“Connecting girls, inspiring futures” Hey, young women, listen up, we are the theme of International Women’s Day 2012! Is this good news? I fear not.
I first welcomed as a step forward the sudden interest in girls and young women from donors, international organizations and NGOs, just as I had welcomed the passage of the paradigm of “women in development” to that of “gender and development”. After the euphoria, the hangover… and it is much clearer now: I am being manipulated.
A brief overview of a planned manipulation
A growing school of thought tells us that young women could provide a significant contribution to development if their “potential is freed”, if they are allowed to “connect to each other”, to study and access good healthcare. The “success stories” are praised; the women and girls who change the world the most are selected as well as those who move mountains. The 8th of March 2012 should represent the peak of this wave of communication.
Is this the result of a massive denial of the image of women as victims that has prevailed until now? No doubt. But it is also and above all a logical consequence of decades of liberal and individualistic visions of development. The focus is on the individual, her potential, her empowerment and leadership capacity, while pretending to forget the extent of the constraints that women and young girls face. The issue here is not that of a lack of access to education and healthcare. The issue here is an unequal power relationship, of freedom impeded by social norms, and of the structure of economic relationships between the richest and poorest countries. When speaking of the role of girls, it is necessary to approach both micro- and macro-economic issues. The power structures need to be addressed.
Otherwise, where can one go? To read the portraits of those who move mountains, I think of all of those who could not move a hill. They could not because the economic and social constraints were too strong. Are they losers? Are they among those who lack the will or leadership skills? What message is provided to them in praising individual empowerment? I understand this as “be stronger than others and fight.”
I find this message hypocritical and condescending. And incredibly ironic as well. That the World Bank would manage to avoid discussing the macroeconomic impact on women in a report that, after all, is about gender in development seems to me completely ironic. Speaking of female genital mutilation, the lack of water infrastructures – yes, let’s talk about that – but the direct responsibility of the World Bank in the feminization of poverty – certainly not! Speaking of the burden of women’s unpaid work is okay, but without addressing the consequence of austerity plans on the increase in this burden. How ironic!
And what does it truly mean to “free our potential”? It is simple, everyone says: invest in women, for you will have a better return on your investment. Because, it is said that women are better at paying back their microcredit loans, and devote more of their food resources to children, and because, if women do not die, it is the child’s health that improves.
We are also told that more sexual and reproductive health is needed because women will have fewer children, which would suit all of those who greatly fear an invasion of migrants from the South, an explosion of energy expenses or an inversion of the balance of powers.
Therefore, we are grateful for striving to free our potential. We will be good soldiers, marrying and having fewer children. We will contribute to the economy without costing too much and we will carry out our domestic chores with a smile, because the international community has recognized that we are doing a great deal, and that it is good for a woman to be recognized for everything she does.
The trend that tramples on the great paradigms
So, investment in girls, is it a new paradigm? Or a remake of the “women in development” paradigm? Or is it “blindness to the real causes of poverty”? What is certain is that we are moving dangerously away from the positive advances of the end of the 20th century: CEDAW and the Beijing Declaration.
However, in 1995, 189 States did commit themselves in the Beijing Declaration to:
“[e]nsure the full implementation of the human rights of women and of the girl child as an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
It is these 189 States that affirmed in this Declaration that “inequalities between women and men have persisted and major obstacles remain”, and are dedicated “unreservedly to addressing these constraints and obstacles and thus enhancing further the advancement and empowerment of women all over the world, and agree that this requires urgent action in the spirit of determination, hope, cooperation and solidarity, now and to carry us forward into the next century.”
Less than 20 years later, tired of urging the States to respect their commitments, the development world is betting on girls. However, within the discourse on individual leadership and on the respect of rights, there is a major difference: that of responsibility. On the one hand, the individualism advocated in the paradigm of “girls in development” places the onus of failure on the girls themselves. On the other hand, it is the States and the international community that are responsible. On the one hand, girls are taught to fight only for their own successes; on the other hand, they are given the means to fight collectively for their rights. On the one hand, there is a return on investment that is measurable, attainable, achievable and time-bound. On the other hand, we have the unknown. On the one hand, control is maintained; on the other, it is lost.
Times are tough for rights, especially when they do not yield any return on investment.
This approach is doomed to failure for two reasons:
First, the particularity of the patriarchal system is that each and everyone of us are victims and actors. It is much easier (albeit inefficient) to focus on the biggest victims and to forget to question ourselves.
Moreover, if patriarchy is everywhere yet invisible, the State is visible. The State is each and every one of us. Public policies – it is we who must formulate them, vote on them and influence them, in our collective interest! What we need is not an investment in individuals, but the rebalancing of power inequalities based on just public policies, which would guarantee equality of rights of individuals and the respect of our freedoms.
Young women are not outside the system, but rather, the contrary. They are at the heart of a patriarchal system whose power is strengthened by the lack of public policies in favour of equality.
“Inspiring futures”? A vision of the future is not that of a world where freedom is suppressed and inequality persists, and where I would fight as an individual in order to succeed. I have the vision of a world that is more just and more free, in which each and every one of us could live our lives as we choose. As a young woman, this is what inspires me. It is not a matter of a business plan, but of respecting our rights.
Charlotte Soulary 