Gender lecture notes

Page 1

Lecture

9: Gender

Key lecture themes

The

cost of ‘gender blind’ development (Senegambia)

Women

in Development Approach – WID (1970s-80s)

Gender

and Development Approach – GAD (late 1990s)

Mainstreaming

development – what has been gained, what lost?

Development is gendered

Poverty,

education, life opportunities are all experienced differently by men and women.

Women

are more likely than men to live in the poorest households in 41 out of 75

countries between 2000-2003 (UN, MDGs)

MDGs to SDGs

Gender

cuts across all MDG/SDG issues. SDGs are much more ambitious.

MDGs

ambition to promote gender equality was basically meaningless – it did not make

a difference. SDGs are more specific.

‘Missing women’?

left to natural biophysical processes and complete equal treatment, it is

natural for populations to have more women than men

Mainstreaming

gender in development and shifts in the processes of development

Gender

blind processes

Sen

(1999) ‘Development as freedom’

Definitions

Sex

is biological male and female

Gender

is the social and cultural construction of masculinity and femininity. This

varies over time and space.

Gender identities are socialised

Gender

is ideological and social

They

are socialised into certain practice

Gender

relations are the relations between the social categories of men and women.

These relations are power relations.

“There

is incontrovertible evidence that women, as a whole. Continue to face greater

social and economic disadvantages than their male counterparts.” (Chant, 2000).

Why

are there no societies where women are better? It’s constructed in a way that

is very rare where women are equal.

This

is a nature/culture way of thinking about gender. Masculinity and femininity.

Greater gender fluidity.

History – gender blind

development (Gambia case study)

Intentional

and immanent development

Not

only failed to benefit vulnerable groups but actually undermined the position

of women.

(Carney and Watts, 1991) History

of Mandinka people in Senegambia

Pre 19th Century – prior to European

expansion:

Rice

grown mainly by Mandinka women on the flood plains in upland areas

Men

grew millet on highest land – which was supplementary food

Men

also helped women with rice production

Rice

production was in surplus

Rice

marketed by the women, who had control over the profits.

Early 19th century - Increase in peanut cash

cropping

Areas

under millet cultivation converted to nuts by men, sold for cash

Monopolised

by male household labour

Brought

in ‘strange farmers’ – casual male labourers

‘Strange

farmers’ lived with host household and consumed household rice

Women

had to provide rice to compensate for lack of millet and had extra mouths to

feed

Also

producing without male help

more surplus rice for export – 1857 – result: famine.

1930s: Gambia relying heavily on

rice imports was unsustainable so a technical solution was used by colonial

planners:

Distributed

improved seeds, cleared mangroves and drained swamps

1930s are under rice cultivation doubled

But

burden of work on women also doubled. They tried to involve men but men said

‘rice is women’s work’ – increasing conflicts between men and women.

1950s – solution to lack of labour

was to improve technology further – mechanised irrigation scheme enabled

Mandinka to grow two crops of rice a year, rather than one.

But

– land with new irrigation system was communally owned and used by women. This

land became the ‘Gambia Rice Farm’ and the land was leased to women.

Women

became wage labourers – alienated from their land

They

had no control over their production.

1960s, 70s and 80s – Technical solutions were

continued to be used as solutions to lack of food

increased women’s alienation from: (i) the produce of their labour (ii) the

labour itself (iii) the land that they had previously had control over

This

resulted in further food shortages and tensions between men and women

(See

Carney and Watts, 1991; Schroeder, 1999).

A combination of immanent

and intentional development monopolised by men and undermined the position of

women. It was built on western notions that household, property and men control

trade. This is a major reason as to why it failed.

Naturalised stereotypes:

Men:

breadwinners; women – home makers

Household

head – ‘Benevolent dictators’

Women as home-makers

Any

attempts to improve the lives of women focused on their role in the home;

Reproduction

Health

(particularly child health)

Nutrition

and sanitation

win-win scenario – develop women and cut population growth; educate all

Challenged 1970s

Realization

that women are not just home makers but involved in production as well as

reproduction

Boserup’s

Women’s Role in Economic Development (1970) – discovered ‘female farming systems

in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Growth

in the women’s movement and calls for universal emancipation (1970)

1970s-1980s Women in

Development (WID)

Based

on notion of universal sisterhood

Targeted

women in isolation – education, equal opportunities, women’s groups

Women-to-women

development (only women can understand the needs of women – natural empathy)

Women’s

office set up in development agencies to tackle women’s needs

Structural

(e.g. legislative) and educational changes.

