FGG gender workshop agenda
9:30-10:00 Welcome, Spirit of
the day, Introductions
10:00-10:30 Group exercise
10:30-11:15 What are we
talking about?...Developing a
shared language
11:15-11:30 Break
11:30-12:45 Gender equality
and theories of change
12:45-1:15 Lunch
1:15-2:15 Clarifying our
objective(s) for 2017
2:15-3:15 Small groups: What,
who, when and how?
3:15-3:20 Short restroom
break
3:20-4:15 Putting the pieces
together
4:15-4:30 Close
Broader vision of feminism
In Changing Their World: Concepts and practices of women’s movements (published by
AWID):

A broader vision for ourselves and the world we want to create…

We now stand not only for gender equality, but for the transformation of
all social relations of power that oppress, exploit, or marginalize any set
of people, women and men, on the basis of their gender, age, sexual
orientation, ability, race, religion, nationality, location, class, caste, or
ethnicity.

We do not seek simplistic parity with men that would give us the
damaging privileges and power that men have enjoyed…but we seek a
transformation that would create gender equality within an entirely new
social order – one in which both men and women can individually and
collectively live as human beings in societies built on social and economic
equality, enjoy the full range of rights, live in harmony with the natural
world, and are liberated from violence, conflict and militarization.”
What are we talking about?
 Definitions
 Be comprehensive
 Don’t worry about a perfect answer
How do we change things…?
 Gender equality in the world?
 Gender equality as part of a socially just, inclusive,
environmentally sustaibnable societies (FGG)?
 Commitment to gender equality within our
organisations?
DFID PPA =
Action Aid, Christian
Aid, Gender Links,
Womankind
Gender and Development Network
ToC
Constituent parts:
 The vision of gender equality and realisation of women’s and girls’
rights, and associated results demonstrating progress towards this
long-term vision.
 Continuing processes of organisational influencing to build
organisational commitment to and leadership on the vision of
gender equality and realisation of women’s rights.
 The technical processes of gender sensitive planning designed to
“mainstream” gender equality and women’s and girls’ rights into
all areas of work including policymaking, programmes, and internal
processes, as well as to provide targeted funding for women’s
organisations and programmes for women and girls.
The story of MFA
 First track
MDG3, FLOW 1, etc. (NAPs peace and security, UN,
embassies).
2007-2014, Earmarked budget of €292.6 million
 Second track
Bilateral, multi-lateral, CSOs, public private partnerships,
private sector, knowledge institutions
2007-2014, No budget data available (approx. €9 billion to
development cooperation)
The story of MFA
Dutch MFA = twin-track strategy (targeted + mainstream)
1. Stand-alone track of support to women’s (rights)
organisations and gender equality initiatives with
earmarked funding from a stand-alone gender budget
line
2. Second track of gender mainstreaming, systematic
integration of gender issues in the priority areas of
foreign policy and development cooperation
2007-2014 IOB Evaluation

MFA policy was more focused on women (get women on board) and less on the issues
of gender equality’. Insufficient attention to men and the underlying unequal power
relations between women and men (gender)

MFA used a human rights perspective alongside of instrumentalist arguments for
gender mainstreaming, such as gender is ‘smart economics’, ‘smart politics’ and ‘smart
security.’ Found evidence for instrumentalist arguments weak, contradictory, and
possibly counterproductive.

Mainstreaming efforts were assessed as not consistent -- minimal or absent in major
policy areas of private sector development, corporate social responsibility and
international security

No evidence of synergy between the first stand-alone track to support women’s
organisations and second track strategy of gender mainstreaming. Little interaction
between similar initiatives, thematic and geographic

