Reflections on NYT Magazine Special Issue on Gender: Three Questions to Guide the New Crusade

August 24, 2009

This is a joint post with Molly Kinder.

This week The New York Times Magazine is dedicated to a single theme: women. The main attraction of this special issue is a stirring essay by journalists Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, who write passionately about the great moral, national security and economic development imperatives of investing in the world’s women and girls. The “women’s crusade” they call for seems already to have begun. A few pages beyond, an interview with Secretary Clinton heralds the start of a “new gender agenda” at the highest reaches of the U.S. foreign policy. Also noted is the growing philanthropic attention to the cause of women and girls – a trend that will be further evidenced next month, when the issue headlines at the annual (Bill) Clinton Global Initiative meetings in NYC.

The sudden momentum is a welcome change for what has until very recently been a woefully neglected issue. The call for greater attention and investments resonates with our work here at CGD, which similarly has sought to put women and girls at the heart of the development agenda. (We have often worked in collaboration with the International Center for Research on Women and the Kristof/WuDunn essay refers to the Girls Count action agenda, which I co-authored with an ICRW colleague and two other women.) I am confident that investments like the three priority actions that Kristof and WuDunn identify for U.S. action — educating girls, eliminating iodine deficiency, and improving maternal health –- can not only pave the way for a brighter future for the world’s girls and women, but will also yield important development benefits for entire societies — including positive spillovers from developing countries to U.S.

Along with many other people, I find it easy to “second” these calls for greater action for women and girls. But no one should think this will be enough. In the domain of education, the temptation is to focus on formal schooling, but to reach those who have already missed out on primary school, particularly girls from marginalized minority groups, informal education and creative ways to foster literacy and numeracy are needed. In health, “yes” to important micronutrient programs and better maternal health — but remember the broader agenda to address sexual and reproductive health, prevention of violence of all kinds, and prevention and management of chronic diseases.

That broader health agenda is something I’ve been giving a lot of thought to lately. My colleague Miriam Temin and I are just completing a report on the global health agenda for adolescent girls, to be launched on September 16. The recommendations will span both what can be achieved within the health sector and what can be done to change the social forces that shape girls choices, beyond the delivery of health services. Nowhere is the need to look both inside and outside the health sector more important than in the area of HIV/AIDS; that battle will be lost without squarely addressing all facets of gender inequality. (A new report co-authored by CGD’s Nandini Oomman provides specific recommendations for a systematic response to addressing the risks, vulnerabilities and consequences of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on girls and women.)

Using international development policies to improve the lot of women and girls in poor countries involves tricky terrain. Thinking through three underlying questions can help stay on track.

First, are we interested in the wellbeing of women and girls as a means to an end or an end in itself?

Many who advocate that women and girls merit attention and protection focus on their human rights. Arguments for greater investment in girls and women are also often justified on the grounds that healthier, better educated women contribute more to society, and have fewer children, who are healthier and better educated. (I’ve used these arguments myself more than once.) Practically speaking, there is usually alignment between respecting human rights and the broader, multigenerational benefits. But we need to consider this carefully to be sure that it is true specific cases; when it’s not, the human rights imperative must dominate.

Second, what is the line between legitimate intervention and cultural imperialism?

While many investments such as schooling and improved access to health services are relatively uncontroversial, truly changing the opportunities facing girls and women requires a fundamental change in societal norms, attitudes, and power. In cases of extreme violations of human rights — such as rape, bride burnings, sexual exploitation, child marriage, and slavery — the international community arguably has legitimacy to intervene. Beyond these absolutes, however, are there differences in gender relations and social patterns — such as the control of household resources, marriage arrangements, property and land ownership rights, or political representation — that are better left to individual cultures to work out? Deciding where the line is requires intensive involvement of those who are as close to genuine representatives of the women involved as possible. Donors and others who are particularly interested in tackling the deep social forces related to gender relations would be well advised to devote considerable effort to understanding who, in particular societies, genuinely speaks for women.

Third, what about the men and boys?

Serious attention to and investment in girls and women is long overdue, but making girls “winners” shouldn’t make “losers” out of boys. The values and gender norms boys learn — whether about what it means to be in a sexual relationship or what their value is in raising children — have profound impacts on them as they grow into men, as well as on their future partners and families. Although many health problems of women have not been adequately addressed, the prevention of those that disproportionately affect boys and men, such as accidents and violence (including suicide), is not even considered within the purview of government officials or donors who focus on health issues. In schooling, boys face many of the same problems girls do in getting a quality education, and in some countries boys are more likely than girls to drop out early for work. A gender agenda that leaves boys behind will undermine its goals and risk compromising its emphasis on fairness and equity.

