Women advocates confuse gender equality & feminism
05 January 2013
KELA KAPKORA SIL BOLKIN | Supported by the Phil Fitzpatrick Writing Fellowship
WE ARE CONVINCED that the ‘pedestal’ women leaders in Papua New Guinea, who espouse demagogical rhetoric and make discriminatory speeches about the opposite sex at forums and courses for women from the highest echelons of society, are a wedge towards gender equality.
However most of them confuse gender equality with feminism. Their actions and speeches are usually and indelibly feminist and not about gender equality at all.
In any gender equality program men must be part and parcel of the program for some very obvious reasons.
Statistics tell us that men are the worst culprits when it comes to gender-based violence. Not only that, but men are currently in most positions of power at almost every level in PNG.
It seems that the United Nations Women and all the other UN entities use feminism in their approach rather than advocating gender equality.
For a start, if you visit any one of the UN offices in Port Moresby you will surely see more females employed than men. Any men there are usually only employed as drivers for the UN vehicles.
If you go to a workshop on HIV/AIDS in Thailand or Cambodia, for instance, almost all the program officers attending from across the Indian Ocean, Asia and the Pacific area are women.
This situation could lead one to believe that these programs and the gender advocates who go to them are half-baked.
Gender simply means the roles, responsibilities and relationships between men and women. Therefore gender also includes men who have sex with men, trans-genders and lesbians.
In contrast, feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic and social rights for women.
This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is ‘an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women only’.
It was obvious that the UN Women’s advocacy for the 22 nominated seats in the PNG parliament last year was part of a feminist movement.
Other useful programs, like primary education for all girls, personal female viability and life skills and men and boys training on the right way to treat women are much more vital programs for the betterment of women than the 22 nominated seats, which will only really serve a few lucky women.
Don’t tell me that it worked in Rwanda. Rwanda has just come out of a terrible genocide. Women were totally marginalised, raped and massacred during the genocide. Now there is currently a higher population of women than men. Their constitution allows for 24 reserved seats for women because of the ugly inhuman behaviour from their menfolk.
Malawi, Uganda, South Africa and Namibia all fund a plethora of large organisations that take the advocacy programs far and wide throughout the country, consistently changing people’s behaviour.
According to a report on a blog at WordPress.com, women occupy only 89 out of 535 seats in the US Congress (16.6%). This is below the world average, below the average of North America (18.7%), and below the average for high-income OECD countries (23.4%).
Even countries in the west where many of these barriers have been alleviated, representation is still much lower. If that is the case how does UN Women and its proponents expect PNG to cope with such a concept overnight?
By the way, let’s address the false perception that women are better leaders than men. It is a populist fallacy. Not all women are good leaders, just like all men are not good leaders.
For instance, in Australia in 1996, Pauline Hanson cast aspersions on Aboriginal people, blaming them for higher-than-average crime levels, and suggesting that they had privileged access to entitlements.
She rejected outright the proposition that Aborigines were the most disadvantaged group in Australian society. Hanson delivered a broadside against special programs of all kinds for Indigenous Australians.
Her most incendiary allegation was, ‘I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.’ She said that Asian migrants did not assimilate, formed their own ghettos and had their own religion and culture. Hanson also called for abolition of multiculturalism.
In the 2008 US presidential election, every time Hillary Clinton won primary or caucus votes Barack Obama got up there and congratulated her, but the opposite never happened. Clinton never congratulated Obama for winning the primaries or caucuses in any of the states.
Josephine Abaijah was the first woman to be elected to the PNG House of Assembly in 1972. She was re-elected in 1977 with Wariyato Clowes and Nahau Rooney and stood unsuccessfully for a third term in 1982.
Abaijah founded and led the Papua Besena Movement, which agitated unsuccessfully for Papua to become an independent country in its own right instead of being linked to New Guinea. If she had had her way Papua would have been an economic and social basket case in no time. She also absurdly expressed support for Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka’s military coup in Fiji in 1987.
Nahau Rooney was elected to Parliament in the post-independence general election of 1977. She was re-elected in 1982, becoming the only female Member of Parliament at that time, but was never subsequently returned to Parliament.
In 1977 Rooney served as Minister of Justice in Prime Minister Michael Somare’s cabinet. In 1979, during her term as minister, she wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kevin Egan, “urging intervention” in the case of politician and businessman John Kaputin being charged with failing to file company returns.
