saving and protecting lives by empowering women

8

Humanitarian agencies and theirmulti-million pound interventionshave enormous power to challenge

gender discrimination, perpetuate it, oreven exacerbate it. The use of gender analysisto determine a gender-fair response is acritical factor in determining the outcome.A review of the literature on gender inhumanitarian response reveals very littleuse of comprehensive gender analysis. Theinformation available is anecdotal ratherthan analytical, and the inability to identifyspecific impact in terms of gender relationsis a result of the fact that few programmesset out to challenge gender inequity. It is nowonder that achieving gender-equitableoutcomes remains one of the great unmetchallenges of humanitarian work.

How humanitarianinterventions shape gender relations

Until quite recently, disaster-affectedwomen have been viewed and portrayed

primarily as passive and needy victims, a‘vulnerable group’. This limited view hasalmost always resulted in humanitarianresponses focusing solely on meetingwomen’s immediate practical needs. Goodpractice on gender in emergencies has cometo mean paying attention to the role ofwomen in food distribution, providingsanitary towels, and ensuring adequatelighting and health services for women.These are important steps, but they remainrooted in an approach that is oblivious tosocial relations and power dynamics. It istrue that gender inequality is a root cause ofvulnerability, creating or contributing toparticular risks for women. However,focusing on women’s vulnerability – to theneglect of their capacities and resources,and their longer-term interests –misrepresents the actual experiences ofwomen and men and negatively affects theculture and practice of emergencymanagement (Enarson 1998).

Gender analysis recognises women’swork and decision-making influence ascentral to preparing for, responding to,

Saving and protecting livesby empowering women Deborah Clifton and Fiona Gell

Women and men face different risks and vulnerabilities during disaster, and they bring differentresources to preparing for and coping with disaster. Less well recognised are the ways in whichhumanitarian interventions themselves influence the nature of gender relations during crises. A gender-blind humanitarian response which does not address gender-specific issues and does not payparticular attention to the situation of women can worsen both the immediate survival prospects forwomen and their families, and women’s long-term position in society. This article contends that theprocess of providing humanitarian aid and the institutions that deliver it tend to be inherently male-biased and thus discriminatory against women, and that a commitment is needed both tounderstanding how institutional bias works against women, and to challenging the status quo.1

Gender and Development Vol. 9, No. 3, November 2001

Saving and protecting lives by empowering women 9

recovering from, and mitigating communitydisasters. By building on this analysis,gender-fair humanitarian aid puts women’simmediate and longer term interests at theheart of the assessment and planningprocess, thus ensuring that their chances ofsurvival are increased, their copingstrategies strengthened, and their status inthe community raised with consequentimprovements for the well-being of thewhole community. It requires inclusive,partic ipatory, democratic models ofresponse that involve women not only asvictims but also as resourceful communityactors . In practice, however, women’srepresentation is sti ll often lacking indisaster response teams, emergencyprogramme management, and the formaland informal partic ipation needed torebuild communities.

Gender-fair emergency managementalso seeks to challenge the longer-termstructural barriers to women’s vulnerabilityto disasters . Since disaster mitigation seeks to address the underlying causes ofvulnerabili ty, in addition to physicalmeasures such as raising land or buildingdikes it must also address longer-termstrategic factors such as unequal landownership, wealth distribution, and genderinequality. Communities are safer andmore resilient to crisis when they are moreegalitarian, and when all social groups areempowered in a way that enables them tocontribute their respective opinions andresources.

When external agencies provideresources without considering genderissues they can seriously jeopardise theposition of women. With already feweropportunities for education, employment,and leadership than men, women are likelyto be further disadvantaged by interventionsthat reinforce traditional roles and relation-ships. If too many resources are targeted towomen without adequate analysis of therisks involved and without adequateparticipation of women, their security andposition may be further jeopardised by

backlash from men. Women must be fullyinvolved in determining the pace ofchange, as they are the best judges ofresistance and how to overcome it.