IOB had only limited insight into the effectiveness of the gender policy due to lack of
gender disaggregated data in design, implementation, and M&E, with rare or
anecdotal information on outcomes and impact.
2007-2014 IOB Evaluation
 MDG3 Fund had proven value as a stand-alone facility for
women’s and human rights organisations fighting for equal
rights and opportunities for women and girls
 Majority of MDG3 grantees engaged in agenda setting of
women’s rights and gender equality. Grantees contributed to
changes in the enabling environment, such as new
legislation, ratification and application of international
conventions.
 Their watchdog role was enhanced.
 Less change visible in terms of norms and behaviours (short
time?)
2007-2014 IOB Evaluation
Between 2009-2010, DAC member countries allocated USD
24.8 billion to gender equality
Only 1.6% of that money (USD 410 million) was allocated to
WROs/women’s funds even though empirical results have
shown that providing funding to these organisations is
effective
By 2011, this share had gone up to 2.2% of all gender
equality-related funding by DAC member countries, equalling
an amount of USD 457 million
The story continues
Stand-alone track - Funding explicitly for women’s rights
 MDG 3 (2008-2011)= 45 grantees, 77 Million
 FLOW 1 (2012-2015) = 34 grantees including
Southern/smaller/regional women’s rights organisations,
80.5 Million
 FLOW 2 (2016-2020) = 9 grantees, few WROs and no
Southern WROs (Unlike SPs, process not transparent)
 WROs in action, internal and external champions….a
happy ending?
FGG Gender Workshop Agenda
1:15-2:15 Clarifying our objective(s) for 2017
2:15-3:15 Small groups: What, who, when and how?
3:15-3:20 Short restroom break
3:20-4:15 Putting the pieces together
4:15-4:30 Close
FGG WG Objectives
 Share knowledge and build a common
understanding on FGG members’ (successful)
approaches in terms of integrating gender in their
work
 Contribute to an organisational culture (attitudes
and behaviours) among FGG members in which
gender is increasingly addressed (Build a vibrant
movement of gender champions in FGG!)
Dual approach to gender equality
 Complementarity between gender
mainstreaming and specific gender equality
policy and measures, including positive
measures.
 Also referred to as the “twin track strategy”
a. Gender equality and women’s empowerment as a
targeted priority AND
b. Gender equality integrated more effectively in all
work
Gender
 Roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that society considers
appropriate for women/men/girls/boys
 Socially constructed and learned through socialisation processes
 Determines what is expected, allowed and valued for
women/men/girls/boys in a given context, e.g. access to and
control over resources, and decision-making.
 Context/ time-specific and changeable
 Part of the broader socio-cultural context, as are other
important criteria such as socio-economic position, race,
religion, ethnic group, sexual orientation, age, etc.
Gender equality
 Equal enjoyment by women/men/girls/boys of rights,
opportunities, resources and rewards
 Political, economic and social equality for
women/men/girls/boys
 Implies that the interests, needs and priorities of
women/men/girls/boys are taken into consideration,
recognising the diversity of different groups.
Gender equity
 In some contexts, defined as the process of being fair
to women and men. Equity leads to equality. E.g.
“Strategies and measures to compensate for women’s
historical and social disadvantages that prevent women
and men from otherwise operating on a level playing
field”
 But the term has also been promoted to justify
discriminatory measures. Ideas about what is fair are
subjective. In the UN/global context, equality is the
preferred term.
Gender/sexual division of labour

The way each society divides work (and considers “work”) among
men and women, boys and girls, according to socially-established
gender roles or what is considered suitable and valuable for each sex.
Examples:

To produce goods and services to meet the subsistence needs of the
family

To clean, cook, bear, rear or care for family members

To ensure the provision and maintenance of resources such as water,
health care and education in a community

To participate in political decision-making
Women’s empowerment
 Feminist version: “Individual self-assertion to collective
mobilisation and resistance aimed at upending systemic
forces and power dynamics that work to marginalise
women and other disadvantaged groups. Empowerment
begins when individuals recognise the systemic forces of
inequality that influence their lives and consciously act
with others to change existing power relationships.”
 Sometimes used in a problematic way, change the women,
rather than the structure.
Intersectionality
 An analytical tool for recognising that multiple aspects of a
person’s social identity and status intersect to create unique
experiences of oppression and privilege
 Corrective to overly simplified conceptions of identity – such
as “working class” or “indigenous” – examines complexities of
multiple sources of privilege and subordination
 A response to a critiques that “women” as a political category
over-generalised women’s experiences (privileging some and
making invisible others, e.g. race, class, colonialism impact on
oppression)
Gender outcome continuum
 Gender blind vs. gender aware: Be blind to vs. aware of roles,
rights, entitlements responsibilities, etc. ascribed to or imposed
upon women/girls/men/boys in specific social, cultural, economic
and political contexts; and to gendered power dynamics.
 Exploitative/negative: Project uses gender norms, roles and
stereotypes that reinforce gender inequalities.
 Neutral: Gender not considered relevant, no negative impact.
 Sensitive/accommodating: Project addresses gender norms, roles
and access to resources in so far as needed to reach project goal.
 Positive: Changing gender norms, roles and access to resources is a
key component of project goal.
 Transformative (positive): Project seeks to transform gender
relations to promote equality.
Gender mainstreaming
 The (re)organisation, improvement, development and
evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality
perspective is incorporated in any planned action, legislation,
policies or programmes, at all levels and at all stages, by the
actors normally involved in policy-making
 Problem of theory vs. practice: Targeted programme
interventions AND/OR incorporating gender perspectives
across different sector policies and programmes
 Elements: understanding of context, consultation processes,
gender sensitive-programming and language, sex
disaggregated data, gender analysis, budgets, indicators of
change etc.
 Role of partners in gender mainstreaming?
Gender Analysis

Critical examination of how differences in gender roles, activities, needs,
opportunities and rights/entitlements affect women, girls, men and boys
in certain situation or contexts

Considers differences in terms of distribution of resources, opportunities,
constraints and power

Gathers input from women, girls, men and boys

Considers other social variables such as ethnicity, culture, age, social
class, sexual orientation

Uses both quantitative and qualitative data (analytical and relative)

Will processes/responses/interventions succeed? Do they avoid
exacerbation of gender inequality or injustice? Do they actively promote
gender equality?
Why?
In a 2012 study: 92% of women reported experiencing some form of sexual
violence in public spaces in their lifetime. 88% reported experiencing some
form of verbal sexual harassment.
Out of 585 peace agreements from 1990 to 2010, only 92 contained any
reference to women.
In “developing countries”: 1 in 10 married women are not consulted on how
their cash earnings are spent; 1 in 3 women has no say about major
household purchases. Less than 20% of landholders are women.
Major gaps in statistics about gender and poverty.