None of this adds up to diminished enthusiasm for the messages of yesterday’s New York Times Magazine. Just a healthy recognition that implementing the very welcome “new gender agenda” will require the best of us all.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1. Sara Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 1:22 am

   What about economic justice? Indeed, more US women are enrolling in higher education than men, with many colleges citing attendance statistics of 60% women or more. However, “•A study by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) examined how the wage gap affects college graduates. Wage disparities kick in shortly after college graduation, when women and men should, absent discrimination, be on a level playing field. One year after graduating college, women are paid on average only 80 percent of their male counterparts’ wages, and during the next 10 years, women’s wages fall even further behind, dropping to only 69 percent of men’s earnings ten years after college. According to the AAUW report, even after “[c]ontrolling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors normally associated with pay, college-educated women still earn less than their male peers earn. . . . A large portion of the gender pay gap is not explained by women’s choices or characteristics.”

   And this fact is just the beginning of economic disparities for US women. Check out this:

   http://www.now.org/issues/economic/factsheet.html

   And what abot work-family policy. Compared to other workers, mothers are taxed in their earnings, hours, promotional opportunities, and job quality, often for their rest of their lives, consequential to periods of part-time employment, career breaks, and employer discrimination on the basis of parental status. Studies have determined a wage penalty (mommy tax) of 10-15% for women with children (Gornick and Meyers, 2006, Waldfogel, 1998).

   The United States is one of the few countries around the world without paid parental leave. In comparison, 163 countries offer paid parental leave related to childbirth, most for periods of 14 weeks. Seventeen countries entitle mothers to 20 or more weeks of paid leave. Ninety countries extend paid leave benefits related to childbirth by 14 additional weeks, 28 provide a year or more, and 8 countries offer 3 or more years. Ninety-nine of these countries guarantee full wage replacement for at least some portion of this leave. Researchers for the Project on Global Working Families determined countries with paid parental leave policies *******experienced lower morbidity and infant mortality rates******. Parental leave has also been found to have “favorable and possibly cost-effective impacts on pediatric health” (953, Ruhm, 2000)

   Forty-five countries entitle fathers to paid paternity or parental leave, whereas the U.S. offers neither. 139 countries provide paid leave for short – or long-term illnesses, with 117 providing a week or more annually and 76 providing at least 26 weeks. Thirty-seven nations provide some paid leave for employed parents to care for sick children. The U.S. provides only an unpaid leave for serious illnesses through the FMLA, which covers only 58% of all American workers (Levin-Epstein, 2006; Heymann et al., 2004). Even Slovenia offers 90 days of paid paternity leave!

   I appreciate all the focus on health and education, but what about women’s economic rights, particularly their right to equal economic opportunities and equal pay. When will there be a worldwide campaign focusing on these issues? When women are afforded more economic rights and power, improvements in their and their children’s health and education occur because they are better enabled to afford to make these investments.

2. Madhu Deshmukh Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

   I found Ruth Levine’s comments and questions on the recent NY Times Magazine very interesting and particularly relevant to my work as the Deputy Director for Policy Analysis Team on Women’s Empowerment for CARE. Recognizing the important role that women and girls play in helping to end the cycle of poverty in families and communities, CARE has put women and girls at the center of our development response. Day in and day out in more than 65 countries, we wrestle with the very questions she raises. Not surprisingly, women themselves are the best teachers about how our programs can be more effective.

   To add to Ruth’s questions, I wanted to share how CARE has come to understand these issues.

   1. Is investing in women and girls a means to an end or an end in itself? Even though this is an important distinction, I think we need to rise above this debate. In a way this is a false dichotomy. CARE’s work has driven home that women’s marginalization and subjugation is a major underlying cause of poverty and cannot be separated from it. Helping to empower women and girls is central to poverty eradication, as it can lead to healthier, better educated, more economically stable and more peaceful societies. From the flip side: Long-term, sustainable reductions in poverty will not happen without addressing the social structures or “norms” that underpin gender inequality. And finally, yes, it is the right thing to do.