If gender equity goals are considered atall, they are typically equated with post-emergency rehabilitation or developmentwork, where it is more straightforward toaddress gender inequities than in reliefwork. However, the role of relief in layingthe foundations for rebuilding the social,economic , and physical infrastructure of communities is now well recognised. The long-term course of a humanitarianresponse can be set by programmedecisions made within the first few days ofrelief work. Hence, getting the rel iefresponse right for women as well as menfrom day one is of paramount importance.

Why gender equity andwomen’s empowerment are vital to saving andprotecting lives

The aims of humanitarian interventionGender analysis in any programme needsto take as its starting point the followingquestions. Are the overall goals sensitive tothe interests of both women and men? If so,how can these aspirations to achievegender equity be made explic it anddeveloped into actionable plans?

The aim of humanitarian response is tosave and protect l ives quickly andeffectively in the event of an emergency, inorder to ensure that fewer people die, fallsick, or suffer deprivation.2 Underlyingthese aims are two fundamental principlesrecognised by the humanitarian community:that those affected by disaster have a rightto life with dignity and therefore a right toassistance; and that all possible stepsshould be taken to al lev iate humansuffering arising out of confl ic t andcalamity (Sphere Project 2000). This includesthe right to an adequate standard of living,

Gender and Development10

and to freedom from cruel, inhuman, ordegrading treatment or punishment.

Two further principles with significantimplications for gender equality are laid out by the Red Cross Code of Conductfor NGOs in Disaster Relief. Firstly,‘proportionality’ – humanitarian aid shouldbe provided in measures proportional tothe degree of suffering it seeks to address.Secondly, ‘impartiality’ – the provision ofaid must be made on the basis of need‘regardless of race, creed, or nationality ofthe recipients and without adversedistinction of any kind’. This principleimplies that the aims of saving andprotecting lives must apply equally towomen and men, and that we must strivefor equity, or fairness, of outcome. TheCode of Conduct also states that inter-ventions should support and not diminishthe role of women in disaster-affectedpopulations.

This section sets out why a gender-fairapproach is essential to fulfi ll ing theprinciples and aims set out above. The rest of the artic le d iscusses how to achieve this.

The efficiency rationaleI t is widely recognised that women’sempowerment3 and greater equalitybetween women and men are a necessarypre-requisite for social justice, sustainabledevelopment, and for peace (UnitedNations 1995). This applies equally to thehumanitarian context. Empowered womenwill be able to make a much greatercontribution to preparing for and copingwith disaster. In addition, the experience of participating on an equal footing withmen in disaster management can be a veryempowering one for women. Communitiesand agencies therefore need to seize anyopportunities resulting from the crisis forimprovements in the relative condition andstatus of women. Such opportunities areoften created by shifts in demographicpatterns, when women and men mayassume new roles and responsibilities.

Communities and agencies also need tosupport women to hold on to gains ingender relations made during the crisis.

A series of structural barriers workagainst women’s active participation andempowerment in disaster response,including their reproductive burden, lowerlevels of education, lower access to andcontrol over resources, lower status, andlimited mobility. Humanitarian agenciesneed to recognise and challenge thesebarriers, and at the very least ensure thattheir interventions do not exacerbate them. They need to address the practical andprotection needs of both women and menin the immediate crisis, recognise and buildon the roles and resources that men andwomen bring to coping with the crisis, and address the longer-term needs andinterests of women and men. I f these needs are appropriately addressed, thecoping capacity of communities for futuredisasters will be strengthened. Steps mustbe taken to include a fairer distribution of power between women and men, andthis may imply an extension of the typicalsectoral scope of humanitarian responsewhich precludes attention to several criticalgender issues. Strengthening women’sleadership role will involve finding ways to share their reproductive burdens, and strengthening men’s role in householdwork.

The focus of the approach needs to beon analysing the situation of both womenand men, and working with both to achievegender-equitable outcomes. However, thefact that women start from a relativeposition of greater suffering, poverty, anddisempowerment means that, if the aims of proportionality and impartiality are to be achieved, special attention must be paidto the situation of women, and resourcesmust be allocated accordingly. Only thencan progress be made in restoring a balancein gender relations.

