Talk:Introduction to the gender section
From WRIWiki
Contents |
Comment Andreas
Having for the first time had a more detailed look at the gender section, I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed.
First, I am not sure if the more theoretical part was now left out on purpose (compare with Gender and nonviolence - a page that is now orphaned), or by accident. I do think it is better to not just have the introduction and then exercises, but also a bit more background.
On the theoretical level, I am wondering what our theoretical foundations are. Both, the introduction and the older theoretical background talk about "men and women", masculinity, femininity, etc... I would base an analysis on the concept of "masculinities" (and femininities), and the plural is important here, as there are always more than one masculinity and femininity in any society, and the power dynamics at play between those are important opportunities for change.
From the original text Gender and nonviolence:
How is Gender Related to Power and Justice?
In many cultures, men's experiences and perspectives are seen as the norm. Masculine behavior, however that may be defined, is taken as the standard. The exercise of power, especially in public, is seen as masculine. In most cultures, men are assumed to be the leaders of family, community and society while women's roles and behaviors are assumed to be as followers and supporters. Such a power imbalance can result in women and girls having little or no say in the decisions that affect their lives.
To me, this sounds like a very dated text from the early 1970s, over-simplistic (especially in a cross-cultural context), and not like a gender analysis from 2007, taking into account concepts of hegemonic masculinity and subordinate masculinities... not to mention links to issues of class and race.
In some way, I feel a bit the same with the exercises linked to this section. They reinforce a bipolarity, which is over-simplistic. Of course, we should never forget that men - just because of being men - have a lot of priviliges in our societies, and women - just for being women - don't have many of those. But when we look at our realities in more detail, the situation gets more complex, and many men have a very small share in the priviliges, especially regarding power in society, and - especially nowadays - quite a few women might have a bigger share of priviliges.
I think the newer concepts of masculinities and femininities also offer more opportunities for change, as they put more emphasis on men/boys and women/girls also being agents in the shaping of their masculinity and femininity - why else could different masculinities/femininities emerge out of the same social context? This is not to deny social pressure - peer pressure, media, etc.
It probably shows that two of the three exercises come from IFOR's Women's Peacemaker Programme, which does not have a very radical analysys. I miss a strong feminist-antimilitarist perspective in this gender section ...
I also don't think we can talk about gender without even mentioning sexuality - and then we get to the question of how much of the priviliges do gay men share, or lesbian women (and the answers to these questions are probably very different according to the cultural context we are in). When I - for example - look at the exercise "A gender dialogue for Peacebuilders", this becomes pretty obvious: "make a list of the ways men and women experience conflict and violence differently." The answers to this would be very different for gay men, but also for men in a society in conflict who are from ethnic minorities - maybe even from the "enemy" ethnicity.
I am sorry to not be more positive about this section... but I think it needs a lot more work.
Added after email:
Some other exercise(s) I found:
- Tools for White Guys who are Working for Social Change … and other people socialized in a society based on domination http://www.xyonline.net/tools.shtml
Comment from Howard
Commenting on Andreas more than the text ... The handbook is intended as an introduction to nonviolent action, and in particular for groups beginning to build campaigns.
In response to the earlier draft, I think I commented that this wasn't really the place to look at broader issues of women and war, gender and militarism, etc. Rather, if we look at groups as places of empowerment and the way we organise, then we need to address oppressive aspects of gendered behaviour in groups. I'm wary of concepts such as hegemonic and subordinate masculinities, but it woould be good - and probably here rather than under group process - to introduce the idea that our action groups should offer a different kind of space where women and men don't have to conform to socially imposed roles or norms but can experiment and even reshape themselves. Be that, fulfilling frustrated potentials or developing other attributes ...
I wonder if a little history might help. For instance, mentioning that many mixed groups/movements have given rise to women's and men's groups - either within a larger mixed group or separately. I was very struck when Mary King, one of the authors of the famous 'women of SNCC memorandum' that was one of the impulses for the US women's liberation movement, commented that the fact that women in SNCC could question their subordinate role was at the same time a criticism of SNCC and testimony to the emancipatory character of the movement that made it possible to raise issues that were off the wider social agenda. I have Mary's memoir of that time, Freedom Song, and could see about extracting something to be clickable on the web.
