Gender Mainstreaming Critiques: Signposts or Dead Ends?

Abstract

An enduring legacy of the Beijing conference, gender mainstreaming has been widely implemented and widely critiqued since the 1990s. But the basis of these critiques has changed over time: this article charts a typology of critique approaches. It shows how the central problem is diagnosed variously as the loss of the political dimensions of gender in the course of mainstreaming; or technical shortcomings; or the gendered nature of organisations as the causes of technical failure. For others, the problem has been the failure to scrutinise the connection between gender mainstreaming and changes in gender relations in women's real lives. More recently, another group asserts that the trajectory of gender mainstreaming is simply part of the much broader logic of neoliberal governance. Understanding the technologies of power that shape a feminist practice suitable for the governance institutions into which it is inserted can help guide future feminist engagement.

A Practical Guide for Civil Society Organisations in Lebanon towards Gender Mainstreaming (En-Ar)

“…One of the main critiques is that gender mainstreaming in institutions (organisations, government bodies) has lost its political dimension, which is deeply rooted in feminism. 73 Today, however, gender mainstreaming is viewed more as a technical process with steps and procedures. 74 Another critique of gender mainstreaming is that while it is integrated in institutional and organisational structures, it usually does not reach private or personal spheres where inequality and oppression often remain intact.…”

Quo Vadis Pengarusutamaan Gender(pug) Dalam Kebijakan Publik Di Sektor Kehutanan:kasus Program Perhutanan Sosial Di Indonesia

“…(Milward et al, 2015a) sementara di kutub yang lain menilai bahwa gender mainstreaming merupakan strategi yang benar namun membutuhkan perbaikan dalam tingkat implementasi praktis (Derbyshire et al, 2015).…”

“…Implementasi PUG justru menghilangkan satu aspek penting yakni politisasi gender, yang diindikasikan merupakan bentuk sengaja agar program PUG ini bisa diterima dalam konteks ideologi pembangunan. The lost politic analysis ini diuraikan secara rinci oleh Milward et al (2015a) bahwa gender mainstreaming hanya mengkomodasi hal-hal teknis dalam pemenuhan kebutuhan gender namun enggan memasukkan aspek politis yang sering diajukan oleh para feminis dalam melihat bagaimana ketidakadilan gender terjadi akibat politisasi oleh institusi termasuk negara. Menurut para kritikus, permasalahan utama dalam pemenuhan hak perempuan sebagai bagian hak asasi manusia adalah pada tiadanya kemauan dari pembuat kebijakan yang memiliki pengaruh untuk mengubah struktur ekonomi dan kuasa.…”

“…Institutional barrier ini khususnya pada birokrasi perencana pembangunan menjadi krusial karena dalam gender mainstreaming, negara lah yang merumuskan strategi pengarusutamaan. Maka tak heran apabila bagi organisasi seperti birokrasi, pengarusutaman gender muncul dalam dua wajah yakni wajah kompromi dengan agenda internasional agar penilaian yang muncul secara internasional telah memenuhi tanggung jawab sesuai konvensi sementara dalam implementasi di lapangan, transformasi itu tak pernah terjadi (Milward et al, 2015a).…”

Professionalising gender and development expertise: innovations in capacity‐building and credentialing

“…One stream of criticism focused on the failure to adequately address the underlying cause of gender inequality, namely, the power imbalance between women and men (Cornwall, 2007;Milward et al, 2015;Mukhopadhyay, 2014). It contested the technical approach adopted post-Beijing that involved the creation of manuals, tool-kits and checklists to facilitate gender analysis and integration.…”