the socioeconomic power structures in
society. Indeed, it may be considered even more threatening than democracy in many
countries. If this is the case, then resistance to it will be paramount.
Women and Gender Mainstreaming 62
Practical responses to the challenges
We have identified a problem in the implementation stage of gender mainstreaming
where workshops, training courses and seminars are employed to train local staff and
‘influence’ the local context. Many Australian overseas aid projects have a focus on
gender mainstreaming which is located within discourses (and programming) on
democracy and good governance. As an example, capacity building training projects in
Southeast Asia and the Pacific usually factor in a gender expert or gender
mainstreaming training for donor recipient government bureaucrats. This gender
mainstreaming often relies upon the gender consultants to be dynamic and sell the idea,
which may or may not be appropriate or considered important and valuable in that local
context. In the authors’ experience, gender may take on the role of a threatening import
in many circumstances, which can result in resistance to the policy of gender
mainstreaming.
For example, in line with AusAID’s gender policy, a typical in-country capacity building
training course requires a gendered component (AusAID 2003). Hence, assuming the
funding is available a (usually female) gender specialist is one of the experts who travels
to the recipient country. A course of one week’s duration would require one afternoon on
the issue of gender, to highlight and discuss the gendered impact of the policy. From our
experience, that afternoon becomes token, and the gendered issues invalid, until
confirmed and consolidated by the other development experts as important. It is very
difficult for a (female) gender consultant to be taken seriously in-country, when there are
‘more important’ development issues at stake (that is, transparency and good
governance, land ownership, race, etc). In these circumstances, gender may not be
integral to the training process, but simply an additional box to be ticked off to satisfy
compliance with donor agreements.
During a specific gender mainstreaming training course in Fiji in 2002, as consultants
we quickly realised that the participants (both men and women) were uncomfortable with
what was perceived as a ‘Western-dominant discourse’ on gender equality, and indeed
did not take to our Western-style managerial training. We thus adapted the program to
suit their needs.
Subsequently, for example, each day was begun and ended with a song and a
prayer, and the sessions were shortened to allow participants time to complete their
other work-related duties. Despite the individual commitment of most participants, the
implementation of gender mainstreaming policies was subverted to the other demands.
The release of the Fiji National Budget coincided with the timing of the workshops. As a
result, more than half of the registered participants failed to attend because they were
committed to make budget submissions for their respective government departments. In
this instance, the level of commitment was challenged by bureaucratic timelines.
Another variable complicating the implementation of gender mainstreaming in Fiji was
simply uncoordinated international donors. In our short time based in Suva, we became
aware of a plethora of other international agencies which had either come before us, or
were currently there, to do essentially the same thing — to implement gender
mainstreaming. As a result of this, most participants that attended our pithy training
course had already done gender training. Within the time frames offered by Western
development agencies there appears to be little scope or capacity for us as international
feminists to reflect upon our own dominant discourse, and to actually communicate,
negotiate and have dialogue with donor aid recipients about their needs.
Nonetheless, despite these encumbrances, this particular gender mainstreaming
workshop was successful in achieving local goals. While the participants agreed with the
Development Studies Network 63
importance of gender mainstreaming, they modified the approach, concluding that
‘gender respect’ was more appropriate for their society. The outcome of this workshop
was the Nadave Declaration on Gender Respect:
To acknowledge the biological sex differences between men and women, with respect to
cultural, religious, ethnic and age differences, enabling both to reach their full potential in
society (Gender Mainstreaming Workshop, Fiji, November 2002).
Cultural differences and gender mainstreaming
The Nadave declaration by Fijian workshop participants demonstrated their commitment
to gender mainstreaming, while expressing the need to adapt gender mainstreaming
terminology and ideas to the Fijian context. In particular, it was stressed that Fiji needed
to move forward slowly and carefully with the aims of gender equality, to ensure that
existing positive cultural norms and practices were not threatened. To these workshop
participants it was important to distinguish between ‘gender equality’ as a Western
construct and ‘gender respect’ as a more appropriate Fijian modification of the concept.
Feminists from developing countries have consistently called for a more holistic
approach, linking class and race-based inequalities to that of gender (Jahan 1995:8). In
recent development work in East Timor, globally dominant ideas about women’s rights
and empowerment were perceived as foreign, radical and out of step with local realities.
Women were more familiar and able to speak about gender roles, discrepancies of
power and access to resources in terms of broader concepts of human rights. This
situation parallels the Nadave declaration from Fiji.
In Indonesia, some government officials enlisted in capacity building training
demonstrated high levels of resistance to gender equity when it involved community
participation in development. Issues of race and class were obvious forms of cleavage in
these discussions, but were not overtly stated. While some participants — particularly
young women more likely to benefit from Western feminist ideologies — embraced the
theories of gender equality, they were also unlikely to have the power or be in positions
that would enable them to effect significant social change.
Gender mainstreaming is not a value-free concept and is inherently political because
it aims at facilitating social change. So, when the Australian consultant is charged with
addressing gender mainstreaming within the context of good governance or capacity
building, they are by necessity being political. The empowerment and opening up of
opportunities for women is underpinned by a Western feminist agenda. While this is not
explicitly stated, these constructs become obvious when attempting to debate gender
mainstreaming in other cultures.
Gender, as a cultural construct, differs from one culture to the next. How is it then that
can gender be mainstreamed in any place through a prescriptive set of understandings
and methods? For example, a concern for mainstreaming gender in Indonesia arose in
that gender was likened to janda, the Indonesian word for widow, evoking the image of a
spinster or older women on the margins of society. Promoting gender in this context was
undermined because of the perceived linkages.
