Gender Equality Oversimplified: Using CEDAW to Counter the Measurement Obsession

Abstract

Global measurements have become foundational for understanding gender equality as well as for directing resources and policy development to address gendered inequalities. We argue in this article that attempts to quantify gender (in)equality globally have limited potential for successfully challenging gender hierarchies if compared to internationally agreed upon women's rights standards. To make this argument, we start by contrasting the general assumptions underlying the measurement approach with feminist scholarship on gender equality. Second, we examine nine key measures of global gender equality—the majority of which are produced by influential international organizations—and show that their focus on “countability” perpetuates a narrow and misleading understanding of gender (in)equality. Third, we present the CEDAW Convention and associated review process as an alternative to the measurement approach. The comparison highlights the need for evaluative tools that attend to the complexity and fluidity of gender norms and focus on context‐specific agency to confront gender hierarchies.

Gender in the time of COVID-19: Evaluating national leadership and COVID-19 fatalities

“…It may seem puzzling that countries with more women in the legislature fare worse during the pandemic than those with fewer women. However, we note that women’s representation is related to gender quotas [ 18 , 59 , 60 ], which many countries, especially in the developing world, have adopted after ratifying CEDAW [ 61 ]. Gender quotas may have counterintuitive effects, especially in Partly Free or Not Free countries [ 62 ].…”

Who gets ‘Left behind’? Promises and pitfalls in making the global development agenda work for sex workers – reflections from Southeast Asia

“…Furthermore, our article raises concerns about how suitable a target-driven development framework, that has also been roundly criticised for its inattention to the relationship between dominant neoliberal development models and poverty, is for securing justice for sex workers. In suggesting that the CEDAW process may provide a better model for enabling sex worker rights to be addressed in meaningful ways, we echo the sentiments of Liebowitz and Zwingel (2014) whose work focusses on the need to address gender inequalities in ways that are context specific and allow for engagement and dialogue.…”

“…6 Looking into the international normative framework, however, we find in Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) an instrument and mechanisms that have the potential to serve sex workers in a contextual and incremental way. It is useful to examine this mechanism given that it provides a very significant alternative to the target-led approach to doing international development embodied by the SDGs (Liebowitz and Zwingel 2014). At Article 6, CEDAW obliges states parties to take all appropriate measures, '…to suppress all form of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'.…”

Indicators as Substitute for Policy Contestation and Accountability? Some Reflections on the 2030 Agenda from the Perspective of Gender Equality and Women's Rights

“…The High Level Political Forum, which is the key platform for accountability on achieving the SDGs at the global level, has provided stark evidence of the shortcomings of existing arrangements, with very limited space for meaningful participation by civil society organizations, some of which have produced exhaustive ‘spotlight’ or ‘shadow reports’. This is a far cry from the review processes and contextualized dialogues that are commonplace in human rights reporting, for example under the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (UN CEDAW) (Liebowitz and Zwingler, ). In the absence of robust accountability and enforcement mechanisms, the risk of dilution and selectivity in the process of implementation looms large, while the onus of fulfilling the promises of Agenda 2030 falls disproportionately on the shoulders of women's rights advocates and their allies.…”