theglobaljournal.net: Latest articles of Jill White

Putting Gender on the Agenda

2011-12-22T13:55:06Z

As a graduate student searching for a job in the humanitarian sector, it has been suggested to me that employers look for key words in cover letters and on CVs - words that imply that the applicant is well aware of the current discourses and UN-speak of the international crowd.

One of these phrases is 'gender mainstreaming'. Whether under the label of terms such as 'gender mainstreaming', 'gender sensitive', or 'gender awareness', most international organizations today are obliged to incorporate gender into their policies, trainings, and programs, not only because of treaty or institutional requirements, but because of a relatively new ideal that incorporating gender, at least on a basic level, is important.

Gender specialists are increasingly being employed in UN departments, major NGOs and on peacekeeping missions: policies and reports must be assessed and deemed gender sensitive, and employees in many of these major organizations and on many missions are often required to attend gender training. On the surface, it seems we are doing fairly well.

Gender mainstreaming can mean a plethora of different things - from simply stating in a concept note that a program will be gender sensitive to actually providing that all data be sex and age disaggregated and requiring approval and feedback from gender specialists that all programs are indeed gender sensitive.

There is a range of approaches, yet most seem to fall below the threshold that would actually push change. My observations - which I would gladly like to see refuted – from talking with a few gender specialists and academics working on gender issues at a global level, are that most gender specialists have had little or no education on gender and its implications for peace and development. How many of these specialists have read Judith Butler or Chandra Mohanty? How many of these specialists actually know what gender is, or intersectionality or SADD? How many of these specialists think of structure and power when discussing gender? And how many of these specialists are feminists - male or female?

For an issue so marginalized as gender, a person appointed or employed as a gender specialist must own the issue in order to have any impact on policy. Being a well read feminist is a starting point for making one own the issue. To avoid misinterpretation, it should be stressed that this scary identifier does not mean that the gender specialist would only advocate for women’s issues (if you believe that, then you should read a bit of feminist theory), but it does mean that women will be taken into account much more, and as a structurally unequal and marginalized group (yes, this is essentializing), then this is not a bad thing. When men are taken as the universal group, disaggregating the sexes will show inequalities, which often harm the women but which also harm the men and everyone in between the two.

Being the gender specialist in any department is not an easy task, if done well. Whether male or female, feminist or not, you will probably receive rolling eyes, yawns and lack of interest when bringing up gender issues and conducting gender training. Many people may see gender training as training on how to be politically correct and sensitive to a disadvantaged group without realizing how relevant and influential gender relations are to all types of work.

Gender mainstreaming may be required of many organizations but this does not mean that employees will become gender sensitive and develop an interest in the issue and its importance. This is why the gender specialist is so important. Gender issues are real. They perpetrate discrimination and inequality in various harmful ways throughout the world. Gender insensitivity harms women and men, boys and girls.

We have come very far in the pervasiveness of the phrase gender mainstreaming. Let’s not stop at this. Now that gender mainstreaming is on the agenda, it must be discussed, developed, researched and implemented. And it is up to the gender specialist to lead the way. But more importantly, it is up to the employer to hire a gender specialist who is well-versed in the issues and who has a stated personal interest in being the advocate for gender issues.

Just because a key phrase appears in a cover letter does not mean that an applicant is well-versed in that issue - just as putting gender sensitivity on the agenda does not mean that it will be followed through. They may however, be starting points for good gender specialists and truly gender sensitive policy.

The Myth of the Peaceful Iron Lady

2011-11-10T13:03:02Z

The myth of female peacefulness has penetrated no field as greatly as foreign policy. Though there has been a scattering of female wartime leaders over the centuries, this myth has retained its primacy as women are kept out of most foreign policy circles. Despite several examples of bellicose women leaders (Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Madeleine Albright) and qualitative and quantitative analysis refuting this myth, most people continue to believe that foreign policy and war making is men's business. When women do penetrate this field, they face an insurmountable burden of proof. Proof that they can make informed decisions as well as men, proof that they can face enemies and cultivate allies as well as men, proof that their “feminine” personalities will not disrupt their ability to perform their jobs. Aggressive female foreign policy makers are usually given a nickname. Think Iron Lady for Margaret Thatcher. They are compared to the Amazons, mythical warriors who lived in all-female societies, engaging in battle with neighboring male tribes. They are compared to Valkyries, the female creatures who choose who is to be slain in battle. They are compared to the Furies, who are female deities of vengeance. Why can’t these women just be called by their titles-president, prime minister, secretary of state-just as their male predecessors and counterparts? Why must these women acquire nicknames that not only alienate them as women, but as abnormal and even artificial women because of their aggression? And why can’t their aggressive actions be seen as strategic decisions rather than be interpreted in distorted ways based not on the successes or failures of that decision but on the female sex of that decision maker.

