GENDER, A Means To An End?

When Esther Boserup’s publication on women’s roles in economic development was published in the 70s, it was considered by many feminists as a path-breaking ground to document gender inequalities and a platform to advocate for gender equality and equity. Since her publication, issues of gender both as an intellectual discipline and a framework for policy analyses have received a major attention. It is therefore not surprising to find in these days NGOs, aid and donor agencies, policy and research institutions and publications emphasising on gender as an important element of their activities although gender inequalities may not be farfetched from the doorstep of these advocacy institutions themselves. One will not be surprised to find that the positions of a secretary and the chief director will always be filled by a woman and man respectively simply because of the prejudices that a secretary must always be a woman and the director, a man.

Most often than not, the concept of gender is used synonymously with feminism and is understood by many people to mean women. However, gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviour, activities and attributes that are considered appropriate by particular societies for men and women. Thus, the issues of gender go beyond the physical and sexual characteristics of men and women. This misconception is probably as a result of the fact that, feminist movements (usually composed of women) spearheaded the triumphant entry of gender issues into mainstream development. One cannot detach this misconception from the existing inequalities against women that manifest themselves in the homes, communities, places of employment, institutional level and even at the  national level, for which reason attempts at curbing this has led to a greater focus on women rather than both men and women. Another dimension of gender is the understanding that men are the perpetrators of ‘evil’ against women. They (men) are oppressors, violent, unsympathetic, intimidating, corrupt etc but this stereotyping of men shifts attention from the atrocities and violence that are committed by women against their fellow women and men. It also shifts attention from men as great fathers, caring brothers, loving husbands, supporters etc. This also overshadow the sufferings that men go through in an attempt to fit into the straight jacket that society has sewn for them; ‘weak’ men, the disabled and ostracised men suffer similar or worse fate at the hands of their fellow men and women.

One myth surrounding the conception of gender discrimination and inequality is its ‘presence’ and ‘absence’ in developing and developed countries respectively. This has triggered a mission of ‘civilisation’ by the developed countries in these ‘primordial’ societies by embarking on gender empowerment programmes and projects with most of these focused on economic empowerment, advocacies for the abolition of some cultural practices and the increase of women in political positions. Whilst the elimination of gender discrimination and inequality is worth pursuing, it is important to note and recognise that, gender inequality exists in developed countries as well. In the UK, salary levels differ on the basis of gender and it is only in the 90s that marital rape was criminalised. Although women’s representation in political appointments continues to increase, men continue to dominate in this regard. It is worth noting that Rwanda – a developing country – has about 49% of its parliamentary seat taken by women, a feat most developed countries are yet to achieve. Even though the institutional framework and machinery for dealing with this inequality and inequity are established in the developed countries, it is yet to translate into the total elimination of gender inequality. Another difference perhaps lies in the context of the level of technological sophistication within which gender discrimination and inequality takes place; whereas women both in the developed and the developing countries may be confined to the unpaid reproductive and productive roles  of managing the home and caring for the children, the difference is in the use of buggies, washing machines, dishwashers and cars whilst those in the developing countries may resort to tying babies at the back, handwashing and walking. Probably, developed countries may have reached the stage of dealing with ‘secondary level’ of gender discrimination whilst developing countries continue to deal with ‘primary’ level of gender discrimination but whatever categorisation that one may give, gender discrimination in any form is unacceptable and must be acknowledged and dealt with.

Even though gender issues have been mainstreamed into development since the 80s, there are those who still argue that, this has been an attempt at using gender as a means of achieving the goals of development rather than the end of eliminating its inequality. This argument is based on the overemphasis on the benefits of eliminating gender inequalities rather than the inequalities themselves. Interestingly, this means-to-an-end argument was the armour of the 1970 feminist movements and it was actually the key that opened the doorway of mainstream development to gender issues. In recent times, this argument is manifested in the various arguments and explanations that have been put forward in ensuring that the MDG 3 – gender equality and empowerment of women – is achieved. The argument that, the achievement of MDG 3 will lead to the realisation of the other development goals means that, gender issues have become an instrument of achieving the other MDGs. But the question is, can one do away with all the benefits which will arise in ensuring gender equality? For instance, can we run away from the fact that, ensuring equal access to resources – natural, social, political, economic etc – will lead to increase in productivity which will be helpful in the alleviation of poverty (MDG 1)? What about the implication of such decrease in poverty on health, education and the environment as spelt out in the MDG declaration? These benefits will come as long as we ensure gender equality in the access to the available resources at our disposal. But then, does this not lead to the situation where we are looking at what gender (women especially) will offer to development? Does this not lead to the exploitation of the essential roles of women in the society to the benefit of achieving development goals? The promotion of equal access to education for boys and girls as a means of population control (the argument that the time spent in school reduces the fertility rate of women) is case in point. But does this also mean that girls should not have equal access to education because of the exploitation of its benefits for population control? Definitely not, equal access to education should be pursued vigorously because discrimination and inequality in education on the basis of gender is totally unacceptable but not because of its effect on population control or its effect in the achievement of the other MDGs.

In the era where integrated and holistic approach  of policy making is used  in the pursuit of the development goal of reducing poverty to create a better world, one end of a goal will definitely serve as a means of achieving another and this cycle will continue. Gender will definitely be a component of this cycle. However, when mainstreaming gender always becomes a means but never an end in the achievement of these development goals, then it becomes problematic in that it creates the situation where the only motivation to tackle the problem is the benefits it provides but not because the discrimination itself is necessarily wrong. The primary reason to eliminate all forms of discrimination should be because problems ought not to exist whilst the benefits accruing from it should be secondary.