This supplement is a digest of recent events and significant contributions to fostering gender equality - and human development - in various secular cultures and institutions. It is acknowledged that the distinction between the secular and religious dimensions is an artificial one, often blurred in real life situations. In those cases, if the material is predominantly secular it is included here; else it is included in Supplement 6. The selected items are the editor's choice. Suggestions by readers are welcomed. Reporting on good role models is a high priority. The following sections are included this month:
The promotion of gender equality in society is a slow and painful process, and it is barely beginning to unfold worldwide. But it is a dynamic process, one in which progress begets progress. It is important to stay tuned to relevant news coming from all world regions and all world cultures. The Google News box displayed to the right may be helpful. Readers can enhance their web sites with their own version of this box - which is continuously refreshed as significant events are reported - by going to Google News, clicking on "Add a section," and follow simple instructions under "Create a custom section." This is a free service, but you must register in order to use the customization tool.
If you know about recent developments that should be mentioned in this page, please write to the Editor.
Throughout history the search for identity has been an integral part of what we recognize as the human experience. The existential struggle to discover who we are and what our purpose in life is, leads many on various journeys.
Our identities are shaped by a complex and significant number of factors, ranging from the historical and the cultural, to the ethnic and the religious. ‘The Other’ and perceived differences from the Other also often shape notions of identity.
There is a dark side to this pursuit of identity. In various instances, great conflicts have raged over the pursuit and assertion of identity as it ultimately gets tied to notions of dignity, pride and even justice. Identity takes on the form of zealous dogmatism where differences become so irreconcilable, that it results in human suffering and injustices.
Here we shall discuss the notion of Gender as one of the most significant aspects of human identity that has long been the focus of much historical debates and controversy and which has seen a resurgence in various societies, most prominently in Western ones.
This discourse on gender has inspired many to question the actual importance of gender, the role it has in societal building and the very meaning thereof.
There will be three parts to this essay. Firstly we shall examine briefly the meaning of Gender, secondly, we shall highlight the various contemporary gender issues, and finally some suggestions will be laid out on how to best tackle these challenges.
GENDER: MEANING & DISTINCTIONS
However, before we begin to examine the current trends in Gender issues, a brief distinction needs to be made here for the purpose of clarity so as to avoid confusion about the meaning of gender within the context of our discussion.
Gender is largely distinct from sex classification. Sex has two clear classifications with its distinction mainly based on genetics and apparent biological traits. A male is genetically male and a female is female. There is no abstraction to this distinction as it is fundamentally rooted in hard science.
Gender however is more abstract and complex, addressing matters pertaining to the roles normally associated with both sexes, commonly known as masculinity and femininity. These roles which are more commonly developed within a contextual framework are therefore unique cutting across varying socio-cultural environments.
The idea of masculinity and femininity has largely to do with the power structures within a society. In many historical traditional settings, the male masculine ideal has been one of a provider or a hunter (correlating with the male physical attributes), tasked to protect and ensure the well-being of the family and community. This role empowers the male with a sense of authority over the aforementioned family unit and places him centrally important to the survival of the community. This has led many societies to develop a very male oriented foundation, termed popularly as a patriarchy, and gives much access and influence in the public sphere to men.
Women in patriarchal societies occupy the private sphere more often than not, having their roles relegated to care-givers, home-keepers and other similar roles. They tend to be keepers of the home and family life, and in various instances, take on subservient roles to their male counterparts.
This particular patriarchal arrangement ultimately awards men with more power, as matters to do with the community as a whole, fall under their societal jurisdiction. Such power allows them to enforce their will, wants and needs far more strongly in comparison to their female counterparts, and, consequently men make up for much, if not all positions of leadership in these communities.
There have been instances where the inverse is true as well where societies have embraced a matriarchal form of social order. But what is exemplified here is that much of our understanding of gender normativity is highly linked to existing social power structures which favour those who dominate them, or are perceived to have rightful authority over them.
As history has shown, the patriarchal mechanisms which governed societies maintained themselves well into the modern era with much of the rules set, albeit in varying degrees. Different societies however all had their own unique interpretation of gender roles. This changed when the world began moving towards the Industrial Revolution. Traditional male roles were challenged as automation and innovation within the agricultural and manufacturing sectors began to grow more dominant. In direct correlation with economic growth, infrastructures and higher quality of education, a perceived egalitarian system of governance was beginning to replace traditional power structures, thus challenging established social norms and the status quo.
Women now could access the mechanisms of power and many begun to demand more active participation within the public sphere of society.
This is where the first seed of feminism was sown, with many questioning the lack of women’s participation in politics, the professional workforce and anything beyond their traditional gender roles. This trend grew and became more prominent in a post Second World War socio-political landscape. Women rightly demanded for more rights and participation, for women’s issues and concerns to become matters of discussion within the arena of politics and civil society, and ultimately, they began to question the legitimacy of the patriarchal system, the foundation it is constructed upon, and its relevancy in this contemporary setting. This became what some perceived as a post-modern era of feminism.
Gender, was recognized for what it was—an artificial construct that could be challenged and redefined to meet the needs of modernity. What this redefinition would be however is a matter that is up for debate, but what is clear is that many women and men were beginning to question the meaning of gender and its relation to identity, morality and justice. This has also had the effect of strongly empowering women to speak out against injustices faced by them, forcing many to review and revise how we practice laws and governance which ultimately shapes how we view human rights today.
The debate on gender discourse has had a turbulent history due to the frictional discourse from both its supporters and detractors. Feminism as a school of thought has also undergone varying levels of evolution, with its first incarnation promoting inclusivity into the existing societal power structure, to its more contemporary form of deconstructionism and redefining set norms.