The myth of female pacifism/male aggression is one of many that is so ingrained in our culture, so pervasive, omnipresent and omnipotent that to think of its elimination or transformation is daunting. These characteristics not only describe this particular myth, but describe what a myth actually is, a form of depoliticized speech. According to Roland Barthes in Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, myths are messages that must come out of history; they cannot evolve out of nature. They cannot be too obscure, or too obvious. Myths transform concepts, which require explanation, into facts, which do not require explanation, making readers consume the concepts without questioning the facts and the nature of the situation. This is why we do not question the validity of these myths.

Thus, the goal not only for feminist inquiry, but for informed readers must be to politicize these myths, transforming them from natural and given, into social constructs that can be falsified. And as I mentioned before, there is plenty of evidence for refutation and replacement of these myths. So, the next time you are reading about peaceful women or violent and aggressive women, know that both of these groups are women. Know that women as a group as well as each individual woman can vary from one end of the peaceful/violent spectrum to the other. Know that this is true for men as well. And finally, know that male and female foreign policy makers can succeed and fail, regardless of their sex.

(Photo © DR)

The Never Ending War

2011-10-10T14:13:43Z

No country in the world can ever be considered completely at peace. Though the soldiers may not be dressed as such and there may not be guns and tanks and bombs, the war is still occurring. Though there are no bases or shouts of war from politicians or the media, the war goes on. This war is the longest lasting, stretching back centuries to when history began, and it certainly has had the most casualties. Though these casualties may not be considered casualties of war, their pain, suffering and death is still relevant and unfortunate.

The war being waged in every country is a war against women. These women and girls remain unknown in connection with this war. The causes of their suffering are infinite, yet the perpetrators of their suffering cannot be named. Though most of these women may suffer at the hands of men, men are not the perpetrators. The perpetrator is not a person, not a living thing, nor even a tangible object. The perpetrator is a structure. A structure, a base upon which the world builds its laws, its language, its custom. Upon which society and civilization is formed. And although it may seem a wide, sweeping claim that this structure has permeated every place worldwide, no country, community, or individual has escaped its touch.

This structure is patriarchy. Though many of us may have heard this word before from some textbook or feminist friend, the word seems to glide into one ear and out the other without so much as a thought as to what this word entails, into the pervasive nature of this structure and the detrimental effects it has on every single woman worldwide. These effects show themselves as physical as well as mental and emotional trauma. How this structure reaches these women is different in each case. Some women may experience it through an honor killing, others through a forced child marriage, others may experience it through gang rape, through sexual trafficking, through sexual harassment, through lower pay than their male colleagues, through misogynistic jokes. Though every woman in the world may be different, with their identity as a woman intersecting with a plethora of other identities ranging from class to race to education, one thing they have in common is that this structure touches them all in one way or another, keeping them down, keeping them from ever being free and equal, but most importantly, keeping them from being safe.

National governments, diplomats, international affairs scholars spend their lives trying to prevent conflict and maintain peace. Little do they realize that there is no peace to maintain, there never was. The problem with this lack of realization is because we believe that we cannot see the enemy. It is not some foreign soldier with a camouflaged uniform holding a gun, the usual image of an enemy. The thing is, we can see and touch and hear this enemy just like with the foreign soldier, but our perceptions are not adjusted as to be aware of this enemy. We do not need to travel outside of our homes to experience this enemy, nor wait for it to pass by. It is omnipresent, making it impossible not to see if we know what to look for. We can see it when a bride is given to her groom by her father, when a girl is praised for her virginity, when a husband beats his wife, when a girl is raped, when anyone calls anyone else a slut or a bitch. When someone tells a friend to “man up and stop acting like a girl.” The structure is everywhere.

Can you see it?

And if we can see the enemy, why don’t we realize that this is a war?