Conclusion
Our research indicates that the status of women can only be advanced through gender
mainstreaming strategies that are adapted to each specific culture and place, addressing
the concerns and aspirations of locally active agents of change. This will entail a shift
from currently dominant institutional strategies (which target inputs, structural change
Women and Gender Mainstreaming 64
and policy implementation) to be balanced with complementary operational strategies
(which consist of output-orientated guidelines, training, research and projects) (Jahan
1995:13–14). As Bronwen Douglas has argued in relation to Melanesia, we need to
appeal to the local level, because the gap between state and civil society is growing and
local communities away from state centres are less engaged in state affairs (Douglas
2000). The solution she offers is to invite international experts to listen to what local
people are saying and respond to their needs, rather than to preach ‘developed
discourse’.
In order to effectively mainstream gender in a local context, a two-pronged approach
is necessary, implementing operational strategies while applying institutional strategies
to reflect and support practical change. Thus, as concerned global feminists, we need to
rethink our approach and work with new, locally coined terminology. We need to be able
to repackage gender so that it can be utilised more effectively. We need more local-
context specific strategic terms, which necessitate the elimination of universal terms that
privilege the voices and power of Western consultants.
In practical terms, this means that women and men at the forefront of mainstreaming
gender (focal points, consultants, experts, trainers) would be required to:
• spend time in location listening to the people who are the focus and key
stakeholders of the mainstreaming activity; and
• work with local communities to adapt training materials, strategies, policies, etc to
that particular context before they are presented, implemented and/or ratified.
Initial groundwork on gender relations could work to adapt and customise generalised
information and training tools on gender mainstreaming, which are freely available
through development agencies and the web. In this way, gender mainstreaming can
then occur effectively, at a pace and in a way that is locally appropriate, rather then just
being another workshop, training exercise or policy formulation meeting that forms part
of an international obligation.
We are advocating a new approach that first acknowledges and maps changes and
challenges in relation to women and gender issues in the local context. Taking this as a
point of departure, generic training materials can be adapted and examples from other
contexts can be used to stimulate discussion and a future agenda.
References
Alcoff, L 1991, ‘The problem of speaking for others’, Cultural Critique, Winter, 1991–92,
5–32.
AusAID 2003, Equal Partners: Gender Awareness and Australian Development
Cooperation, <http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/html/mainstreaming.cfm>,
(accessed online, January 2004).
Baden, S and M Goetz 2001, ‘Who needs [sex] when you can have [gender]?’, in L
Beneria and S Bisnath (eds), Gender and Development: Theoretical and Practical
Approaches, Edward Elgar, UK.
Crewe, E and E Harrison 1998, Whose Development? An Ethnography of Aid, Zed
Books London.
Development Studies Network 65
Women and Gender Mainstreaming 66
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada 2003, Mainstreaming of
a Gender Perspective, <http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/human-
rights/Iwe5-mainstream-en.asp>, (accessed online, February 2004).
Derbyshire, Helen 2002, Gender Manual: A Practical Guide for Development Policy
Makers and Practitioners, Social Development Division, Department for International
Development, Britain,
<http://62.189.42.51/DFIDstage/Pubs/files/gender_manual.pdf>, (accessed online,
February 2004).
De Waal, A 2002, ‘What’s new in the “New Partnership for Africa’s Development”?’,
International Affairs, 78(3), 463–475.
Douglas, B 2000, ‘Conflict, gender, peacekeeping, and alternative rationalisms in the
Western Pacific, Development Bulletin, 53, 10–13.
Jahan, R 1995, The Elusive Agenda: Mainstreaming Women in Development, Zed
Books London.
Jahan, R 1997, ‘Mainstreaming women in development: Four agency approaches’, in K
Staudt (ed.), Women, International Development and Politics: The Bureaucratic Mire,
Temple University, Philadelphia.
Lal, J 1996, ‘Situating locations: The politics of self, identity and “other”’, in ‘Living and
writing the text’, in Diane Wolf (ed.), Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, Westview
Press, Colorado.
Lyons, T 1999, ‘Gender and development: African women and Western feminisms, and
the dilemmas of doing feminist field work in Africa’, in Outskirts: Feminisms along the
Edge, vol. 4, article 2, May,
<http://mmc.arts.uwa.edu.au/chloe/outskirts/archive/VOL4/article2.html>.
Mbilinyi, M 1993, cited in Christine Sylvester, ‘Africa and Western feminisms: World
traveling the tendencies and possibilities”, Signs, 20(4), Summer, 1995.
Mikell, G 1997, African Feminism: The Politics of Survival in Sub-Saharan Africa, Indiana
University Press, Indiana.
Ministry of Women 1998, The Women’s Plan of Action 1999–2008, vols 1 and 2, Ministry
of Women and Culture, Fiji Islands.
Nzenza-Shand, S 1997, ‘Women in postcolonial Africa: Between African men and
Western feminists”, in Phillip Darby (ed.), At The Edge of International Relations:
Postcolonialism, Gender and Dependency, Pinter, London.
Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia 2004,
<http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/ODG/pages/course_gender.html>, (accessed online,
February 2004).
Sylvester, C 1995, ‘African and Western feminisms: World travelling the tendencies and
possibilities’, Signs: Journal of Women in Society and Culture 20(4), 941–976.
True, J and M Mintrom 2001, ‘Transnational networks and policy diffusion: The case of
gender mainstreaming’, International Studies Quarterly, 45, 27–57.
United Nations 1995, Beijing Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women,
Beijing, 1995, paragraphs 79, 105, 123, 141, 164, 189, 202, 229, 238, 252, 273.