As well as talking about gender issues in the group's internal functioning, it's also worth discussing it in relation to how the group presents itself to the world - and also how the world (in the shape of the press) might want to use gender stereotypes against the group. A particularly dramatic example was the day after the hugely successful "Embrace the Base" action at Greenham, December 1982, there were blockades etc - and the Daily Mail, I think, had planted a journalist in the camp who wrote up her denunciation of the militant lesbian hard core ... etc etc ... as part of her report on the blockade.
It occurs to me that the concept of playing with role stereotypes and expectations (acting - or indeed living - 'anti-role') also might be worth introducing, especially in the context of public action. Finding thought-provoking ways to surprise people.
All of which, of course, raises the issue of the length of the section. There's far more material and ideas than we can fit in.
That's enough from me for now.
Howard
PS. The list Andreas refers us to is very similar to some written in the 1970s.
Comment Andreas
Well, it seems I missed the earlier debate about the purpose of this section, and I'm not sure I entirely agree.
While it's true that we cannot expand the gender section into an in-depth analysis of gender-relations in our societies, a bit more background might be useful. The handbook is meant for activists in many different contexts, and we cannot assume that there is an awareness that discussing gender is not just about "feeling good" in your group, but also linked to the issues at stake. I'm talking here based on comment I got i.e. from Russia when discussing gender ...
On the other hand, if we stick to Howard's suggestion, then I think there is an inconsistency between the introduction (and the purpose of the gender section), and the accompanying exercises. Two out of the three exercises point more to the bigger picture, to the role of gender in society, and are not only related to our own groups. This is not backed up by the background text...
Comment Javier
I think then we need to add something more to the section and not just have the introduction and then the exercises. I think the idea of the section in the first place was to look at gender how it shapes the way we work on our campaigns through how's present in our own groups with gender roles. I remember the group in South Korea talking a lot about that at the Korea Council saying how it was very strong in their movement and they were asking for tools to help them deal with it that men always try to take the leading roles in the group. But also we need to look at how through our campaigning we want to change society. Don't know Dorie if you from the comments here can work in a new version or you'll want someone else to do it. Would be good to have a clearer picture of how to proceed with this section...
DORIE'S COMMENTS
Thank you to Andreas for your review of the Gender section and to Howard and Javier for your additional comments. Below are my responses.
1. There was a theoretical piece which was left out by accident. I don't know when or how that happened. I have attached the full piece again. It is titled “What is Gender and Other Questions” It is the piece that Andreas referred to as being orphaned.
2. Andreas found the “orphaned” piece and the basis of some of the exercises are overly simplistic. I agree that they are basic and not nuanced. My understanding is that this is what we aimed to do, to create material that would be useful in many cultures, to people at various stages of understanding of gender issues. I agree that there are definitely more nuanced issues related to gender. However, a good basic place to start in any culture is to look at the differentiations between masculine and feminine and how they are related to power, war and violence.
One way we could address the more nuanced approach, such as the interplay of class, race and sexual identities would be to rewrite the exercises in a more expansive way, to identify the focus as gender-based violence rather than “violence against women”. We also might want to add one or more additional exercises which highlight these complexities.
3. In his comments, Andreas said he missed a strong feminist-anti-militarist perspective in this gender section, and commented that WPP program does not have a “a very radical analysis”. The fact is that there is no common gender analysis that has been agreed upon within WRI, nor has there been a significant attempt to discuss and develop such an analysis within the organization. I don't know what a strong feminist anti-militarist perspective or a radical analysis means to Andreas, but I am sure it means something very different to me, and I am sure there are others in WRI who have even more diverse points of view.
Andreas' comment raised a big questions for me which relate to all the articles in this handbook. In reviewing each article, how broad an audience are we assuming will be using this? If it is primarily for groups that already share WRI's politics, then I can see the value of including clear articulations of WRI's analysis and position in the document, but if the intended audience is broader, then I think its better to keeping the analysis to the more simple and basic points. Whichever, those of us on the handbook committee need to have a common understanding.
4. How much should we address gender as it relates to internal group dynamics and how much do we address it as it relates to the issues of war and militarism. I think our purpose is to open the doors of awareness to both aspects through the exercises and examples, but to leave any detailed analysis to the activist readers to develop themselves within their own cultural context. If people feel that there is not enough about the internal issues, then perhaps we add to the collection of case studies one where internal gender issues have been successfully addressed – and it would be great if this was from somewhere other than Europe or North America.
5. Javier asked what I can do to rewrite with the comments in mind. I am not sure what to do, since the differences are not about small aspects, but about different approaches to the whole section. If the changes we need are limited to tweaking or making some additions, I am willing to work on that.