Such a gender-fair approach has thepotential to increase humanitarian impactin the following ways:

� Lives can be saved and protected (i.e.mortality, morbidity, and malnutritionreduced) by the most effective and efficientmeans when gender-specific needs aremet appropriately and gender-specificcapacities and resources fully utilised.Improvements in the condition andstatus of women wil l have overallbenefit for the survival and well-being of the whole family.

� Lives can be saved and protected with agreater degree of proportionality andimpartiality because achievements in‘fewer people dying, falling sick, orsuffering deprivation’ will benef itwomen and men in better proportion totheir relative suffering. However, it isimportant to note that in order toachieve an outcome (lives saves andprotected) which is impartial to gender,the process needs to focus on theinterests of women in order to restorebalance to an unequal situation.

� The chances of a life with dignity beingenjoyed by women and men equally will be significantly increased withwomen having greater control over theirsituation during the crisis and hopefullyin the longer-term.

� The overall capacity of communities toprepare for and cope with futuredisasters will be enhanced throughharnessing the resources and activeparticipation of both men and women inmore productive ways

The rights-based rationaleBecause gender-based discrimination is acritical inhibitor to poverty alleviation,sustainable development, and goodgovernance, gender advocates argue for anapproach that recognises and confrontsgender inequities and the denial ofwomen’s social, economic, and political

rights. The right to life with dignity, toexercise one’s human rights, and the rightto self-determination are significantlydependent on gender. A rights-basedapproach to humanitarian aid involves theequal protection of the human rights ofwomen and men, special attention to theviolation of human rights of women, andthe equal and active representation ofwomen and men at all levels of decision-making.

The Sphere Humanitarian Charter andMinimum Standards represent a rights-based approach to humanitarianintervention. The principles of impartiality,proportionality, and a right to life withdignity are concerned with achieving equalrights for all social groups regardless ofgender, ethnicity, religion, disability, age,or any other form of social identity. Equalrights for women and men are fundamentalto this approach. This is reflected in the factthat among the wide range of human rightsinstruments that underpin theHumanitarian Charter is the Convention onthe Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination against Women (CEDAW).CEDAW legally obliges the states that areparty to the convention to take measures toprevent violence against women, and toeliminate discrimination in issues such asaccess to health care, ownership ofproperty, and participation in public life.

The Beijing Platform for Action, whichresulted from the Fourth World Conferenceon Women in 1995, is another key rights-based agreement. I t sets out the mostrad ical global agenda yet for theempowerment of women. Most of thetwelve Critical Areas of Concern in thePlatform for Action relate in some way to thehumanitarian context, but the most criticalstrategic objectives are those set forviolence against women, women andarmed conflict, and the human rights ofwomen. While not legally binding, thisagreement is signed by 189 states, andrepresents an important lever for change. Itprovides a set of benchmarks towards


which international actors can strive inhumanitarian as well as developmentpractice.

A rights-based approach aims to enableall poor and marginalised people, womenand men, to exercise their rights. It musttherefore address the many ways in whichwomen and men can be marginalised as aresult of other aspects of their socialidentity such as ethnicity, class, caste,disability, and age.

The rights-based rationale for a gender-fair approach to humanitarian aid supportsthe efficiency rationale. Acknowledgingwomen’s rights as human rights is essentialif gender awareness and analysis are tohelp determine the most appropriateresponse. But this will only happen if thereis an understanding of why upholdingwomen’s rights is essential in bothefficiency and human rights terms, and a commitment to seek opportunities tomake this happen from all actors within thehumanitarian operation. If agencies fail tofollow these principles, they risk becomingcomplicit in further discriminating againstwomen and worsening their position insociety.

Understanding andchallenging resistance

There remains a baffling level of resistancein the humanitarian community toward anapproach that seeks gender equality. Thisseems to stem from lack of understanding,skills, and commitment to identify andchallenge gender discrimination. Morefundamentally, it reflects an inherent malebias in humanitarian institutions, and thefact that the personal relations of manystaff may also be based on inequitablegender relations. Here we cite and respondto some of the arguments raised againststr iving for gender equity duringemergencies.