   2. Where’s the line between legitimate intervention and cultural imperialism? No one likes to be told what to do and telling someone what to does not guarantee change in behavior. It has to come from within. CARE constantly assesses and reflects on our work with communities, trying to strike the right balance and using extreme caution in implementing our programs. We have learned that arriving to a community with preconceived solutions is not the way to go. CARE firmly believes that empowerment of individuals and communities means that they identify and prioritize their most pressing concerns and they engineer their own solutions. CARE (or any other development aid agency) is only the facilitator. To be successful in that role, CARE first seeks to build relationships of mutual trust and respect with communities, then we support projects that that are culturally and socially sensitive, and owned and implemented by communities themselves.

   3. What about the men and boys? From my experience on the ground with CARE, it’s clear that empowerment is more than just women being able to do more, have more or being smarter or more vocal. It requires changes in the “rules of the game” that shape women’s choices and aspirations. It’s not about putting men on the sidelines; it’s about letting women join the team. Needless to say, a more equitable and just society is a better place for not just women, but also boys and men.

   As rightly pointed out by Ruth, these questions play out in one way for development organizations, and in other, very real ways for women in poor communities around the world. This surely calls for a “new gender agenda” that none of us can achieve on our own.

3. Anna Says:
   September 1st, 2009 at 11:39 am

   Yes, this “new gender agenda” will require the best of us all and none of us can achieve it alone. Reminds me of the African saying,”If you want to walk fast, walk alone. If you want to walk far, walk together with others.”

   In every way possible, we need to walk together…

4. Homira Nassery Says:
   September 1st, 2009 at 1:37 pm

   Dear Ruth, thank you for this wonderful piece expanding on the NYT magazine piece. I am concerned about the trend donors and policymakers are moving towards empowering extremist groups at the cost of adding to the oppression of women and girls. Your question “Where’s the line between legitimate intervention and cultural imperialism?” invites the spectre of cultural relativism into development, which is essentially about change, whether it’s cultural or economic – development is change – not maintaining the status quo. We have agreed upon MDGs that apply to all people, regardless of how their own communities treat them. If we continue to give this blatant discrimination space to grow, we’re seriously undermining human security at large. As you know, I have worked with Afghan women in the most insecure, Taliban-dominated areas of southern Afghanistan, and since their voices cannot be heard (mutilated bodies of who dare to dissent are delivered in burlap sacks their families doors), I am channelling their voices. These women and girls – and their fathers, brothers, and husbands – want the same access to education, health, and economic development that we all enjoy. In the time I was there, 3 of my counterparts, literate women from the villages who dared to speak, were machine-gunned down in public and no one was charged with these murders. Please let’s not add to the tremendous struggle they face by legitimizing the extremist’s claims to “cultural imperialism”. Education has been a basic tenet of Islam since its founding, and education for women is endorsed and encouraged by the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). This is in the Holy Quran and the Hadiths – we can go to the group Karamah and Women Living Under Muslim Laws for verification, but please let’s not make the situation worse by accepting the smoke and mirrors of “western values” or “cultural imperialism” that these misogynists are hiding behind.

5. Ryan Aldred Says:
   September 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pm

   I think that Madhu made an excellent point by emphasizing the importance of community-lead development. A practical example of how this type of development can contribute to a “new gender agenda” can be seen in the Afghan-Canadian Community Center (ACCC), a women-oriented vocational education institution located in Kandahar City which is supported by the Government of Canada and the Canadian International Learning Foundation.

   The primary role of international donors in this project was to locate a talented and dedicated educator (Ehsanullah Ehsan) and provide him with the tools and resources he needed to make education accessible to the women of Kandahar. With the support of the international community, Ehsan was able to quickly establish an educational institution which was able to effectively provide women’s education in one of the most challenging areas of Afghanistan. He was able to do so because he had the trust of the community, which he treated with respect.

   Once the ACCC was established, Ehsan listened to the community when they requested that the Center provide similar opportunities for the men and boys in the area. Women remained the primary focus of the Center, but men were able to attend, provided that they were able to pay a modest student fee. In this way, the voice of the community was heard, while the project remained focus on addressing the disparity between Afghan women and men. I further believe that the inclusion of men at the ACCC has helped moderate attitudes toward women’s education in Kandahar.