The

civil rights movement was interested in women’s liberation

People

discovered that women were doing the labour in agriculture

Women: win-win scenario

For

production: because of their potential to contribute to national economy

For

Society: because of their role as educators and nurturers – change women =

change in society)

For

the environment – women more ‘in tune’ with nature – ‘naturally’ not so

exploitative (see Shiva, 1988; for more recent review/critiques see Hawkins et

al, 2010)

Result of WID – women-only

projects

Ignored

variation in women’s experience – western feminists criticised by third world

women who said they didn’t want the kind of empowerment offered by western

women

Realisation

women’s experience differentiated by class, race, ethnicity, religion –

stratification not fixed but linked to other factors: technology; economy;

religion.

Essentialised

and ghettoized women – things that women worked on became women’s only

programmes.

Isolated

women

Did

not tackle the causes of women’s subordination but the symptoms

Perpetuated

other stereotypes that women were hardworking and that men were oppressive.

Aggravated

poor relations between men and women e.g. PROCESS Filipino NGO – women’s groups

caused tensions between women and their husbands (cited in Chant, 2000)

Focused

on women to the exclusion and frustration by men – see Schroeder’s (1999) Shady

Practices

Efficiency argument

Did

not ask what development could do for women, but what women could do for

development

Added

to women’s workloads

Influence of WAD approaches

‘Women

and Development’

‘Marxist’

(dependency) approach

Class,

racism and patriarchy are all intertwined

Tackling

gender inequality alone means nothing if no food housing, drinkable water or

employment

Gender

issues must be tackled with other forms of inequality – See Young, 2002

the same time, men had been blamed but increasingly in the late 20th

century – ‘men in crisis’, ‘men at risk’ – young, low income men vulnerable and

marginalised

Displacement,

breakdown tradition family, criminality – create problems for all

Many

of problems of women – particularly violence and crime, linked to

marginalisation and alienation of men.

was deemed too simplistic

Single

issue politics can be problematic

Has

to work with men too

Gender and Development

Approach (GAD) 1990s

Sees

Gender not absolute or essentialized, but relational

Focuses

on power relations between men and women

Gender

refers to men and women – not fixed

Shifts

emphasis of blame from men to society as a whole

These

forms of domination and exploitation have to counteracted by society as a whole

– not by men or women

Men

and women alliances

participatory

Challenge

to negative power relations and get people to do it on their own terms

See

Kandiyoti (2005)

Work with vulnerable men and

challenging hegemonic models

“There

are also men who occupy positions of relative powerlessness within families and

communities – men who have same-sex relationships, male adolescents or men

without jobs or money” (Cornwall, ‘Missing Men’)

one should be marginalised by norms of femininity and masculinity – hegemonic

models.

[It

has been argued that] although there are many ways of being a man, some are

valued more than others and men experience social pressure to conform to

dominant ideas about being a man. They

termed this 'hegemonic masculinity'.

[This concept] is most valuable… in showing that it is not men per se

but certain ways of being and behaving, that are associated with dominance and

power. In each cultural context, the ways in which masculinity is associated

with power varies. [And] in each

cultural context, there is a range of available models of masculinity and

femininity. Not all men benefit from and

subscribe to dominant values. 'Hegemonic

masculinity' can be just as oppressive for those men who refuse, or fail to

conform. Yet these men are often

implicitly excluded from being part of processes of changing and confronting

gender inequality because they are male… (Cornwall, 1997)

Development examples – GAD

CARE

International promoting safe sex in Vietnam (Doyle, in Cleaver, 2002)

Looked

at pressures on men to conform to particular sexual practices

Draws

attention to less dominant forms of masculinity and through discussion tried to

promote their legitimacy.

Example 2: Violence in northern

Uganda

Hegemonic

model of masculinity create expectations on men as providers, as sexist,

heterosexist

conflict situations they are unable to live up to stereotype

Feelings

of anger and humiliation vented more violence

Led

to high levels of domestic violence because of inadequacy and conflict traumas.

Example 3: HeForShe

Get

leaders and men campaigning for women’s issues

Gender mainstreaming

Working

with men to help women again – is this trickle down?

Women’s

issues – lost again?

has diluted the movement and made it blurred, women’s issues become lost and

ambiguous.

Or….

Getting

men and women to define for themselves how they want to live?

And

working together?

close the gap in rights, life chances and options

Progress, but…SDGs…

“yet

again, we have failed to get sufficiently strong international support for

sexual rights, thus failing all those who are oppressed by repressive forms of

sexuality – not only the LGBTI community but also many heterosexual men and

women. The other bitter aspect of the SDGs is the unwavering commitment to

economic growth and the private sector …. This makes a mockery of the commitment to the

reduction of inequality and means that the agenda has been largely left to the

vagaries of market place and the whims of unaccountable global corporations.