There is a concern that attempting toempower women during disasters is tounfairly manipulate local culture when a

community is at its most vulnerable andhas little power to challenge humanitarianagencies on which it depends. Yet, howoften is this concern cited by crisis-affectedwomen? Striving for gender equity is partof a universal human rights agenda. It is, ofcourse, imperative that local communitiesregulate the pace of change and shape itscourse to ensure their own protection fromcultural backlash. Hence the need to strivefor full and active participation of womenin programmes.

There is an understandable but misguidedconcern that a gender-equity approach tohumanitarian aid is actually a developmentagenda, fed by the fact that empowermentwork with women has trad itionally been done during rehabil itation workwhich often, but not always, leads into adevelopment phase. It is important to beclear that the approach is primarily aboutdelivering relief and rehabil itationequitably, and that this needs to beaccompanied, where possible, with anattempt to tackle the longer-term barriers towomen’s development. It is not about in-depth, time-consuming social research thatwill see months of inaction before anysuffering is alleviated. Nor is it simplyabout setting up women’s projects, thoughthese may be needed as part of a strategy toengage and strengthen the capacity ofwomen to participate. It is about workingwith men as well as women to ensure theequitable delivery of aid.

There is an underlying resistance to the perceived threat of the feminist or‘politically correct’ agenda to the humani-tarian imperative, a suspicion that genderadvocates attempt to use humanitarianprogrammes to further the aims of theunrelated agenda of gender equity. Thecase of Oxfam GB’s shift from delivery ofwinter relief to advocacy on women’srights following the Taliban take-over inAfghanistan in 1996 and the banning ofwomen’s rights to education, employment,and freedom of movement has been citedin this regard (Williams 2001). For some


time, the principles of the humanitarianimperative and gender equity wereunhelpfully juxtaposed as competingagendas that polarised the debate andmasked the fact that with no access towomen, Oxfam GB did not believe it coulddeliver humanitarian aid with impartialityand proportionality, and without furtherundermining the position of women.However, the Afghan situation was, andstill is, unusually complex. In most casesthe upholding of women’s rights clearlystrengthens humanitarian impact.

Others argue that addressing genderequity costs more in terms of time, human,and financial resources. Yet the need forextra gender specialists would be minimalif gender-fairness became a perspective, alens through which al l humanitarianworkers viewed the work in their respectivesector. It may well involve targeting moreresources specifically at women, but thisshould increase the equity and efficiency ofthe overall response as we have seen above.

Achieving gender-fair outcomes dependslargely on changing humanitarian cultureand attitudes. Part of this work will be todemonstrate and communicate that agender-fair approach does not threaten butenhances humanitarian aims. This requireslong-term research to gather baseline dataon gender relations, track change over the course of crises and humanitarianinterventions, and measure its impact. We need to collect and document casestudies where comprehensive genderanalysis has led to good practice, andcommunicate this in dynamic ways acrossthe humanitarian community.4

Gender mainstreamingstrategies

Several humanitarian organisationsattempting to improve their performanceon achieving equity have developedstrategies for mainstreaming gender5

within their work and organisations.

While there has been a great deal ofrhetoric about gender mainstreaming overthe past decade, there are few examples ofwhere it has been achieved. This is partlyowing to confusion about what it means,the promulgation of myths about the dangers of including equity as ahumanitarian goal, and, no doubt, partlyowing to organis-ational reluctance once itsimplications are thoroughly understood.

Mainstreaming is a process undertakento achieve gender equality, not a goal initself. It requires gender-specific measuresfor advancing equali ty throughoutorganisational mandates, within a coherentpolicy approach focused on the empower-ment of women. To propose or adoptmainstreaming, as many organisations havedone, without substantial accompanyingchanges in the policies, mandates, anddoctrines that govern organisational action,is meaningless. While there has clearlybeen increased will on the part of inter-national organisations to address genderissues, this commitment has not beenbacked up by the systematic changesnecessary to translate it into reality.