   I am concerned that calling for the requirement to prove broader, multigenerational benefits in order to justify support for women-oriented development projects will add yet another layer of bureaucracy to the already slow and challenging process of development planning. If well-respected community leaders (particularly those who “genuinely speak for women”) agree that there is a fundamental need to support women’s development, is that not justification enough? Furthermore, as the ACCC has demonstrated, community-lead development projects have the potential to quickly resolve even complex issues, such as how to integrate men into the gender agenda in Kandahar.

6. Nushin Arbabzadah Says:
   September 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm

   I am an Afghan woman and the daughter of an Afghan woman who became a feminist as a teenager by sheer force of human instinct for justice which led her to reject discrimination against women. My mother didn’t need to read Simon de Beauvoir to understand that it was not right for girls to be treated as inferior to boys. At the time, she had not live in the West and was not aware of feminist literature or even women’s rights. She was just an ordinary Afghan woman, born and brought up in Afghanistan, though with an instinct for justice. My mother is only one example, illustrating that the desire for justice is a universal human instinct. It’s the same instinct that has led to progress throughout history, from abolition of slavery to respect for religious minorities of which we all are proud. The idea that women’s desire for justice and equality is an exclusively Western cultural value is absurd. In the West itself, women had to fight to gain their rights. Women’s rights were not part of Western ‘culture’ until fairly recently. Switzerland, for example, introduced the right for women to vote as late as in 1971, Italy in 1945 and France in 1944. So the argument that women’s rights is culturally relative doesn’t stand scrutiny. Culture is too vague a term to be used in argument about the important issue of women’s rights. After all, what do we mean by the word culture? Culture is not a solid entity that exists by itself. It’s changing and fluid which explains why the past is always a different country. What was culturally taken for granted in the past is not longer acceptable which is why racist jokes are no longer funny. Afghans, like the rest of the world, are humans and not a culturally fixed entity. The Taliban’s embracing of suicide attacks, a long standing cultural taboo in Afghanistan, is itself an example of how Afghans, even the so called ‘authentic’ ones, are capable of change. Needless to say, the Taliban’s breaking the suicide taboo is not a positive change but this example illustrate that there’s no such thing as ‘authentic’ Afghan culture that exists by itself, outside of the people. If the Taliban, with their strict views on women, represent a part of Afghan culture, so do Pashto poetry and legends which are full of strong, even martial Afghan women.

7. Shakila Khalje Says:
   September 1st, 2009 at 10:51 pm

   This is a very interesting and very important issue.

   As an Afghan woman who was raised and educated by amazingly strong, smart mother and sisters as well as equally educated, feminist father and brothers, way before the West or anyone from outside blessed us with their version of “feminism/democracy/equality or human/women’s rights”, simply because these are universal human needs.

   I learned it by watching my family, my environment and my exposure to a healthy, beautiful and true dose of Islam and its authentic, democratic and practical implementations within the frame-work of Afghan culture, tradition and customs.

   My mother who was my first teacher in the fundamentals of human rights/women’s rights She was the Afghan brand of so called feminist without being loud and controversial to use her will, and strength to promote human rights/women’s rights. There were thousand of Afghan women then, and thousands of them now, who against all odds and obstacles, continue to dare to promote human rights and women’s rights in their quite, dignified “Afghan way”.

   I am also a member of an educational NGO which runs schools for girls in Afghanistan. We see it all the time that all the Afghans MEN and women are eager to have access to education and health care regardless of geography, ethnic, social, cultural, political, religious, socio-economical and educational backgrounds. As a result of wars, both genders have been suffering equally. Both have been the victims of political and fanatical religious wars and both deserve and want to have access to the basics of human rights. That said, it does not mean their religion is devoid of those values. It has been there but severely misused, misguided and distorted.

   The Afghan men and women, may not be aware of the details of the ‘western” doctrine of human rights, but, nonetheless, they know their rights given to them as Muslims. We need to continue our support and be their voices without branding and classifying.