In recent times however, fueled by social media and the advent of the internet, access to unfiltered information has never been easier. It had also allowed for groups to be formed who share similar aspirations or concerns, organizing themselves effectively into small pockets of social activists connected through the online space they share. Many of these same activists have taken up advocacy for gender rights onto social media, promoting a new form of activism.
However, due to the nature of the discourse and accessibility to the materials and spaces for discussion, the arguments supporting and criticizing gender movements have been much more focused and distilled. Much of gender discussion has begun to take a more hostile tone, with various groups exhibiting what can only be described as zealous and insular dogmatism.
In the next section, we shall look at another social phenomenon which contributes significantly towards the rise of dogmatism within the gender discourse and is particularly prevalent within much of Western and European society. This phenomenon in summary is the rise of Individualism and its conceptual foundations within Western discourse and we will discuss how it contributes significantly to the Gender discussion.
INDIVIDUALISM & LIBERALISM: THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION AND THE SHIFTING OF PARADIGMS
In the 1960s till the 1980s, there was a significant popular social movement which had challenged the traditional foundations of normative behavior throughout much of European- Western society. How one views issues pertaining to sexuality had become increasingly contested, with many fringe groups and sexual expressions now becoming emboldened to loudly and unapologetically announce their presence. At the heart of this movement was a strong assertion for rights of the individual and equality of the individual when it comes to their personal choices and preferences.
This assertion of individualism however is a philosophical idea that lies at the heart of most of western society. Its assertion of person-centred goals and its privileging of personal freedom and personal choices meant that collective sexual norms would be scrutinized and criticized. Individualism in that sense laid the foundation for the gender and sexual revolution.
The subordination of collective sexual norms to individual preferences was further encouraged by the media and by cultural and artistic circles which perceived these choices exercised by the individual as a manifestation of the larger expression of freedom that distinguished democratic societies from totalitarian ones. Within the context of that period in history — the decades of the Cold War — the assertion of sexual freedom thus became yet another flag-bearer in the battle between two ideologies.
This also explains to some extent at least why sexual freedom manifesting itself through gay and lesbian rights and other similarly oriented concerns became so integral to liberalism from the eighties onwards. In societies where liberal thought is not conditioned by a pronounced notion of individualism, these ideas on homosexual rights have not struck root. Indeed, in those parts of the world where the sense of collective well-being and solidarity is still strong, there is very little enthusiasm for the sort of sexual revolution that some so-called liberal societies in the West espouse.
Differing understandings of sexual rights and gender identities may not be due entirely to ideological orientations. The socio-economic status of a society may also be an important factor. Many Western liberal societies have reached a point in their economic ascendancy where the individual is no longer dependent upon the collectivity or the community the way his counterpart in a poorer social setting is. In the latter situation because his basic needs and necessities are intertwined with those of the community, the social norms and traditions of the community exert a huge influence upon the individual. This is especially so of prevailing sexual norms.
Nonetheless, it is wrong to view societies and individuals who do not subscribe to certain Western notions of sexual freedom as ‘retrogressive’ or ‘anti human rights’ or ‘against the dignity of a marginalized group.’ Apart from a different perspective on the relationship of the individual to the community or of the integrity of the community itself, there are many societies who remain attached to profound philosophical principles about sexual propriety, male-female relations, the institution of marriage and the sanctity of the family. Some of these philosophies also value gender equality and revere the position of the woman. To dismiss such principles outright is an act of arrogance.
It smacks of dogmatism.
It is such dogmatism and its critique that we now examine.
CHALLENGES WITHIN AND WITHOUT
An article appeared in the news website, Russia Today November 2015 entitled “West in war on sexual norms” written by Sam Gerrans . In it the author criticizes the recent trends in what he perceives as fallacious arguments stemming from the discourse promoting transgenderism and post-modern feminism. In it, he not only heavily criticizes the core ideas of transgendered identity and gender neutralism, he also is blunt about his disdain for the ham-fisted approach which many advocates have taken.
“The pattern is clear: if you want to be a woman (or a man), you can be one by pretending to be one and if you can get enough people to agree with you: it’s true. And anyone who disagrees is a bad, evil person”.
In another article by the same author once more on Russia Today entitled “The Gender Agenda in the War on Normality”, there is a strong assertion for gender as a fundamental foundation, and that it is under attack by what is termed as Cultural Marxists.( The criticism here is leveled more directly against gender neutrality and what is seen as a virulent politicization of gender). Children have become the new battleground for this supposed war on normality, with the new generation of parents using their children to advocate for their beliefs by “parading them about in public places and on You Tube in order to achieve Skinneresque social engineering outcomes.”
The author even goes as far as to say that “Gender is not a spectrum, it is a polarity. If its ideals are opposing, it is part of its purpose. They are designed to complement and perfect each other while remaining distinctly different. Any society that loses its grasp on this obvious reality has no future.”
This is reflected by various social movements happening in both Europe and the United States recently, largely in conjunction with the push to normalize transgenderism into everyday society, and with many new-age parents adopting gender neutrality in regards to the upbringing of their children.
There is also evidence of a push within various institutions whereby there is an advocacy for Gender neutral toilets, or more specifically unisex toilets, where both male and female share a bathroom space together, serving as posters for gender-neutrality.
Gender is also naturally swept in together with issues pertaining to rights of homosexuals as any discussion on gender would include sexuality and identities related to it. Traditional gender roles carry negative connotations, either being labeled as archaic, conservative and even oppressive.
What is important to draw from these narratives is that issues pertaining to Gender Equality and justice, have taken a confrontational tone between two sides that hold distinct beliefs on the matter, one set in tradition, another self-proclaimed progressives. The views advocated by Sam Gerrans are not unique to him alone. They have become steadily popular within the discourse on gender issues, especially among those who feel that contemporary feminism is acting directly in a confrontational manner going so far as to vilify the male gender itself.