The first step in successfully main-streaming gender equity goals in anyinsti tution is high-level commitment to establishing a cohesive framework,including a rationale for why gender equityis important, a clear strategy, with specificgoals and standards for achieving equity,sufficient gender expertise, and adequateresources, mechanisms, and regularreporting to hold staff accountable.

The ways in which gender is integrated,particularly in humanitarian emergencies,also need to be situation-specific, seizingopportunities as they arise. It requiresattention to how change happens at both atechnical and polit ical level . At thetechnical level, gender mainstreamingrequires solid data, sound theory, andskilled people who recognise opportunitiesand can act as cred ible advocates forgender equality. At the political level it


requires advocacy and action on theimplementation of policies and mandates,whether these are international mandatessuch as those provided in the BeijingPlatform for Action, national mandates suchas legislation, or the internal genderpolicies of humanitarian agencies. Thepolitical level also requires inter-agencysupport and collaboration.

Performance standards on genderOne of the ways Oxfam GB has chosen toadvance its gender mainstreaming efforts isthrough the development of performancestandards on gender in humanitarianresponse. Attempts to establish minimumstandards for humanitarian work go backmore than a decade in response to widelyfelt needs for improved response andaccountabili ty, but it is only recently that steps have been taken to improveperformance and accountability on gender.The Sphere Project was the first majoreffort to succeed in translating abstracthumanitarian ideals into specific standards,achieving a wide consensus across a broadspectrum of humanitarian agencies. Thepurpose of the Sphere Humanitarian Charterand Minimum Standards is to increase theeffectiveness and quality of humanitarianassistance and to make humanitarianagencies more accountable. TheHumanitarian Charter is a recognition andelaboration of the right to assistance of persons affected by calamity and conflictbased on existing laws, conventions, andpractices, while the Minimum Standardsoutline the goods and services to beprovided in fulfi lment of that right.Standards are prescribed for five servicesectors : water supply and sanitation,nutrit ion, food aid, shelter and siteplanning, and health services, along withindicators which can be used to judgewhether the standard has been attained.

A review of the gender-blind draft ofthe Sphere standards (Sphere Project 1998)resulted in significant improvements ongender-sensitiv ity in the 2000 editionwhich does, to some extent, address the

specific vulnerabil it ies of women,protection from violence, and women’sparticipation. However, it falls short ofasserting gender equity as a guidingprinciple of humani-tarian work, ofexplicitly acknowledging women’s rightsas human rights, and of recognising theimportance of under-standing genderrelations and barriers to equalparticipation.

Because of these shortcomings, OxfamGB has developed a set of standards ongender equity in humanitarian responsedesigned to be used alongside the Spherestandards (Clifton 2001). These includestandards for integrating gender throughoutthe programme cycle including protectionfrom violence, and for modelling genderequality within Oxfam itself. These standardsare now being piloted to assess their impact on gender equity in humanitarianprogrammes.

So how useful are standards on gender?The Sphere standards have been widelyacknowledged as a useful practical guideand reference point for attempting toprovide a consistent, comprehensiveresponse to disaster. Although their impactis still being assessed, they have certainlyproved effective as an awareness-raisingtool. Gender equity standards provide alanguage to articulate concrete practicalobjectives and make a complex subjectmore tangible. It is, however, crucial thataccountability mechanisms are put in placeand monitored.

Standards also have limitations andassociated risks (Brabant 2000). There hasbeen a hot debate about the universality ofSphere standards, and their applicability indifferent socio-cultural contexts and in theinitial phases of emergency response or involatile contexts. Achieving standards canbecome a technocratic process of ‘beancounting’ without any underlying contextualanalysis. Standards can inhibit innovationand be misused as tokenistic measures togain cheap credibility with managers ordonors. They also require broad consensus


if they are to be effective, and, as the SphereProject has found, setting standards ongender can be particularly controversial.

