Chapter 32 in Women’s Global Health and Human Rights, P . Murthy and L. Smith Eds., Jones and Bartlett Publications, Sadbury, Ma, December 2008.
Claudio Schuftan, MD, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org
In many poor countries, gender equality and women’s rights are considered a mere whim of rich countries or, worse, an expression of Western decadence. (Dembowski, 2007)
A quick introductory glimpse at just a small sample of what the ‘decadent’ denounce:
Of the nearly 137 million illiterate youths in the world, 63% are female.
In no region of the world do women have a presence in national parliaments that exceeds 20%. (Buvinic and King, 2007)
Women account for 70% of the world’s poor.
Worldwide, only about 1% of all credits are granted to women. (World Bank, 2006)
Forty three million school age girls are not enrolled in school –most of them from socially excluded groups. (Lewis and Lockheed, 2007)
A greater volume of goods in Sub-Saharan Africa is transported on the heads of women than on the back of trucks. (Wieczorek-Zeul, 2007)
The so-called missing women phenomenon, where there are fewer women than would be expected on the basis of biological norms is also indicative of the continuing discrimination against women. (Stotsky, 2007)
This chapter complements other in the book; it gives a quick overview of and elaborates on where the People’s Health Movement (PHM) stands vis-à-vis the linked issues of gender discrimination and gender inequality. (PHM, 2000) The text, here, particularly (and only) focuses on the social, cultural and economic determinants of gender discrimination and inequality and hints at pathways the solution to the problem will eventually have to follow.
Discrimination as a human rights violation
In many poor countries, the sharp differences between men and women in access to assets and to opportunities restrict women from their freedom to choose and, at the same time, have negative implications for the well-being of their families and their communities… and this is a flagrant discrimination.
Discrimination against women and girls is not only a flagrant violation of human rights and a negation of democracy, but it is also crippling in terms of economics. This is doubly important, because sustained gender discrimination shackles any economy. In other words, upholding women’s rights helps an economy to thrive. Therefore, gender equality is a sensible goal also in business terms. Poor countries in particular cannot afford not to tap this potential. (Kyte, 2007)
Non-discrimination is an immediate obligation as considered in the UN Charter of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ECOSOC, General Comment No.3, paragraph 2.2). The progressive realization of women’s rights does, therefore, not apply to discrimination against women. Action is needed now!
Economic marginalization of women in the context of culture
Due to the traditional position of women in most societies, women face barriers in their access to assets and to opportunities not only for economic, but also, most importantly, for cultural reasons. (Stotsky, 2007)
If traditional ideas, customs and mores that denigrate the status of women –and that have been handed down for generations– do not match human rights standards and violate people’s rights (…and openly or indirectly discriminate against women), they simply have to be done away with; that may sound controversial, but there is no alternative. In that sense, separating church and state is fundamental for the universal upholding of human rights.
[Note: Countries that furthermore try to make people outside their culture or faith observe such discrimination, violate international human rights law twice over –and it is the state’s duty to protect the rights of those minorities).
It is said that in the European and North American culture gender equality has achieved a lot. But has it? Not really as much as is to be expected. Still today, women in the North need to be given equal economic, senior management and political chances.
Gender inequality
At the global level, despite the fact that the heads of state at the Millennium Summit made gender equality and the empowerment of women a top priority worldwide (MDG 3), nothing much has happened since in this domain. (Wieczorek-Zeul, 2007) [It is perhaps a case of what somebody facetiously, and with an improper sense of humor, said: “Yet another set of presidents screwing the rights of women”].
The key elements to tackle in gender inequality are:
disparities in educational and health outcomes (the latter of particular concern to PHM), and
disparities in the access to productive resources, to credit, to capital, to new technologies and to other social and legal services.
Therefore, to promote gender equality, policies need to address inequalities as they pertain to rights, to the access to resources and to the voice of women as claim-holders:
in terms of rights, gender equality primarily (but not only) refers to equality under the law (whether customary or statutory);
in terms of resources, gender equality refers to equal access to human capital investments and to equal chances to own property, control productive resources and markets;
in terms of voice, gender equality refers to the ability of men and women to equally influence and contribute to the political discourse and the development process. (World Bank, 2005)
In short, gender equality is to be understood as equal access to the opportunities that ultimately avoid deprivations in development outcomes. As a corollary, the promotion of women must not be confined to health and education alone. For instance, as much as literacy effectively empowers men and especially women, it is just one step of many in the right direction. (Yeboah-Afari, 2007)
Women’s projects
It is well known that most development projects do not contribute to empower women; at best, they create a few earning opportunities for them. Gender equality cannot be achieved merely using financial credit. As a matter of fact, in addition, women that successfully borrow are often at risk of increased domestic violence if projects do not include measures to change male attitudes. (Trautmann, 2007)
Unfortunately, ‘women’s projects’ often only benefit small elite groups of women (a handful of the more entrepreneurial ones). The gap thus widens with a growing number of poor widows and teenage mothers being left behind. Credit and related support programs for women thus do not guarantee that the people most in need will be those to actually benefit. Furthermore, what is too often overlooked is that economic support targeted solely to women can and does exacerbate the trend of men reducing their financial contributions to household budgets. Therefore, this gender-targeted support does not contribute meaningfully to improve the situation of women and their families. (Trautman, 2007)
Normative considerations
Reducing gender inequalities indeed creates a fairer society. (Stotsky, 2007). [The active participation of women has been proven to impact positively on the lives and the self-determination of women. (Wieczorek-Zeul, 2007)].