These allegations are not unfounded. The sentiments among fringe elements in social media and even public space, especially among self-identified “progressive feminist” groups lend much credence to this perception. Primarily concerned that the current feminist movements spearheaded by online social media activists not only criticizes what is perceived as harmful stereotypical masculine ideals, some even go as far as to espouse rhetoric which suggests that men who uphold traditional masculinity and do not comply to a particular version of feminist ideals, should be reeducated or outright removed from society. Anyone who seeks to respond to their shrill rhetoric is quickly labeled as ‘misogynist’ or ‘bigot’ or even ‘rapist.’ The vitriol is evident for anyone to see when they venture into websites which features these discussions.
The response to the feminists from the other side of the proverbial field is equally problematic. Some of those who respond are guilty of adding and even inciting hateful rhetoric. Much of the rhetoric here revolves around ridicule, with many lumping all feminists into a single group and declaring them to be mentally unsound, of parading around, and of other absurdities. A much more serious accusation leveled at feminists is of misandry. The previously noted vilification has inspired groups to be formed who feel that feminism and contemporary gender movements are in their own way bigoted and contributing much to the social dilemmas we are facing today. There are no kind words among these groups towards those advocating feminism or anyone who genuinely criticizes existing societal frameworks, which ironically results in the vilified vilifying of the vilifier. Some groups have been known to harass and even send death threats, reinforcing their violent persona image — an image that that they have been criticized for.
Here the self-consuming circle is complete and we can see how one group feeds off the other, bloating into two polarizing groups split between ideas of gender identities. Their prejudices are constantly legitimized and are used as evidence to promote their own cause.
However, what is of greatest concern is in fact the very vitriol that these groups exhibit as it begins to borderline on dogmatism, and perhaps this is where the real problem lies.
Strangely it is an observable trend that such forms of extreme dogmatism occur mainly in Western societies, as there is a long history of western discourses swinging into extremes especially on highly charged political and social issues.
Dogmatism more often than not represents two contrasting ideological discourses that are irreconcilable with one another. It promotes a dangerous state of mind where its merits are dependent on the very thing it opposes, but at the same time leaves no room for reconciliation or meaningful discussion. This leads to an advocacy of ideals that severely lacks any element of human compassion and falsely lays claim to progressive thought.
In fact it can be stated that the representation of these two groups and their dogmatic rhetoric does not contribute to and arguably damages the very cause they are supposedly advocating for, with each group’s absurd vilification of the other. Gender discussion and discourse becomes the ownership of the arrogant and the absurd.
Meaningful discourse, progressivism and humanity do not benefit from it and may even come out lesser for it.
The contemporary nature of gender discourse is a phenomenon that will continue to undergo varying stages of evolution as society grows. Even though the present arguments are dangerously dogmatic by nature, it does not mean that there are no important issues which are highlighted that need to be discussed within the context of gender.
Issues pertaining to gender equality, whether it is equal pay, rights, political participation, safety and justice are far too important to ignore as a society. A society, especially a progressive one, must take responsibility and see to the well-being of all its people. Many times over the criticisms of society and the patriarchal institutions that govern it do indeed point towards various injustices that need to be remedied in both developed and developing societies.
This does not mean however that we should allow the discourse on gender to be dominated by those seeking to impose their dogmatic beliefs on it. Much like the nature of gender itself, the issue is not one that is binary but instead it has its own nuances that need to be carefully negotiated and this requires active participation by civil society.
There is an important need for civility in these discussions however, as pointless vilification and a serious lack of human compassion detracts from the value of these arguments, perhaps the most important element to move forward with. Without reasonableness and a compassion for one’s fellow human beings, the moral foundation upon which gender issues rely does not have much credible ground to stand on.
Gender discourse needs more active participation to stem the effects of zealous dogmatism from polluting it and it is an issue that needs to be addressed together as a human family.
Mr. Hassanal Noor Rashid is Programme Coordinator with the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).
This article was originally published in
The New Atlantis, Number 50, Fall 2016 REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION
This report presents a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of research — from the biological, psychological, and social sciences — related to sexual orientation and gender identity. It is offered in the hope that such an exposition can contribute to our capacity as physicians, scientists, and citizens to address health issues faced by LGBT populations within our society.
Some key findings:
Part One: Sexual Orientation
The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence.
While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation. While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.
Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults (although the extent to which this figure reflects actual changes in same-sex attractions and not just artifacts of the survey process has been contested by some researchers).
Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.
Part Two: Sexuality, Mental Health Outcomes, and Social Stress
Compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes.
Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.
Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.
There is evidence, albeit limited, that social stressors such as discrimination and stigma contribute to the elevated risk of poor mental health outcomes for non-heterosexual and transgender populations. More high-quality longitudinal studies are necessary for the “social stress model” to be a useful tool for understanding public health concerns.
Part Three: Gender Identity
The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be “a man trapped in a woman’s body” or “a woman trapped in a man’s body” — is not supported by scientific evidence.
According to a recent estimate, about 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as a gender that does not correspond to their biological sex.
Studies comparing the brain structures of transgender and non-transgender individuals have demonstrated weak correlations between brain structure and cross-gender identification. These correlations do not provide any evidence for a neurobiological basis for cross-gender identification.
Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.
Children are a special case when addressing transgender issues. Only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.
There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents, although some children may have improved psychological well-being if they are encouraged and supported in their cross-gender identification. There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.
"Patriarchy is a social system in which the male gender role as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.
"Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Patriarchy also has a strong influence on modern civilization, although many cultures have moved towards a more egalitarian social system over the past century.
"Patriarchy literally means "rule of fathers" (Greek patriarkhes), "father" or "chief of a race, patriarch". Historically, the term patriarchy was used to refer to autocratic rule by the male head of a family. However, in modern times, it more generally refers to social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men.