Most importantly, standards are only afirst step in a process of changing attitudesand practice toward increasing equity. Likerules, they do not lead to meaningful orlong-term change in isolation. They cansimply set a process in motion. Onceimplemented, the focus must be onexamining actual outcomes and impact onthe lives of women and men. And theymust be accompanied by a much widerprocess of insti tutional change andtransformation to achieve real impact.‘Practice only changes when practitionersthemselves acknowledge that change isessential, and accept that the “old way ofdoing things is over”. To be successfulpractice standards must be owned equallyby the agency and its personnel.’ (Lancaster2000)

Unti l organisations, donors, andgovernments are trained to measure‘results ’ on gender beyond countableoutputs, and to looking at competence andperformance in achieving sustainable long-term impacts on gender relations, there willbe a temptation to subscribe to genderstandards as a superficial measure ofgender sensitivity.

In addition to implementing practicestandards, agencies seeking to integrate agender perspective fully into theirhumanitarian work must take action on anumber of other levels. The use of genderanalysis, and the collection of gender-disaggregated data, need to become asystematic and mandatory part ofintervention, as do procedures for ensuringthe active engagement of women. Plans toincrease gender expertise in staffing, toconduct gender training at all levels, and toimplement gender policies, need to betime-bound, with management and staffheld accountable for their achievement.Most importantly, rigorous evaluationcriteria need to be developed to measuresuccess in closing gender gaps, both within

organisations, and in the programmes theyseek to implement (Women’s Eyes on theWorld Bank 1997).

Mainstreaming gender also meansbuilding the capacity of women andwomen’s organisations to advocate fortheir legal rights and priorities on theirown behalf. A commitment to main-streaming does not preclude a focus onwomen. Rather, supporting strong groupsand networks of activist women to acquireknow-how, and to identify opportunities tointervene in mainstream development andhumanitarian processes, is a core part ofstrategy, enabling women collectively toassess their si tuation, express theirpriorities and concerns, strengthen theirpublic voice, advocate and lobby for policyreform, and develop approaches toinfluence decision-making. It is the onlyway to ensure that ongoing work forgender equality and development at thenational level is sustainable after theoutside involvement has ended (UNICEF,undated).

Institutionaltransformation

A recent development in the discussion ofachieving equity in emergency aid work isthe growing recognition that humanitarianagencies, like many other institutions, arethemselves inherently resistant to genderequali ty. Organisational and feministtheory suggests that organisations, likesociety, have unconscious or submergedvalues in their culture, and a history thatinfluences their ways of working. Whenorganisations themselves are historicallydeeply gender biased, trying to ‘addgender’ into their structure through policyand program initiatives is unlikely to bringabout significant change (Goetz 1997; Rao etal. 1999). Helping humanitarian agencies tolearn to operate in equitable ways andachieve equitable results requires examiningall aspects of the organisation through agender lens. It means understanding and


transforming the conditions and factorsthat enable or prevent gender practiceswithin each of the technical, political, andcultural subsystems of an organisation, andtransforming those towards greater genderequality and social justice. Fundamentalissues such as power structures andrelations, organisational values, staffattitudes, and decision-making systems allneed to be addressed. The process oforganisational transformation is complexand requires debate and space forreflection between institutions.6

In order to pursue a social-transformationagenda, organisations need to address theunderlying assumptions and values thatinhibit gender equality. Examining ‘howthe job gets done’ in emergency responsereveals a lot about the dissonance betweenespoused organisational values of genderequity and the deeper culture ofhumanitarian agencies.

Humanitarian interventions carried outin situations of conflict operate within ahighly mil itar ised and masculinisedexternal environment which has resulted inthe internalisation of some elements ofmilitary language, behaviour, and culturein aid agencies. Emergency staff need aheightened awareness of security issues,knowledge and skills such as radio operationand off-road driving, and the ability towork alongside rebel, government, or UNmilitary forces. These areas are typicallythe domain of men, although to some menthey will be less familiar. Women and menboth face risks in militaristic environments,but women staff are often constrained intheir actions and mobility by the threat ofgender-specific forms of abuse.