8. anita mathew Says:
   September 1st, 2009 at 11:23 pm

   The NYT article was though provoking since it acknowledges the crusade that women take on when trying to get onto an equal paltform with men in many countries developed or otherwise. Culture plays a dominant role but the crucial one is economics. The western value system that has added to the lopsided development is because of political games and in the bargain those already poor get poorer be it globalization or neo liberal vakues that developing nations resort to in the name of deveopment and aid that comes from donors from the west. We have to teach our own to fish whether men or women not provide the fish if they have to claim their rights.Our education and health systems are no longer taking into account the huge relevant material we have that would help all humankind rather then swallow drugs and depend on pesticides that fill up the coffers of multinatinational agencies.. we have to make sure that both girls and boys get quality education not just to earn but to be human and learn that to live in peace we have to be equal and fight for justice together to claim out godgiven rights from those who profess power by subjugation,exploitation and alienation.fragmentation is the cause of the problems not particular issues like culture or gender..these are used to fuel power structures to enable the few selfis greedy people to survive.There is enough on this planet for everyones neeeds not for greed and often issues like gender are made into mountains by those very people who do nothing to solve the root causes! Human rights and dignity is the call of the hour!

9. Tom Boone Says:
   September 18th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

   [I was able to read most of an advance copy of this book before Bill Drayton (founder of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public) snatched it away and ran off with it on his annual 2-week hiking trip to the mountains.

   I think this has to be the most important book - not just for women’s rights globally but for human rights - published in my memory. Kristof and WuDunn weave together a most compelling story of how culture and customs historically suppress women. They tackle many tough, taboo topics - for example honor killing. But more importantly, they champion the stories of heroic women worldwide wholly committed to changing the many evils of the status quo.
   What is more, they posit a kind of general framework theory that the really important advances in human rights that are going to be made in the near future are going to be brought about by these entrepreneurial pioneering women. In essence, that the backbone of the human rights movement and of real change across all societies is going to be a direct function of brave women who give themselves permission to say “NO” to thousands of years of (to most Westerners) unimaginable oppressive cultural customs and who take it upon themselves to lead to a new way. Once you have read the book, it is very hard, if not impossible, to disagree with Kristof and WuDunn’s general theme. To wit, the brave women of Iran who took to the streets to protest the results of the recent election.

   Among many other “super” women, HALF THE SKY spotlights the following inspirational Ashoka Fellows:

   • Sunitha Krishnan (India), founder of Prajwala, a citizen sector organization in Hyderabad, India, fighting forced prostitution and sex trafficking, rescuing women and children from sexual exploitation, incestual rape, sexual torture, and abuse in prostitution. Her organization helps former prostitutes learn vocational skills so they can move into new careers. “Prajwala” means “an eternal flame”.

   • Sakena Yacoobi (Afghanistan), founder of the Afghan Institute of Learning, a citizen sector organization providing teacher training to Afghan women, educating and fostering education for girls and boys, and providing health education to women and children. Her organization also runs fixed and mobile health clinics that provide family planning services. Sakena holds the distinction of having been Ashoka’s first Afghan Fellow. Educating women and girls was banned under the Taliban and is controversial under Islamic law.

   • Roshaneh Zafar (Pakistan), founder of Pakistani microfinance lender, Kashf. A former World Bank employee, she was inspired after a chance meeting with Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank. “Kashf” means “miracle” and Kashf is indeed fostering a miracle by leveraging microfinance to women to transform the role of women in Pakistani society and bringing about a poverty-free world. To date, Kashf supports 305,038 families in Pakistan, has disbursed $202 million, and has 52 branches nationwide.

   I am not alone in my enthusiasm for this book! Last Tuesday, September 15, 2009, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (“UNODC”) hosted a panel discussion and booksigning with Mr. Kristof and Ms. WuDunn in the UN Trusteeship Council Chamber at UN Headquarters. All 550 seats in the Trusteeship Council Chamber were filled. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon delivered opening remarks. Special recognition goes to Simone Monasebian and Anna Rosario Kennedy of the UNODC who put together this behemoth of an event.

   Five out of five stars. An absolute must read for anyone who cares about women’s rights or human rights. A genuine eye popper that moves so fast, tackles so much that has hitherto been taboo and unmovable, and interweaves the unbelievably positive stories of the very heroic women already leading and creating change in a tapestry that is glimpse of a brave and very different, humanitarian new world.

   Once you pick this book up, you will not be able to put it down. And once you have read it, you will be moved to help bring about tomorrow. Absolute proof that the glass (or the sky) is half full. We just have to give ourselves permission to make change. Or as Gandhi said, “we must be the change we wish to see.”

   BUY IT. READ IT. PASS IT AROUND.

   - Tom Boone, Ashoka

We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.