"Anthropological and historical evidence indicates that most prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies were generally relatively egalitarian, and that patriarchal social structures did not develop until many years after the end of the Pleistocene era, following social and technological innovations such as agriculture and domestication. However, according to Robert M. Strozier, historical research has not yet found a specific "initiating event" of the origin of patriarchy. Some scholars point to about six thousand years ago (4000 BCE), when the concept of fatherhood took root, as the beginning of the spread of patriarchy."
The patriarchal mindset of rivalry and domination is pervasive and induces a culture of "command and control" and transcends family relations and contaminates all human relations as well as the human attitude toward the natural habitat. An excellent exposition of the need for a good dosage of "ecofeminism" to overcome patriarchy is provided by Patrick Curry in Chapter 9 of his book, Ecological Ethics. Following are some excerpts:
"Insofar as patriarchy identifies women with nature and dominates both, they are internally linked, so the struggle to resist or overturn either must address both."
"Ecofeminism is a meeting of two strands. One is feminism itself: the awareness of the pathological effects of dominant patriarchal or (to use a more recent term) masculinist structures, both 'inner' and 'outer' -- particularly, of course, on women but also, ultimately, on their oppressors -- and the attempt to replace them with ones that also value the feminine."
"The other element is a recognition of, and deep concern about, the equally masculinist domination and exploitation of nature through the very same habitual structures of though, feeling and action that devalue and harm women."
Curry goes on to analyze the master mentality, both dualist and hierarchical: "humanity versus nature; male versus female; and reason versus emotion... the domination and exploitation of nature and women proceed by the same logic, the same processes and, by and large, the same people... only ecofeminism brings a critical awareness of the extent and ways in which the subordination of women and ecological destruction are integrally linked."
The chapter unfolds with a review of work by ecofeminist leaders such as Vandana Shiva (India) and Wangari Maathai (Kenya), and proceeds to deconstruct the androcentric (male-centered) mentality while, at the same time, making it crystal clear that ecofeminism is definitely not a matter of demonizing men. In fact, men are victims of patriarchal practices as much as women; in one way or another, domination that goes around comes around. Only an ethics of care, as in a mother holding her child, can break the vicious circle of patriarchal command and control whereby humans abuse the human habitat at their own peril. Indeed, as Lynn White proposed years ago, St. Francis of Assisi should be recognized as the patron saint of ecologists.
New York — The 60th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women concluded today with UN Member States committing to the gender-responsive implementation of Agenda 2030. A set of agreed conclusions called for enhancing the basis for rapid progress, including stronger laws, policies and institutions, better data and scaled-up financing.
The Commission recognized women’s vital role as agents of development. It acknowledged that progress on the Sustainable Development Goals at the heart of Agenda 2030 will not be possible without gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.
UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka welcomed the agreement and the commitment of UN Member States to make the 2030 Agenda, adopted last September, a reality in countries around the world. She said: “Countries gave gender inequality an expiry date: 2030. Now it is time to get to work. These agreed conclusions entrench and start the implementation of a gender-responsive agenda 2030 with which we have the best possibility to leave no one behind.”
Growing global commitment was already in evidence with a record number of more than 80 government ministers from around the world attending the Commission. Around 4,100 non-governmental representatives from more than 540 organizations participated as well, the highest number ever for one of the Commission’s regular annual meetings.
The agreed conclusions urge a comprehensive approach to implementing all 17 Sustainable Development Goals through thorough integration of gender perspectives across all government policies and programmes. Eliminating all forms of gender-based discrimination depends on effective laws and policies and the removal of any statutes still permitting discrimination. Temporary special measures may be required to guarantee that women and girls can obtain justice for human rights violations.
The Commission endorsed significantly increased investment to close resource gaps for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. Funds should be mobilized from all sources, domestic and international, ranging from fulfilling official development assistance commitments to combatting illicit financial flows that shortchange public resources for gender equality.
With humanitarian crises and other emergencies disproportionately affecting women and girls, the Commission underlined the imperative of empowering women in leadership and decision-making in all aspects of responding to and recovering from crisis. On the eve of the World Humanitarian Summit, it stressed prioritizing women’s and girls’ needs in humanitarian action and upholding their rights in all emergency situations. Every humanitarian response should take measures to address sexual and gender-based violence.
Members of the Commission united behind ensuring women’s equal participation in leadership at all levels of decision-making in the public and private spheres, encompassing governments, businesses and other institutions, and across all areas of sustainable development. Depending on different circumstances, this may involve establishing temporary special measures, setting and achieving concrete benchmarks and removing barriers to women’s participation.
Given the major contributions to Agenda 2030 of civil society, including women’s and community-based organizations, feminist groups, human rights defenders and girls’ and youth-led organizations, the Commission welcomed open engagement and cooperation with them in gender-responsive implementation. It emphasized fully engaging with men and boys as agents of change and allies in the elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls.
To guide systematic progress towards gender equality and women’s empowerment throughout the 2030 Agenda, the Commission stressed enhanced national statistical capacity and the systematic design, collection and sharing of high-quality, reliable and timely data disaggregated by sex, age and income. Members also agreed to bolster the role of national mechanisms for women and girls in championing their equality and empowerment.
"As a rights-based organisation, CARE's climate change strategy is geared towards the empowerment of poor and marginalised people. CARE is deeply concerned about constraints that the inequitable distribution of rights, resources and power – as well as repressive cultural rules and norms – place on people's ability to take action on climate change. We believe that a wide range of development goals are achievable only if decision makers at all levels recognise the unique risks faced by poor and marginalised people and their essential roles in planning, implementing and evaluating action on climate change.
"The majority of the world's poorest people today are women and girls. Climate change is making it even more difficult for them to realise their basic rights, and it is exacerbating inequalities since they are more vulnerable to its impacts than men.