The urgency, chaos, and scale of crisisresponse also provokes a militarised andmasculinised internal environment foragencies, whether in a situation of naturaldisaster or conflict. Hierarchical, typicallymale-dominated, top-down structures tendto be adopted, where action-orientation,quick decision-making, efficiency, risk-taking, and heroism are valued as important

attributes of professionalism, and asignificant level of internal ised sub-ordination is often accepted withoutquestion. ‘Soft’ behaviours such asconsultation, cautious shared analysis,gender-sensitivity, or empathy with thoseaffected by the crisis, more often displayedby women, are often disregarded asunimportant and irrelevant if not ridiculed.This reflects the predominance of amasculinised value system. It is exacerbatedby the fact that the ‘hardware’ sectors ofwater, shelter, food aid, and logistics whichrepresent the backbone of humanitarianresponse, and command the greatestresources, are mainly staffed by men,whereas the ‘software’ sectors of health,community mobilisation, education, andhuman resources tend to be staffed bywomen.

The masculinised emergency cultureplaces high value on staff who are willingand able to take personal risks, work longhours under high pressure, live underdifficult conditions with litt le privacy,travel at short notice, be unencumbered by personal commitments, and remainemotionally detached from crises. Women,partly due to their greater reproductiveand family responsibilities and partly dueto internalised female values, less readilymeet these criteria for the ‘ideal’ committedhumanitarian worker. As a consequence,they may need to work harder to provethemselves, they may adopt a stance ofmale bravado becoming ‘one of the boys’,often suffer ridicule and discrimination inthe workplace, and in some contextssimply find themselves excluded fromcertain areas of work. Male staff who donot live up to these ideals of masculinitymay suffer discrimination in similar ways.

These usually dysfunctional and highlygendered organisational attitudes andbehaviours unfortunately characteriseemergency management, and help toexplain why mainstreaming gender hasproven so difficult in this field, and why, asa consequence, humanitarian programmes


have l itt le positive impact on genderequity. The challenge for humanitarianagencies is to recognise and expose themasculinisation of their environment bylistening to and validating the experiencesof their women staff, to provide appropriatesupport and training, and to find ways tomoderate the values and culture of theirinternal working environment so thatwomen feel able to contribute on moreequitable terms with men.

As this article goes to press, the worldfaces the threat of international conflictfollowing terrorist attacks on the USA. Thedebate over the balance to be struckbetween retaliatory action and effortstoward peace is strikingly gendered. Thevoices of women in the debate have almostbeen silenced. Virtually all the central actorsin the crisis are men: men perpetrated theviolence, men are organising the response,and providing the public and mediaanalysis. Women are depicted as passivevictims of the crisis. The peace protests,organised principally by women’s organi-sations, are receiving little media coverage.The protagonists of military retaliation aremainly men, while women are becomingthe sceptics of a war devised, controlled,and reported by men. This bears out the oldgender stereotype of women’s tendency tonurture life rather than destroy it. Womenare less assured than men that a war onterrorism will make the world safer. ‘Menare socialised to intellectualise the world,analyse and objectify it , in a bid toemotionally distance themselves andcontrol it . Women, brought up toempathise, have few distancing techniques.’(Bunting 2001) While men’s ‘outragetranslated instantly into concrete demands’,for women, ‘the extent of the horror was initself a bar to certainty... it demanded thatwe ask questions rather than furnishanswers.’ (Miles 2001) The domination ofmen in the crisis has exposed the prevailingpower structure and marginalised womenin a way that would have seemed barelypossible before the crisis began.

Changing the way that states negotiateconflict and humanitarian agencies deliveraid will require fundamental institutionaltransformation. It will require bringingfeminist goals of social transformationtogether with espoused organisationalvalues to effect a major cultural shift. It willmean changing the way we think and makedecisions, and recognising that these newways of working will not only contribute togreater gender equity but will also saveand protect more lives. In the process ofevolv ing, organisations will need toarticulate and take action to establish thedirect connection between women’sempowerment, gender transformation, andthe explicit values and aims of humanitarianintervention.

