UN Document Platform For Action And Its Recent 20 Years Celebration: A Few Critical
Reflections On Its Stance On Poverty And Inequality Of Women
By Dr. Zeenath Kausar
27 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org
The United Nations has recently celebrated the 20 Years Anniversary of one of its world known documents on women’s rights, Platform for Action, which is referred to as Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, BPA, which was passed in Beijing, China, in September, 1995. In this write-up, we would present few critical reflections on this UN document, Beijing Platform for Action, BPA and on some important reports which throw light on important discussions that took place during the 20 Years Anniversary of the document, from 8th to 20th March, 2015, in New York, at the UN Headquarters.
The Mission Statement of the document, Platform for Action, BPA presents the agenda of the document: ‘The Platform for Action is an agenda for women’s empowerment’. (Platform for Action and the Beijing Declaration, FWCW, UN. Department of Public Information, New York, 1996, p.17).The document identifies three goals for women--equality, development and peace for all women everywhere in the interest of all humanity.’(P.7). BPA has identified twelve critical areas of concern which include poverty, education, health, violence against women, inequality in power sharing and decision making etc.( p.34). It is asserted in BPA that unless and until these critical areas are addressed properly and these problems are resolved, women would not be able to enjoy equality, justice, peace, development and empowerment.
Before presenting a general critique on the document, BPA and its recent evaluation and celebration in March 2015, it seems indispensable to point out some positive contribution of the document, BPA and its 20 Years Celebration. It can be hardly denied that the UN through Its four global conferences on women and particularly through the document, BPA, raised the resilience and confidence in women in general that they are an essential part of humanity, who can no more be discriminated and neglected in any institution. Besides this, the document has done a remarkable work in discussing few critical areas of concern like equal rights for girls as boys for proper nourishment and educational attainment, trafficking in girls and women, psychological, emotional and physical violence in family including battering of women, incest in family, and problems like rape and sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of women at work- place, the wide-spread of pornographic literature, sexual exploitation of women as war victims and such other issues.
However, it seems important to mention here that apparently, it looks as though there is no problem in achieving the above goals as outlined in BPA. But a critical analysis of these goals along with the demands of the document in some of the crucial areas of concern reveals a series of problems and limitations in the document. Since it is not practical to discuss all the twelve areas of concern, we would focus on these --- poverty, inequality in economic structures, health and human rights. Since, poverty and economic participation are related with each other, we would combine these two areas for discussion. Similarly we would combine the other two areas, health and human rights, because sexual and reproductive health rights are considered as human rights. In the first write-up, we would discuss poverty and inequality in economic structures and in the second one, we would discuss sexual and reproductive health rights demanded in the document, BPA. (For a full Islamic critique and Islamic position on the issues in the document, the readers can look into my book, Women’s Empowerment and Islam: Critique on the UN Beijing Document Platform for Action. The third Edition of this book is coming in 2015 from Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia).
On the problem of poverty among women, the document presented several points for discussion. It talks about the feminization of poverty in these words: “The feminization of poverty has also recently become a significant problem in the countries with economies in transition as a short-term consequence of the process of political, economic and social transformation.1 (p. 38).
The first point to note here is the separation of women from men while looking into the problem of poverty. One is not studying the problem of literacy, educational attainment, health or any such issue that should definitely be studied separately for men and women. Leaving aside some rare cases where women for certain unfortunate reasons happen to live separately from their family members, (from their parents and also from their husbands and children), women are generally expected to be living in families, either with parents or with their husbands and children. This is the common situation, where women are the part of the family. In this common situation, poverty cannot be discussed separating women from the family. If a family suffers from poverty, all members of the family, men, women and children suffer from poverty together.
Furthermore, poverty cannot be discussed as feminization or masculinization, because poverty is neither antagonistic to men nor to women. By feminization of poverty, if the document implies the wide scale spread of poverty among women, it is important for the document to be specific and point out to whom it refers --- single mothers, uncared- widows, shelter-less women in rural as well as in urban areas who live on their own with no monitory support etc. Women who live this kind of life definitely suffer from poverty and many other problems and the document should address their problems. But these problems cannot be generalized to say feminization of poverty.
The main purpose of the document, BPA, to bemoan on the poverty issue separating women from men in the families is to stress that women should necessarily work outside for their own economic resources and economic status to be economically independent from men. At the surface level, it does not appear objectionable, if the document insists for the economic empowerment of women or economic autonomy of women. But there is a hidden agenda behind this sort of insistence on the economic independence of women. According to the document, women would not enjoy equality and peace unless they become economically independent from men. In other words all those women who for certain genuine reasons of family responsibilities do not work outside, and do not possess their own economic independence, they do not enjoy any of these blessings --- equality, development and peace. Hence, the document tries to emphasize that it is obligatory on women to join any work-force to claim equality and enjoy peace and for the same reason, the document refers to the roles of wives, mothers, care-takers of elderly members in the family as ‘gender stereotypes’ and ‘socially ascribed gender roles’. The document states:
In addition to economic factors, the rigidity of socially ascribed gender roles and women’s limited access to power, education, training and productive resources as well as other emerging factors that may lead to insecurity for families are also responsible.( p.39). In some countries, women take on more unpaid-work, such as the care of children and those who are ill or elderly, compensating for lost household income, particularly when public services are not available. (p. 96).