"Moreover, many women are denied access to new information about climate change and participation in important decision-making processes despite having unique skills and knowledge – about low risk farming, sustainable water management, family health and community mobilisation, for example – vital to effective adaptation.
"For all these reasons, and because women are central to the food and livelihood security of their families, we place a special emphasis on gender equality and women's empowerment."
For more, including links to other CARE resources, click here.
"Developing renewables to meet the growing demand for energy is a top priority in the 21st century. So is enhancing collaboration among developing countries. By training semi-literate women from rural Sierra Leone in solar-energy techniques, Barefoot College in western India works towards achieving both these goals. Twelve women attended and then returned to villages in Sierra Leone to assemble 1,500 household solar units at a new branch of Barefoot College in Konta Line, where the training will continue, reports a blog for the Guardian. The governments of both countries have played their part; Sierra Leone invested $820,000 in the project, and India provided equipment. The vast majority of households in Sierra Leone go without power. Following its decades-long civil war, electricity is Sierra Leone's "most daunting infrastructural challenge," notes a World Bank report. Lighting extends education and socializing into the evening hours, and the women are planning on manufacturing solar units to spread the new power."
Originally published in
Nepali Times, 28 August 2016 REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION
"World of Pregnant Men" by Laxman Bazra Lama
Nepal is going through a dramatic demographic shift. On the one hand, the country’s fertility rate is approaching replacement level — although the momentum of population growth will continue for another generation, it will stabilise thereafter.
This demographic transition of low birth rate and higher life expectancy is accompanied by the biggest population migration in the country’s history. The hill districts are depopulating at staggering rates, losing between 15 to 25 per cent of their inhabitants in the past 10 years as people migrate to cities, plains and abroad for work.
Nearly 20 per cent of Nepal’s population is away at any given time, and considering that the migrants are mostly young men, this could mean that up to half the men in the 20-35 age group are essentially missing from their families, communities and society.
This brings us to the other ongoing societal transformation: the gender shift. Families and communities in rural Nepal are being run by women. With most men gone, rural Nepal has been feminised. The number of female students in high schools and colleges is at an all-time high. Women are moving into jobs traditionally considered the domain of men: driving public transport, and engaged in masonry, carpentry and construction, especially in the earthquake-affected districts. The feminisation of the workforce is subtly empowering women, providing them with cash income and new confidence, bolstering their sense of self-worth.
Gender activists are not particularly fond of Tij — the annual celebration by daughters, wives and sisters — which this year falls on Sunday 4 September. Their criticism is of the practice by women of fasting for the wellbeing and longevity of their husbands. It is absurd, particularly in this day and age, that women should be culturally required not to eat so that their husbands will be well-fed.
However, Tij has always traditionally also been a celebration of sisterhood and solidarity, a one-day rebellion and characterised by deliberate defiance against dominance by men. Could it be that some Nepali women today consider the Tij fast as a hunger strike against patriarchy? Going by the lyrics of the new duets that have been released in the run-up to this year’s festival, there is open ridicule of menfolk as lazy, good-for-nothing spoilt brats.
Add ‘corrupt’. And how aptly that sums up the attributes of most men who have the audacity to rule over us. Let’s just leave aside for the moment the fact that Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal has already squandered one-and-a-half months of his nine-month rotational tenure just to form a council of ministers from a coalition of four parties.
The Nepali Congress could not even agree on a list of ministerial appointees until after the Nepal Students’ Union elections as well as the return from New Delhi of Deputy Prime Minister Bimalendra Nidhi. Why the selection of ministers by Nepal’s largest party should be held hostage by the election of 45-year-old ‘students’, and a visit to India by the prime minister’s special envoy, has never been satisfactorily explained to the public.
Nevertheless, of the 31 ministers appointed in his fourth consecutive expansion of the cabinet, only three are women, two of whom are junior state ministers. Clause 42-1 of the new Constitution expressly stipulates that women and other marginalised groups be given proportional representation in all agencies of government. When it sent its list of 13 ministers, the NC could muster only one woman.
In terms of inclusivity, the ratios are not much better for Dalits, Janajatis, or Madhesis either. For example, there are only two Dalit ministers, and three from Janajati groups.
The sad irony is that this is happening under the prime ministership of Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who used to be the ‘Supreme Commander’ of a guerrilla army of which one-fourth was made up of women warriors, many of whom laid down their lives for equality.
The members of the ruling coalition are the same political parties that took to the streets to protest King Gyanendra’s ‘regression’ in 2006. What a cruel joke that real regression is happening under the rule of these same so-called democratic parties.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Kunda Dixit is the publisher of Nepali Times and author of several books including the trilogy on the conflict in Nepal, A People War, Never Again, and People After War.
Originally published in
Yes! Magazine, 13 July 2016 under a Creative Commons License
Photo by Maud Fernhout
Manners and machismo: Traditional Western gender etiquette is clear. Ladies, don’t be loud and unruly. Men, be tough. Dutch university student Maud Fernhout challenged these stereotypes in her photo series “What Real Men Cry Like” and “What Real Women Laugh Like,” in which she asked fellow students from different cultures to do exactly that. When the women saw their own faces crinkled with elation and mouths agape, they were repulsed. “They said, ‘I look so ugly,’” Fernhout recalled. “But when they looked at the other girls, they said, ‘Oh, she’s so pretty!’ and they realized it was okay.” Seeing others break the mold of what a woman’s face should look like changed how they felt about themselves.