Deborah Clifton is a researcher and writer on gender and social justice issues, and former Emergency Support Staff (Gender andRepresentation) with Oxfam GB. R.R.1 Site18C29, Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada V0R 1X0. E-mail: [email protected]

Fiona Gell works as a Gender Adviser in OxfamGB’s Policy Department, and previously workedas a Gender Adviser in Oxfam GB’s HumanitarianDepartment. Oxfam GB, 274 Banbury Road,Oxford OX2 7DZ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Notes

1 There is a large literature on institutionaldiscrimination against women indevelopment situations (Goetz 1997; Rao et al . 1999) but very l itt le thataddresses this issue in the humanitariancontext specifically.

2 This is the Oxfam GB definition of itshumanitarian objectives.

3 Women’s empowerment can be under-stood as a process whereby women,individually and collectively, becomeaware of how power relations operate intheir lives, and gain the self-confidenceand strength to challenge genderinequalities.


4 Examples can be found in Oxfam GB(1997, 2001); Gell (1999); Walker (1994).

5 The UN defines gender mainstreamingas ‘the process of assessing the implicationsfor women and men of any plannedaction, including legislation, policies orprograms, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women’s, aswell as men’s concerns and experiencesan integral dimension of the design andimplementation, monitoring andevaluation of policies and programs inall poli t ical , economic and societalspheres so that women can benefitequally and inequality is not perpetuated.The ultimate goal is to achieve genderequality.’ (ECOSOC 1997)

6 The recently founded Gender at WorkCollaborative aims to build a north-south network dedicated toinstitutional change on gender equity.http://www.genderatwork.org

References

Brabant, K. (2000) ‘Regaining perspective:the debate over quality assurance andaccountability’, Humanitarian Exchange,October 2000

Bunting, M. (2001) ‘Women and war’, The Guardian, 20 September

Clifton, D. (2001) ‘Gender Standards inHumanitarian Response’, unpublishedpaper, Oxford: Oxfam GB

ECOSOC (1997) ‘Gender Mainstreaming inthe United Nations’, New York: UN Department of Economic and SocialAffairs

Enarson, E. (1998) ‘Gender and disaster:what are the issues?’, in Women in Disasters:Conference Proceedings and Recommendations,May 1998, Vancouver: University ofBritish Columbia

Gell , F. (1999) ‘Gender concerns inemergencies’, in F. Porter, I. Smyth, andC. Sweetman (eds) Gender Works,Oxford: Oxfam GB

Goetz, A. (ed.) (1997) Getting InstitutionsRight for Women in Development, London:Zed Press

InterAction Commission on theAdvancement of Women (2001) ‘HowMainstreamed is Gender Mainstreaming?’,http://www.interaction.org/caw/article21

Lancaster, W. (1998) ‘The code of conduct:whose code, whose conduct?’, Journal ofHumanitarian Assistance, policy paper

Miles , A. (2001) ‘Men are from Mars,women are from Earth’, The Times , 19 September

Oxfam GB (1997) ‘Gender and foodsecurity’, Links, October

Oxfam GB (2001) ‘Gender equity andhumanitarian response’, Links, March

Rao, A., R. Stuart, and D. Kelleher (1999)Gender at Work, Bloomfield CT: KumarianPress

Sphere Project (2000) Humanitarian Charterand Minimum Standards in DisasterResponse, Oxford: Oxfam GB

UNICEF (undated) ‘Mainstreaming Genderin Unstable Environments’, in Genderand Humanitarian Assitance Resource Kit,http://www.reliefweb.int/library/GHARkit/files/GenderInUnstableEnvironments.pdf

United Nations (1995) Beijing Declarationand Platform for Action , New York:United Nations

Walker, B. (1994) Women and Emergencies,Oxford: Oxfam GB

Will iams, S. (2001) ‘Contested terrain:Oxfam, gender, and the aftermath ofwar’, Gender and Development 9(3): 20-9

Women’s Eyes on the World Bank (1997)‘Gender Equity and the World BankGroup: A Post-Bei jing Assessment’,October, http://www.interaction.org/caw/wewb1


saving and protecting lives by empowering women

Documents