(Kabeer, 2015, IGC)

Lecture

9: Gender

Key lecture themes

The

cost of ‘gender blind’ development (Senegambia)

Women

in Development Approach – WID (1970s-80s)

Gender

and Development Approach – GAD (late 1990s)

Mainstreaming

development – what has been gained, what lost?

Development is gendered

Poverty,

education, life opportunities are all experienced differently by men and women.

Women

are more likely than men to live in the poorest households in 41 out of 75

countries between 2000-2003 (UN, MDGs)

MDGs to SDGs

Gender

cuts across all MDG/SDG issues. SDGs are much more ambitious.

MDGs

ambition to promote gender equality was basically meaningless – it did not make

a difference. SDGs are more specific.

‘Missing women’?

left to natural biophysical processes and complete equal treatment, it is

natural for populations to have more women than men

Mainstreaming

gender in development and shifts in the processes of development

Gender

blind processes

Sen

(1999) ‘Development as freedom’

Definitions

Sex

is biological male and female

Gender

is the social and cultural construction of masculinity and femininity. This

varies over time and space.

Gender identities are socialised

Gender

is ideological and social

They

are socialised into certain practice

Gender

relations are the relations between the social categories of men and women.

These relations are power relations.

“There

is incontrovertible evidence that women, as a whole. Continue to face greater

social and economic disadvantages than their male counterparts.” (Chant, 2000).

Why

are there no societies where women are better? It’s constructed in a way that

is very rare where women are equal.

This

is a nature/culture way of thinking about gender. Masculinity and femininity.

Greater gender fluidity.

History – gender blind

development (Gambia case study)

Intentional

and immanent development

Not

only failed to benefit vulnerable groups but actually undermined the position

of women.

(Carney and Watts, 1991) History

of Mandinka people in Senegambia

Pre 19th Century – prior to European

expansion:

Rice

grown mainly by Mandinka women on the flood plains in upland areas

Men

grew millet on highest land – which was supplementary food

Men

also helped women with rice production

Rice

production was in surplus

Rice

marketed by the women, who had control over the profits.

Early 19th century - Increase in peanut cash

cropping

Areas

under millet cultivation converted to nuts by men, sold for cash

Monopolised

by male household labour

Brought

in ‘strange farmers’ – casual male labourers

‘Strange

farmers’ lived with host household and consumed household rice

Women

had to provide rice to compensate for lack of millet and had extra mouths to

feed

Also

producing without male help

more surplus rice for export – 1857 – result: famine.

1930s: Gambia relying heavily on

rice imports was unsustainable so a technical solution was used by colonial

planners:

Distributed

improved seeds, cleared mangroves and drained swamps

1930s are under rice cultivation doubled

But

burden of work on women also doubled. They tried to involve men but men said

‘rice is women’s work’ – increasing conflicts between men and women.

1950s – solution to lack of labour

was to improve technology further – mechanised irrigation scheme enabled

Mandinka to grow two crops of rice a year, rather than one.

But

– land with new irrigation system was communally owned and used by women. This

land became the ‘Gambia Rice Farm’ and the land was leased to women.

Women

became wage labourers – alienated from their land

They

had no control over their production.

1960s, 70s and 80s – Technical solutions were

continued to be used as solutions to lack of food

increased women’s alienation from: (i) the produce of their labour (ii) the

labour itself (iii) the land that they had previously had control over

This

resulted in further food shortages and tensions between men and women

(See

Carney and Watts, 1991; Schroeder, 1999).

A combination of immanent

and intentional development monopolised by men and undermined the position of

women. It was built on western notions that household, property and men control

trade. This is a major reason as to why it failed.

Naturalised stereotypes:

Men:

breadwinners; women – home makers

Household

head – ‘Benevolent dictators’

Women as home-makers

Any

attempts to improve the lives of women focused on their role in the home;

Reproduction

Health

(particularly child health)

Nutrition

and sanitation

win-win scenario – develop women and cut population growth; educate all

Challenged 1970s

Realization

that women are not just home makers but involved in production as well as

reproduction

Boserup’s

Women’s Role in Economic Development (1970) – discovered ‘female farming systems

in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Growth

in the women’s movement and calls for universal emancipation (1970)

1970s-1980s Women in

Development (WID)

Based

on notion of universal sisterhood

Targeted

women in isolation – education, equal opportunities, women’s groups

Women-to-women

development (only women can understand the needs of women – natural empathy)

Women’s

office set up in development agencies to tackle women’s needs

Structural

(e.g. legislative) and educational changes.