Fernhout found that attitudes toward crying men varied by culture: Eastern European students were most resistant, while Italians and Spaniards cried easily. Women’s reactions to how they looked laughing didn’t vary, Fernhout said, perhaps because most of Europe shares the same standards of beauty but not the same standards of masculinity. She hopes that these images will force people to look at their own preconceptions of gendered behaviors.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Maud Fernhout and Jennifer Luxton wrote this article for Gender Justice, the Summer 2016 issue of YES! Magazine. Maud studies Liberal Arts & Sciences at University College Utrecht. For her, photography is a way to express her view of the world, and to help others do the same. Maud’s work can be found on her website.
Women and Biodiversity Feed the World, Not Corporations and GMOs
Originally published in Common Dreams, 20 May 2015, under a Creative Commons License
'Women have been the primary growers of food and nutrition
throughout history,' writes Dr. Vandana Shiva, 'but today, food
is being taken out of our hands and substituted for toxic commodities
controlled by global corporations.' (Photos: Georgina Smith/CIAT)
The two great ecological challenges of our times are biodiversity erosion and climate change. And both are interconnected, in their causes and their solutions.
Industrial agiculture is the biggest contributor to biodiversity erosion as well as to climate change. According to the United Nations, 93% of all plant variety has disappeared over the last 80 years.
Monocultures based on chemical inputs do not merely destroy plant biodiversity, they have destroyed soil biodiversity, which leads to the emergence of pathogens, new diseases, and more chemical use.
Our study of soils in the Bt cotton regions of Vidharba showed a dramatic decline in beneficial soil organisms. In many regions with intensive use of pesticides and GMOs, bees and butterflies are disappearing. There are no pollinators on Bt cotton plants, whereas the population of pollinators in Navdanya’s biodiversity conservation farm in Doon Valley is six times more than in the neighbouring forest. The UNEP has calculated the contribution of pollinators to be $200 billion annually. Industrial agriculture also kills aquatic and marine life by creating dead zones due to fertilizer run off. Pesticides are also killing or damaging aquatic life .
"Genetically engineered Golden Rice and GMO Bananas are being proposed by corporations hiding behind the cloak of academia as a solution to hunger and malnutrition in the Global South. But these are false miracles."
Besides the harm to biodiversity and the climate, industrial agriculture actually undermines food and nutrition security. Firstly, industrial agriculture grows commodities for profits of the agrichemical (now also Biotech) and agribusiness corporations. Only 10 percent of the annual GMO corn and soya crop goes to feed people. The rest goes to animal feed and biofuel. This is clearly not a food system that feeds the world.
Secondly, monocultures undermine nutrition by displacing the biodiversity that provides nourishment and the diversity of nutrients our body needs. Herbicides like Roundup do not just kill the milkweed on which the monarch Butterfly larvae feed, they kill sources of nutrition for humans – the amaranth, the "bathua," and the mixed cropping that produces more "Nutrition per Acre" than industrial monocultures (see Navdanya’s report on Health per Acre).
Having destroyed our sources of nutrition by destroying biodiversity—and creating vitamin A, iron and other deficiencies—the same companies who created the crisis are promising a miracle solution: GMOs. Genetically engineered Golden Rice and GMO Bananas are being proposed by corporations hiding behind the cloak of academia as a solution to hunger and malnutrition in the Global South. But these are false miracles.
Indigenous biodiverse varieties of food grown by women provide far more nutrition than the commodities produced by industrial agriculture. Since 1985 the false miracle of Golden Rice is being offered as a solution to vitamin A deficiency. But Golden rice is still under development. Billions of dollars have been wasted on a hoax.
"Apart from being nutritionally empty, GMOs are part of an industrial system of agriculture that is destroying the planet, depleting our water sources, increasing green houses gases, and driving farmers into debt and suicide."
On 20th of April, the White house gave an award to Syngenta which had tried to pirate India’s rice diversity, and owns most of the 80 patents related to Golden Rice. This is reminiscient of the Emperor who had no clothes. Golden Rice is 350% less efficient in providing vitanim A than the biodiversity alternatives that women grow. GMO ‘iron-rich’ Bananas have 3000% less iron than turmeric and 2000% less iron than amchur (mango powder). Apart from being nutritionally empty, GMOs are part of an industrial system of agriculture that is destroying the planet, depleting our water sources, increasing green houses gases, and driving farmers into debt and suicide through a greater dependence on chemical inputs. Moreover, these corporate-led industrial monocultures are destroying biodiversity, and we are losing access to the food systems that have sustained us throughout time. Biodiverse ecological agriculture in women’s hands is a solution not just to the malnutrition crisis, but also the climate crisis.
Women have been the primary growers of food and nutrition throughout history, but today, food is being taken out of our hands and substituted for toxic commodities controlled by global corporations. Monoculture industrial farming has taken the quality, taste and nutrition out of our food.
In addition to destroying biodiversity, industrial agriculture is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases (GHGs) which are leading to climate change and climate chaos. As I have written in my book, Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis, 40% of all GHGs—including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and methane—come from industrialised globalized agriculture. And chemical monocultures are also more vulnerable to climate change as we have witnessed in the unseasonal rains at harvest time in 2015.
On the other hand, organic farming reduces emissions, and also makes agriculture more resilient to climate change. Because organic farming is based on returning organic matter to the soil, it is the most effective means to remove excess carbon in the air, where it does not belong, and putting it in the soil, where it belongs. Navdanya’s research has shown that organic farming has increased carbon absorption by 55%. International studies show that with 2 tons of Soil Organic Matter (SOM) per hectare, we can remove 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which can reduce the atmospheric concentration of carbon back down to pre-industrial levels of 350 ppm.
In addition, organic matter in the soil also increases water-holding capacity of the soil, reducing the impact of floods and droughts. Just 1% increase in Soil Organic Matter can raise the water-holding capacity of soil by 100,000 liters per hectare. And an increase of 5% can raise it to 800,000 liters. This is our insurance against climate change, both when there is drought and too little rain, and when there are floods and excess rain. On the other hand, cement and concrete increases runoff of water, aggravating floods and drought. We witnessed this in the Uttarakhand disaster in 2013 and in the Kashmir disaster in 2014.