Thus according to the document, women suffer from poverty due to the lack of economic resources of their own because they preoccupy themselves in some family responsibilities which are ‘un-paid’. Furthermore, according to the document, these unpaid women in family perform these sorts of works due to social and cultural bias against them, not because of the biological difference between men and women. Here lies the crux of the whole problem in the document which is mainly connected with its concept of equality which ignores gender differences and all those gender roles which are based on the gender differences. The problem does not lie in the emphasis on the economic empowerment of women, but it lies in the negative presentation of some of the roles of women in family and the preference which is given to economic empowerment over family integrity. Since the document is mainly prepared by those kinds of feminists who try to overlook the gender differences when they talk about equality and who emphasize that women cannot enjoy equality unless they enjoy their own economic status and they enjoy absolute sexual and reproductive rights, the document reflects such contentions and arguments, mixing up equality with identity. A great number of influential feminists assert that gender roles based on the gender differences are socially and culturally created which should be either kept as secondary or should be rejected. (See Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 1970, pp. 23-43. See also Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Rutledge, Chapman & Hall, Inc., 1990, p.6).
It is important to note here that after 20 years, when the document is revised and evaluated to see its implementation and results during the 20 Years Anniversary of the document, its language, tone and temperament remains the same. In one of the important Evaluation reports prepared for the European Commission under the UN, it is pointed out that there is a slow and an uneven progress in the empowerment of women because of social norms and gender stereotypes, which mainly imply family responsibilities. The report states:
….old and new discriminatory social norms and gender stereotypes continue to hold back progress on all critical areas of concern. For instance, discriminatory social norms and practices regarding the unequal division of unpaid care work between men and women, limit women’s full enjoyment of social and economic rights. These entrenched social norms and practices prevent the transformation of gender power relations necessary to realize the vision of the Beijing Declaration.
(Evaluation of the Beijing Platform for Action + 20 and the Opportunities of Achieving Gender Equality and empowerment of Women in Post-2015 Development Agenda, p.10, European Union, Brussels, 2015. (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/STUD/2015/5 19191/IPOL_STU( 2015)519191_EN.pdf 9 Mar 2015…)
It seems pertinent to clarify here that the term discrimination is not used in the document always as ‘gender discrimination’. Discrimination is also referred to in document as ‘the gender differences’. For instance, certain gender roles of wives and mothers performed on the basis of the gender differences are portrayed negatively as gender discrimination. This is certainly an underestimation and devaluation of family values.
What about all those women who do not work outside for some or the other reason and are dependent on men? We argue that these women are also ‘fully empowered women’, because economic factor alone cannot determine the power and strength of women. In fact, the very dependence of these women on men empowers them, because they do not find themselves as isolated from men and thus their togetherness with men empowers them more than those women who think that they are economically independent from men and stand all alone in their way of economic development. In some cases, it is wiser to understand that dependence on each other empower both the persons, because their mutual responsibility for one common goal, family, in this case, keep them together with love, trust and compassion which give more peace, tranquility, happiness and success.
It does not however mean that economic pursuits of women and their economic development are not important and that they should be discouraged for it. Never. Economic endeavors of women for their economic development would give women more confidence and strength in their knowledge, skills and in their over-all personality. Women would be able to share and support their husbands in their economic responsibilities for the development of their families. Besides these women with families, all those family-less women who stay single for various reasons without any financial familial support, their employment in some suitable work-force and its financial support would help these disadvantaged women to a great extent. There are some families, where for certain reasons, women alone take over the financial responsibility of the family members. These and several other situations of women call for the economic development of women. Hence, economic development of women cannot be totally neglected.
But it also does not mean that economic development should become the main target of women to be preferred over their responsibilities in the family and the family roles of women should be negatively described as ‘un-paid work’. Love, selfless dedication, keen concern and sacrifices which women offer to family cannot be cashed in money and cannot be paid back in material commodity because these God – given qualities of women are far above all the earthly returns and can be only paid back by God through His blessings on women. If the document describes the family roles of women as socially ascribed roles or gender stereotypes, and un-paid roles, then the roles which feminist expect from women may be described as ‘feminist ascribed roles’ and ‘feminist stereotyping’. Hence, it can be suggested that the UN document should stop promoting feminist stereotypes and feminist ascribed women roles, because feminism nether represent women of all cultures and civilizations, nor feminism is the end of history for women’s rights. But feminists and the document believe, plan and implement what they believe true for all women. The Evaluation Report prepared for this 20 Years Anniversary writes this:
Increasing women’s labor market participation has been a key priority for Member States and several countries have experienced particular successes in this respect…Women continue to be the primary carers of children and dependents. As a result, a disproportionate number of women work part-time in comparison with men, which are negatively affecting their economic and financial resources, including wages and pensions. (Evaluation of the Beijing Platform for Action + 20 and…p.17. http://www.europarl.europa.eu /studies).
It is self-evident from the above how negatively the child-care and other family related responsibilities are mentioned above in the report. It seems therefore important to emphasize here that the document can only get full recognition and acceptability from women of all diverse cultures and backgrounds, if it pays full respect and show due recognition to the family services of women and family values in general. Furthermore economic pursuits and economic development of women should not be perceived as necessary means for equality with men. Women by virtue of being human beings as men are naturally and originally equal to men by all means, but physically and naturally different from men. The authors of the document should know that there are cases around the world, where some women give away all their life for becoming economically independent from men while working day and night only to find towards the end that they enjoy neither peace nor happiness all their life. Hence, it is much better that these matters should be decided mutually between husband and wife with full confidence on each other while keeping several factors into consideration so that women should be able to enjoy equality, development, peace and happiness like men irrespective of the fact whether they work outside or not.
Dr. Zeenath Kausar is a former teaching staff at IIUM
.
Comments are moderated