As a result, Egan had her sentenced to a nine month jail term for contempt of court. She was immediately released on license by Somare. She later served as Civil Aviation Minister.
Loujaya Toni has just dethroned a veteran politician and, according to media reports, before the excitement had settled, her pious SDA husband had knelt before senior male politicians and begged for wine and grog when the bars were closed, starting from Milne Bay to Port Moresby and up north to the Melanesian Hotel in Wopa Country.
Toni refused to talk to the journalists when she was probed about her husband’s behaviour. Why didn’t she stand her ground and tell the journalists that her husband needed counselling instead of hiding behind silence?
From this analysis, it is evident that being a male or female doesn’t make you a better leader. Individuals like Nelson Mandela, Aung San Kyi, Queen Elizabeth II, Enny Moaitz and Barack Obama are great leaders because of the principles they stand for, the decisions that they make and the actions that they take and not because of their sex.
International donors and development partners should advocate for basic primary and secondary education for all females, and males too.
In PNG large NGOs do not want to go to the Southern Highlands, Hela, Simbu, Enga, Western, Gulf and Sandaun Provinces. They prefer to sit comfortably in Port Moresby, Madang, and Lae and, if they like extend their branches to Milne Bay and East New Britain.
These are the signs and symptoms of organisations that are only half-hearted about helping our mothers, sisters and even our men in PNG and therefore they should be penalised.
In the programs get the culprits (men) to realise the benefits of having women educated and placed in strategic management positions. Ease out the blind funding organizations that step on each other’s toes in Port Moresby, Lae and Madang.
If this is done all else will unfold and soon educated and affluent women will find themselves elected to the PNG parliament on merit in droves and supported by their men folk.
Daisy, you are reading this article with one eye closed and therefore you threw a blanket over it and wrote 'heresy'.
All I am saying is in order for our mothers and sisters to progress, all stakeholders have to educate the MEN of the benefits of women's education and elevation.
Yet, you chose not to agree.
Its common sense, men are the cause of 90 per cent of the problems that women face.
Analogy: If the stakeholders want to extinguish the fire, they have to pour water on the ambers and flames, if they chose to pour water on the smoke, it will be a daunting task and the fire will still rage on.
Posted by: Kela Kapkora Sil Bolkin | 03 June 2015 at 06:45 PM
I know that I am kind of a late bus, but I just had to disagree with the author.
The author defined a feminist as someone who is ‘an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women only’.
That is only partly true.
We live in sexist society; sexist meaning one gender (male) is often favoured over the other.
For example; women are more likely to be victims of robberies, violence and sexual harassment simply because they are weaker than the men who perpetrate these crimes.
There are also more males in school, the parliament and are better paid then women. I could go on but I’ll stop there.
Feminism attempts to balance sexism by promoting women; this brings us to gender equality.
Feminism has three goals:
1. Point out historically women have been subordinate to men.
2. Demonstrate the importance of women.
3. And bring about gender equality.
So if the UN thinks they should employ more women, good. Because instead of being housewives, they are taking part in a role that is traditionally reserved for men; working. To me that’s gender equality.
I believe there should be more female parliamentarians. However, I do agree that the 22 reserved seats were a little too early for PNG.
Why? Because of the sexist notion held by many people that men are better leaders.
But what I like about the bill was that it got people like you thinking and writing about feminism and its goals.
Awareness and interest are important stages that people go through before behavior change.
And am I the only one who noticed that despite becoming educated and gender equality campaigns, men still think it’s OK to treat women as subordinates?
Furthermore, I for one appreciate the work of NGOs. The services they bring are privileges and not rights so I do not think they should be ‘penalized’ like the author mentioned.
Posted by: Daisy Pakawa | 03 June 2015 at 04:15 PM
The question of gender equality boils down to this, does identifying as male or female affect your access to equal participation in your society?
There are other inequalities that can be expressed within society such as those based on race, religion or sexual preference but the most obvious is gender based as it involves at least, around half of the population.
As for myself I don't want to live in a society where half of the populations' views and rights are implicitly considered less worthy than the other halfs simply based on which gender they are ascribed.
It would be like disregarding applicants for a job based on whether their last name started with a vowel.
I'm not saying the best leaders are female just that it would be foolish to think that a 'good' leader would be unlikely to be female.