At harvest time of spring 2015 India had unseasonal rains which destroyed the crops. More than a 100 farmers committed suicide. The unseasonal rains due to climate instability added to the burden of debt the farmers are already carrying due to rising costs of production and falling prices. Both the crisis of debt leading to climate change and the climate crisis have a common solution – a shift to biodiverse ecological agriculture which is free of high cost chemical inputs and dependence on corporate seeds, hence of debt, and also has climate resilience built into it through biodiversity and organic soils.
4000 years ago our ancient Vedas had guided us, "Upon this handful of soil our survival depends. Care for it, and it will grow our food, our fuel, our shelter and surround us with beauty. Abuse it, and the soil will collapse and die, taking humanity with it."
In an ideal world, there’d be no misogynists (or misandrists for that matter). Unfortunately, in our world, misogyny abounds. What’s worse: most of these misogynists, in fact, are women! So, why do we women hate each other was the question that started it all...and thus began a banter between a man and a woman.
Arjun Dhar: I often hear women defend their own moral fabric by saying “I’m not one of those women”...“those” obviously implying women whom the world dubs a “slut”, and who according to “these” women make the great majority while they remain pure virginal saints (or so they “claim”!).
Thus, it would seem that owing to the fear of being judged, a lot of “these” women prefer to play the good-girl-next-door, so they can elevate themselves in the eyes of the world, even if it means cutting the other woman and her morals to pieces (remember the Monica Bellucci-starrer Malena). I truly find such form of self-worth extremely shallow, and I am sure so do other men and women with one grain of sense and/or sensibility.
While it’s fair that each individual, irrespective of gender, can choose their own moral paths; to use it as a USP for exalting oneself as a woman, is extremely demeaning by nature to “those” women who have simply chosen to live their lives on their own terms, accepting that they are indeed sexual beings who enjoy the pleasures of the flesh. This stereotypical women-putting-other-women-down is the worst form of misogyny. In fact, it should actually come as little surprise that H. L. Mencken, the great American satirist, defined a misogynist as a man who hates women as much as women hate one another. How apt!
And while you can argue that men too indulge in “one-upMANship” with other men, the grounds for competition between us men, however, is more progressive and is seldom correlated to our extra-curricular activities inside (and sometimes outside) the bedroom.
Mallika Nawal: Sigh! “What do women want?” has been the ever-lasting lament of every man and no wonder, you—being a man—too find it difficult to fathom the reason for women claiming that they indeed are NOT “one of those women”. After all, what does a woman stand to gain if she claims to be different from “those” women? And why are men not judged on the same standards?
You see, the world categorises men and women differently. Good Man vs Bad Man vis-a-vis Good Woman vs Bad Woman actually come with very different connotations. While for the men, this “goodness” is determined on moral ideals like honesty, hard work, persistence, ambition, integrity, conviction, etc. (as rightly put forth by you); for a woman, her morality is determined simply by the presence or absence of a single membrane—aka, the famed “hymen”.
Thus, the world categorises “good” women as sexually pure, while “those” women—which is basically an allusion to “bad” women—are those that have sex, whether commercially, recreationally, or relationally.
In other words, a woman’s moral compass, as once mentioned by Jessica Valenti in her book The Purity Myth, actually nestles between her legs. Thus, every woman tries to play the “purity card” (irrespective of whether they are “pure” in reality or not) for one simple reason—to find acceptance in a society that judges her not on the basis of her work or accomplishment, but on the basis of her sexual escapades. And thus, every woman attempts to distance herself from “those” women, hoping she will escape being clubbed and persecuted for being “one of those women”. Then again, do they really have any choice?
AD: Hmm. To quote what you just said, “the world categorises men and women differently”, am I safe in assuming that “the world” here comprises men and women and not aliens? After all, men alone do not make the world or its mores…women contribute equally to it. Thus, this statement highlights three weaknesses “their” kind suffers from. Firstly, the need to victimise themselves; secondly, judging each other by those very standards they want to shun; and thirdly, seeking validation and acknowledgement from the other kind (men, that is, not aliens) more so than their own. It’s little wonder then that all these three factors greatly contribute to their current status quo. While they forget the simplest thing, and what the American actress Roseanne Barr once said, “The thing women have yet to learn is (that) nobody gives you power. You just take it.”
Thus, when I hear women complaining that the world needs to change, I am left dumbfounded. As if their contribution to the struggle of womankind ended with them highlighting the “need” for change. Pray, enlighten us O Wise One for this “need for change” wherein half of you daydream of utopia and the other half undermines the rest half, with only a handful of you carry the true baton.
Then again, look at the mile-long checklist that most women often use when choosing partners…someone who’s taller, smarter, more affluent, more successful than them with many more such “more-s”. It makes one wonder if they crave to actually be on an unequal footing even to begin with. I wonder how many men out there have the same Nile-long checklist of “more-s” that they want in their partners. I, for one, as a man, simply want a partner on an equal footing.
Speaking of the moral compass that you spoke off; it is simply NOT TRUE that men are not judged on the basis of their sexual morality. After all, haven’t we heard—time and again—about men being compared to dogs when it comes to insinuating that a man is likely to hump anything that moves. Even in an extramarital affair, is it usually the man who is judged (sometimes “unfairly”) as being the cause of the infidelity…the woman (who makes the equal half of the affair) again goes scot-free as the hapless victim of a man’s sexual pursuit. As if the world once again forgets that it takes two to tango.
And yet the law punishes the man. Don’t believe me? Let’s review Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 497 - Adultery: “Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.”
Do we seriously not see how the law is biased towards women? And yet women, who are the abettors, seem to forever worry about what “the world” owes them.