The

civil rights movement was interested in women’s liberation

People

discovered that women were doing the labour in agriculture

Women: win-win scenario

For

production: because of their potential to contribute to national economy

For

Society: because of their role as educators and nurturers – change women =

change in society)

For

the environment – women more ‘in tune’ with nature – ‘naturally’ not so

exploitative (see Shiva, 1988; for more recent review/critiques see Hawkins et

al, 2010)

Result of WID – women-only

projects

Ignored

variation in women’s experience – western feminists criticised by third world

women who said they didn’t want the kind of empowerment offered by western

women

Realisation

women’s experience differentiated by class, race, ethnicity, religion –

stratification not fixed but linked to other factors: technology; economy;

religion.

Essentialised

and ghettoized women – things that women worked on became women’s only

programmes.

Isolated

women

Did

not tackle the causes of women’s subordination but the symptoms

Perpetuated

other stereotypes that women were hardworking and that men were oppressive.

Aggravated

poor relations between men and women e.g. PROCESS Filipino NGO – women’s groups

caused tensions between women and their husbands (cited in Chant, 2000)

Focused

on women to the exclusion and frustration by men – see Schroeder’s (1999) Shady

Practices

Efficiency argument

Did

not ask what development could do for women, but what women could do for

development

Added

to women’s workloads

Influence of WAD approaches

‘Women

and Development’

‘Marxist’

(dependency) approach

Class,

racism and patriarchy are all intertwined

Tackling

gender inequality alone means nothing if no food housing, drinkable water or

employment

Gender

issues must be tackled with other forms of inequality – See Young, 2002

the same time, men had been blamed but increasingly in the late 20th

century – ‘men in crisis’, ‘men at risk’ – young, low income men vulnerable and

marginalised

Displacement,

breakdown tradition family, criminality – create problems for all

Many

of problems of women – particularly violence and crime, linked to

marginalisation and alienation of men.

was deemed too simplistic

Single

issue politics can be problematic

Has

to work with men too

Gender and Development

Approach (GAD) 1990s

Sees

Gender not absolute or essentialized, but relational

Focuses

on power relations between men and women

Gender

refers to men and women – not fixed

Shifts

emphasis of blame from men to society as a whole

These

forms of domination and exploitation have to counteracted by society as a whole

– not by men or women

Men

and women alliances

participatory

Challenge

to negative power relations and get people to do it on their own terms

See

Kandiyoti (2005)

Work with vulnerable men and

challenging hegemonic models

“There

are also men who occupy positions of relative powerlessness within families and

communities – men who have same-sex relationships, male adolescents or men

without jobs or money” (Cornwall, ‘Missing Men’)

one should be marginalised by norms of femininity and masculinity – hegemonic

models.

[It

has been argued that] although there are many ways of being a man, some are

valued more than others and men experience social pressure to conform to

dominant ideas about being a man. They

termed this 'hegemonic masculinity'.

[This concept] is most valuable… in showing that it is not men per se

but certain ways of being and behaving, that are associated with dominance and

power. In each cultural context, the ways in which masculinity is associated

with power varies. [And] in each

cultural context, there is a range of available models of masculinity and

femininity. Not all men benefit from and

subscribe to dominant values. 'Hegemonic

masculinity' can be just as oppressive for those men who refuse, or fail to

conform. Yet these men are often

implicitly excluded from being part of processes of changing and confronting

gender inequality because they are male… (Cornwall, 1997)

Development examples – GAD

CARE

International promoting safe sex in Vietnam (Doyle, in Cleaver, 2002)

Looked

at pressures on men to conform to particular sexual practices

Draws

attention to less dominant forms of masculinity and through discussion tried to

promote their legitimacy.

Example 2: Violence in northern

Uganda

Hegemonic

model of masculinity create expectations on men as providers, as sexist,

heterosexist

conflict situations they are unable to live up to stereotype

Feelings

of anger and humiliation vented more violence

Led

to high levels of domestic violence because of inadequacy and conflict traumas.

Example 3: HeForShe

Get

leaders and men campaigning for women’s issues

Gender mainstreaming

Working

with men to help women again – is this trickle down?

Women’s

issues – lost again?

has diluted the movement and made it blurred, women’s issues become lost and

ambiguous.

Or….

Getting

men and women to define for themselves how they want to live?

And

working together?

close the gap in rights, life chances and options

Progress, but…SDGs…

“yet

again, we have failed to get sufficiently strong international support for

sexual rights, thus failing all those who are oppressed by repressive forms of

sexuality – not only the LGBTI community but also many heterosexual men and

women. The other bitter aspect of the SDGs is the unwavering commitment to

economic growth and the private sector …. This makes a mockery of the commitment to the

reduction of inequality and means that the agenda has been largely left to the

vagaries of market place and the whims of unaccountable global corporations.

(Kabeer, 2015, IGC)

Gender lecture notes

Content of the notes (1)

Page 1

Information

Feedback

What do you think of the new look?