CHAPTER 2: THEORISING GENDER EQUALITY AND MAINSTREAMING
2.4. Gender Mainstreaming Initiatives: “Old Wine in New Bottles?”
It is very clear that the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy is presented as new and even as revolutionary (Verloo, 2001). Gender mainstreaming is not a new strategy, in fact, countries like Canada and the Netherlands were among the first, during the mid 70s, at the beginning of the development of the gender equality policies, to highlight the importance of trying to effect change by fully integrating women and their policy concerns throughout the policy process (Wilcox & Wigle, 1997).
Equality policies were started by the Netherlands from the beginning, as a two-track policy, aimed simultaneously at producing sector policies and what is called facet policy.
This was the integration of the emancipation of women as a facet of all general policies (Outshoorn, 1995 & Verloo, 2000). Both in Canada and the Netherlands, the integration of gender equality in general policies proved to be much more troublesome than was expected, not in the least because of a lack of political will, and a bureaucratic wall of indifference, if not hostility (Verloo, 2001). It is interesting to know that an earlier attempt of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to recommend the same strategy hardly got any attention. This refers to the Resolution 42/60 that recommends that state parties establish and strengthen effective national machinery, institutions and procedures at a high level of government, and with enough resources, commitment and authority (among other things) to advise on the impact on women of all government policies (Wilcox & Wigle, 1997). The problems with
the CEDAW recommendation are the same problems that were faced earlier by Canada and the Netherlands.
With reference to the experiences of Canada, the Netherlands and CEDAW, it can be concluded that the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy is not new. However, what is new in the past years, since the World Conference on Women in Beijing (1995), is the strong political support for this strategy and a more precise definition and clarification of the strategy. This goes along with a proliferating development of new instruments. Since the World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, the political support for the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy has improved substantially (Verloo, 2001). The idea of the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy of taking into account the impact of gender before decisions are taken has diffused widely, and a whole world wide process of further developing this strategy has started. This increased political support has been attributed to changed political opportunities, which mobilise feminist groups facilitated by women’s conferences (Hafner-Burton & Pollack, 2000).
It is clear that the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy has been presented as new and it is important to note that its presentation as new is essential in explaining its success (Verloo, 2001). The concept gender mainstreaming uses the newness of the strategy as a marketing argument and this has obviously been successful. One could say that the strategical framing of the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy as new has been one of the best ways which made the importance for gender equality reactive (Verloo, 1998).
Along with the presentation of the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy as new, there is a frame which portrays gender mainstreaming as the better strategy. This is in comparison with the gender equality policies (Schalkwyk & Woroniuk, 1997). The strategy responds to the dissatisfaction with the major emphasis on separate projects for women. Even though these projects were innovative and catalytic, most were small isolated initiatives that made minimal contributions to changing gender equality (Beck &
Nesmith, 2001). When comparing the description of gender mainstreaming with other specific policies, gender mainstreaming appears to be a strategy that can get gender
equality out of the ghetto of “women’s projects” (Verloo, 2001). The Gender Mainstreaming Strategy also assures that specific equality policies will also be necessary in achieving gender equality.
The Gender Mainstreaming Strategy is considered the better strategy because there seem to be contradictions between the failure of earlier attempts at integrating a gender perspective in all policies, and the optimism that surrounds gender mainstreaming (Outshoorn, 1995). The attempts to integrate gender equality in general policies took place in a number of countries, notably Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Norway and they were not successful. It has been very clear that at least for the period 1975 till 1995, success in gender equality policies have been reported almost exclusively in specific policies such as policies to counter violence against women and to offer support to women who are victims of sexual violence, or projects concerning women’s participation in the job market (Verloo, 2001).
It seems that the early negative experiences can be attributed for a larger part of the conceptualisation of the strategy, to a weak political and bureaucratic support, and to the lack of concrete tools and instruments to implement the strategy (McBride & Mazur, 1995). At this point, it is definitely too early to claim that gender mainstreaming is a better strategy on the basis of an empirical assessment of gender mainstreaming experiences. There is simply not enough material yet for an empirical evaluation (Hafner-Burton & Pollack, 2000). Therefore, the claim that gender mainstreaming is better at this point in time must not only be based on the evaluation of the strategy but on the assessment of its potential to be a more comprehensive strategy than other available strategies. This is because of its diagnosis which includes an accent on gender combined with its accent on the institutional level (Verloo, 2001).
Hafner-Burton and Pollack (2000), see gender mainstreaming as a potentially revolutionary strategy, in a more theoretical way. Warnings come from the field of development policies where attempts at integrating women in development have proven to be all but revolutionary (Boserup, 1970). The results of these policies often are to
offer women a place within an agenda that is designed along traditional lines. Gender issues or attention for women were build into existing paradigms. Women have to twist themselves into more stereotypical and unequal life positions than before to fit into those paradigms and the mainstream has not changed at all. Gender mainstreaming is not an automatically revolutionary strategy. Just as other strategies for gender equality and maybe any policy, it can easy be perverted (Outshoorn, 1991). The main dangers identified so far are the danger of disappearance of gender equality policies altogether, and that of being swept away by the mainstream instead of changing it.
Besides, now that the conceptual confusion has diminished, political support has grown and more instruments are developed, there is reason to assume that the earlier negative experiences can be overcome and even a further development of the strategy can be expected (Hafner-Burton & Pollack, 2000). Evaluation of these practices will indicate if the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy has potential and if ever it can be realised.