Interestingly, Section 497 also inherently treats the wife as a property of her husband, vis-a-vis a man trespassing on another man’s property. And since her own consent has no validity, it absolves her of her participation in the adulterous act. (I wonder if all feminists will now have an “Aha” moment!)
Why can’t the argument for once shift to: equal rights for all? Why does it only have to be about empowering women? Why can’t we ask for equal rights with equal responsibilities or be content in an unequal world?
MN: Yes, the world comprises men and women (and not aliens, even though men and women do sometimes curiously refer to each other as Martians and Venusians). However, we—whether man or woman—live under the ever-watchful eye of patriarchy, which in turn socialises each one of us to become crusaders fighting to preserve the tyranny of patriarchy, irrespective of our gender. This is formally referred to as “gender socialisation”, where women themselves become pigeonholed into perpetuating the patriarchy.
This is why “sex” and “gender”—even though often used interchangeably—are completely different concepts. While sex is a biological construct, gender is completely cultural. Hence, patriarchy, like any other social system, manifests itself through different spheres, be it social, economic, political, religious, legal, etc. This is what we see wherever we look.
Social: Consider power for instance. What is patriarchy if not about power? Patriarchy as a social system places this power in the hands of men, where women, whatever their station, become subservient to the needs of the father, the husband and the son. This is why a woman is socially spoon-fed to believe that she needs three Ms in her incomplete life in order to become a complete woman: Man, Marriage and Motherhood. In other words, and as I stated in one of my columns (“Keeping Up With The Ms Jones”, Swarajya, December 2014), “I am simply not born a woman; I am expected to become one! And how do I become one? Simple! By marrying and procreating! My uterus is my destiny—my one-way ticket to ‘womanhood’!”
Economic: One of the ways in which patriarchy exerts its power is through economic control. Despite the strides made by many women in the workplace, the sad truth is that the modes of production are still controlled by men...the world over. Women today, therefore, are still paid less than a man, for the same work. And then there’s the glass ceiling effect.
Not to mention, even when a woman is able to break through the glass ceiling and reach positions of power, insinuations are made regarding her having used her female organs to further her place in the organisation. In fact, think about it—as a woman, I can’t even take a lousy bank loan, for which I need a male guarantor.
Religion: Historically speaking, the ancient world was ruled by Matriarchal Paganism, which was violently dethroned by Patriarchal Christianity under the auspices of the pagan-turned-Christian Roman emperor Constantine (272-337 CE). And with it came the narrative of the “fall of man”. And surprise, surprise—it was the woman, Eve, who was responsible for this disgrace. Thus, even the Hindu religion which believed in equality between men and women, became polluted over due course of time after coming in contact with the patriarchalistically enthusiastic Abrahamic religions.
Legal: You spoke of the adultery law that only makes provision for a man’s imprisonment, while letting the woman, who obviously chose to become a partner in crime of her own accord, go scot free. Unfortunately, the subtext is not so simple. If you read the entire premise of the section, there are several things that should ring the alarm bells.
1. “Without the consent or connivance of that man”, which means, as a man, you are free to have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife, so long as you have that man’s consent or connivance. As always, the woman’s consent does not matter, not even in the eyes of the law.
2. If you were to have sexual intercourse with another woman (irrespective of whether she was married or not), your “wife” would not have the power to punish “the other woman” through prosecution. The law makes no provision for the woman yet again.
3. The law basically tells us that a woman is nothing more than “property” of a man. In that respect, the laws of adultery are no different from the laws of trespassing, where one man can be prosecuted for trespassing (or “penetrating”) another man’s property.
Women, therefore, bear the brunt of patriarchy, from the moment they’re born to the moment they die.
Moreover, according to Rasa Von Werder, author of It’s Not Over Till The Fat Lady Sings, “patriarchy can only rule through violence, brainwashing, and ignorance. They have to train and brainwash men into being macho and aggressive, while brainwashing women to be submissive and compliant”. In other words, both men and women serve as mere means to the patriarchal ends. But the reality still remains that women still get the raw-er deal!
AD: Well, I cannot argue any further (In fact, forget arguing, I think I have run out of patience and can’t read any further). So this is where, as a man, it’s time for me to play dead and relent (I am sure the woman in you is secretly rejoicing). However, it still cannot be disputed that a woman is a woman’s worst enemy. For all we have bantered about, women still lack strength because they “feel” they are underprivileged. Ironically enough, it is in fact the educated woman (who is well aware of all her rights) who seems to be the most underprivileged. Then again, who am I to argue with that?
But, there’s something I want to tell you as a man (who considers you my equal in all respects). As long as you continue to expect us men to empower you and keep abdicating your role in your own empowerment, you are fighting a lost cause. For unless you women stand up for each other, there is little that any man can do for you. After all, your strength needs to come from within.
MN: Yes, you’re right. We women have been just as guilty of misogyny as the so-called misogynistic men. And the sad reality still remains that women continue to undermine other women (and men for that matter), instead of joining forces and taking on the patriarchal dark lords. After all, aren’t men too bearing the brunt of a patriarchal society that expects them to be strong at all times—to not cry, to be the breadwinner. In fact, whether it is adultery or alimony, the stakes—for all intents and purposes—is stacked against the man to begin with.
Hence, maybe the solution lies in first identifying a basic premise—that there are women who are misogynists, just as there are men who are feminists!
In fact, it isn’t Man vs Woman at all, it’s Man & Woman vs Patriarchy. And that is how Nature intended it to be—Man + Woman...together.
AD: Hmm. Amen to that.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Mallika Nawal is a PhD in Marketing from IIT Kharagpur, and author of three management books which are prescribed textbooks in universities across India. She has taught in India and abroad, and also written the bestselling thriller I’m A Woman And I’m On Sale. She is currently pursuing a degree in law.