Posted by: Yuambari Haihuie | 11 January 2013 at 05:27 PM
I'll give an analogy; The current programs on gender equality is structured in such a way that it gives the impression that the ovum itself with produce a child.
We are saying that it is impossible. The ovum will need a sperm cell to produce a child. Therefore all gender equality programs must involve men and boys too, simply because the problem is with the men. Including our MPs.
The UN Women and others should provide technical assistance and support to addressing men's participation in gender equality programs side by side with the opposite gender.
They should use innovative communication strategies to reach the bulk of the men through mass-media, community mobilization and interpersonal dialogue throughout the width and depth of this country to harness the support.
Posted by: Kela Kapkora Sil Bolkin | 10 January 2013 at 12:21 PM
Gender equality is a problem all over the world and true men need to work closely with women to address it.
And also good govertment is required to make it happen.
When will the true men stand up for women? If you do that the international NGOs will support you.
If you sit back and complain when women are trying to help themselves then what?
Posted by: Monica Paulus | 09 January 2013 at 03:29 PM
Yalwai Kela, This is a well researched paper. I enjoyed it. This could form a basis for more indepth discussion on gender advocacy and the feminist movements. I only wish those pollies and all those women who grumble much about these issues without really understanding what they are fighting for could read this. On that note, I really wish your paper should be published in our dailies so that it can generate more discussion from the wider community. My view is always orthodox/conservative, and really because I have spend far longer periods in the Hausman listening to my fathers than I have been with the cultured type we easily identify with these days. I have in me implanted readily made answers (ideologies) on issues such as role of women, role of men and now WIP (22 seats) which I am sure will never go down well with most in society. Of the 6 or 7 million PNGians, 75% would share my view. If they say they dont, they are lying to themselves, even those in the "know" bracket. It will take longer and only time will tell. No matter how much effort, money, policy etc the government and NGOs put into this, the status quo will not change,....can not change. The only essence is time; time will weather it down into its different elemental parts. Thank you.
Posted by: Mathias Kin | 07 January 2013 at 09:43 PM
Perhaps we are not being confident of our independence.
Of course the United Nations has no right to tell us what to do, but it does have the responsibility to lobby very strongly for womens rights and gender equality.
I believe the outcome that has been achieved is a big step forward for an essentially macho nation of PNG - we are all arguing about the rights, roles and responsibilities of gender.
Hopefully our leaders will help us to move on and make firm decisions about how we feel about this agenda, as a nation, and the best steps forward for us.
All we've done so far is throw one idea out and say that the status quo is good enough.
Women leaders beware: in this day and age standing still is moving backwards. Don't get left behind.
Posted by: Michael Dom | 06 January 2013 at 10:18 AM
Very confusing indeed. The UN and other feminist organizations should not force the nation of PNG to understand the gender issue overnight.
Just like any other nation on earth it will take time for those who are uneducated to understand the issue.
These various organizations should fund more adult literacy outreach programs into the rural areas to educate the population about the need to treat women equally because of the biological inequality and so on.
Posted by: Bernard Yegiora | 05 January 2013 at 07:19 PM
Kela, thank you for this very informative article. Your arguments seem to be sound, but I have the impression that someone better informed than I (and with more time on their hands) can make an appropriate rebuttal.
It is my belief that we are still not addressing the gender issue, only separating the issues of sexes and leadership history.
It is a given that leadership is not determined by our gonads. But let's be honest, in the PNG context most people would choose a male to be their leader even if the female was more capable.
But my fear is that women who may be very capable leaders will continue to be marginalized by a political system that is undeniably male dominated.
Regarding sex and gender; PNG statistics show almost 50/50 male female ratio, with the greater proportion being youth, i.e. leaders of tomorrow.
Consider that the female proportion of about 3 million is also made up of women who are also mothers. These women need voices in parliament who may be more inclined to defend their agenda because it is also forms a part of their personal experience.
The question remains; are we satisfied with the gender representation in our government system at all levels?
Other countries serve as examples, which have their own unique history associated with the political movement.
But the question of gender balance remains for PNG to answer.
And if the answer is 'no', then we still may need to find a suitable way forward.
The '22 seats' may not be what we are looking at, or agreeing to, or indeed able to realistically afford in government, but do we or do we not believe that greater gender representation is important?
Moreover, do we want to take an affirmative action to improve gender representation in all levels of government?
Posted by: Michael Dom | 05 January 2013 at 10:18 AM