Looking at where governments put their money is indeed a good way to judge the importance they attribute to gender equality.
Since there is no such a thing as gender-neutral government budgets, one way to pinpoint policies needed to reduce gender disparities is to embark in gender budgeting which involves the systematic examination of budgets and policies for their potential impact on women and girls. (Stotsky, 2007 and Wallace, 2007) Because we need a more gender-responsive public financial management, this technique can influence the budgeting process to make sure it focuses on public policies that can truly help reduce gender disparities and thus can improve overall economic outcomes.
Basically, we need to support the advancement of women; yes. But only if other gender aspects are considered as well, i.e., men also becoming systematically involved. For example, at the domestic level, as long as child care and housework remain a female preserve, i.e., are entirely considered women’s tasks, the chances of women living-up to their potential are limited. Hence, whoever fails to consider power relations in marriage in any given culture, automatically fails to reckon with the critical men’s issues in gender streamlining. (Trautmann, 2007)
Moreover, gender-specific barriers must be removed to ensure a more level playing field for males and females. For example, women must simply be given viable economic chances. (Dembowski, 2007) Also, extra incentives are needed for more investments in girls’ human capital formation and for aggressive gender-balanced education policies. Gender-informed investments in human capital formation are central (but not sufficient) to promoting gender equality. (Buvinic and King, 2007)
Additionally, women need equal access to land, to the full range of social and financial services, as well as to infrastructural services, at the same time that they need a more enabling legal environment. (Okonjo-Iweala, 2007 and Wieczorek-Zeul, 2007)
To benefit the entire family, programs for women can and will only succeed if and when they address power relations. This implies that we need to really get involved in gender mainstreaming rather than in exclusively empowering women. (Kyte, 2007) [Note that the use of the concept of ‘gender mainstreaming’ is on its way out; it is being replaced by ‘full integration of women and men (and boys and girls)’].
Ultimately, the most effective way to achieve all the above is to, without further delay, start advancing women so they are quickly promoted to positions where more of them are put in charge of planning and executing development projects and programs.
Whimsical or decadent, progressive or premonitory, visionary or risqué, revolutionary or utopian, novel or repetitive, these are roughly the pathways PHM thinks gender equality proponents will have to travel-through for gender equality to become a reality in the decade(s) to come.
References:
Buvinic, M. and King, M., 2007, Smart Economics: More Needs to be Done to Promote the Economic Power of Women, F+D (Finance and Development), IMF, Washington DC, Vol.44, No.2, Special issue on Unleashing the Economic Power of Women, June, pp.7-11.
Dembowski, H., 2007, Equal Opportunity a la Wolfowitz (Editorial), D+C (Development and Cooperation), Intl. J., Vol.34, No.5, Special issue on Opportunities for Women, Inwent, Bonn, May, p.178.
Kyte, R., 2007, An unaffordable luxury, D+C, May, op. cit., pp.191-193.
Lewis, M.A. and Lockheed, M.E., 2007, Getting All Girls into School, F+D, June, op, cit., pp.16-19.
Okonjo-Iweala, N., 2007, Stuck at the Small-scale Level, D+C, May, op. cit., pp.194-195.
PHM, 2000, People’s Charter for Health, www.phmovement.org .
Stotsky, J.G., 2007, Budgeting with Women in Mind, F+D, June, op. cit., pp.12-15.
Trautmann, R., 2007, Benefits for Entire Families, D+C, May, op. cit., pp.196-198.
Wallace, L., 2007, A Woman’s Touch, Editorial, F+D June, op. cit., p.1.
Wieczorek-Zeul, H., 2007, Without Women, no sustainable development, D+C, May, op. cit., pp.188-190.
World Bank, 2005, World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development, N.Y., World Bank and Oxford University Press.
World Bank, 2006, World Development Indicators, Washington, DC.
Yeboah-Afari, A., 2007, Literacy Empowers, D+C, May, op. cit., pp.199-201.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City.