Rebranding gender: Healing the fatigue

Gender mainstreaming fatigue

These days one needs to summon up a lot of courage to bring up the words “gender mainstreaming” at any kind of forum whatsoever. Before the audience even hears what you have to say about the topic, they already groan and mumble “Oh no, here we go again.” or you see their shoulders inadvertently dropping.

Although everyone knows the benefits and necessity of gender mainstreaming, many seem to have developed a fatigue about having to deal with the topic. Workshops organised on the topic, regardless of who organises it, are increasingly failing to attract audiences and dialogue partners.

However, ignoring gender mainstreaming by sticking our heads in the sand, does not take away the need to achieve gender justice in all aspects of societal development worldwide. We need to find out the obstructions to discussing gender mainstreaming and rebrand the concept to make it more socially acceptable.

A trend in no show audiences

In the last two months, we’ve attended two important conferences at which workshops were organised to discuss the lessons learned, challenges faced and the vision for gender mainstreaming in European bilateral capacity building programmes for developing countries.

At both conferences, all the important stakeholders were potentially present. Yet, at both conferences, the workshops attracted practically no-one! Participants all opted for other topics. At the first conference, one participant registered, but the workshop was cancelled because it would be meaningless to develop a strategy for the way forward without more stakeholders.

At the second conference, the only registered participants were four Dutch participants (including the authors), all of whom are gender experts in their own work domains. This workshop went ahead anyway, but it was like preaching to the converted. 

Refreshing the concept

In the end, while very interesting case studies were presented, the main conclusion was based on the stark absence of a real audience at the workshop. It was concluded that ‘gender mainstreaming’ needs rebranding. It has become clear that the potential stakeholders are not staying away because of a lack of commitment, but because of the way in which the concept has been furnished and implemented so far. 

Both the way we approach the topic and engage stakeholders and the name urgently need refreshing. Effective dialogue is being seriously hampered by the negative connotations that the term seems to have accumulated in the past.

Potential dialogue partners who can help achieve the objectives of the concept are being repelled by the term. We need to find a way of attracting them to re-engage in the dialogue again, but without the excessive amount of effort that we are currently having to invest.

Psychological obstacles

The first step in attracting dialogue partners from now on is to simply describe what the purpose and benefits are of a proposed meeting on the topic, without necessarily using the word ‘gender mainstreaming’. That should help remove the first psychological obstacle to capturing someone’s attention to the topic.

New approaches of engagement

Secondly, once the attention has been captured, we need to start engaging these partners differently than we have done in the past. The feministic and sometimes almost aggressive approaches of trying to force gender mainstreaming are not beneficial to the cause and only invoke resistance in some.

In addition, the objectives for promoting gender equality should resonate the experiences, wishes and socio-cultural context of the higher education institutions where the mainstreaming is being desired. This would greatly increase the success of gender mainstreaming and sustainability of the results.

Involving men

Furthermore, gender mainstreaming is not about women only and cannot be achieved by women only. Men, who may hold the key to successful mainstreaming in some cases, need to be engaged more, but in a way that works for them and prevents their defensiveness. 

Such defensiveness has been born out of the excessive focus on women’s vulnerability and portrayal as victims. Where there is a victim, there is a perpetrator, so the insinuation is that men are perpetrators. Lack of nuances in portraying this situation causes gender polarisation and some men may give up their efforts to contribute to the cause when these are not adequately acknowledged. It should not be a case of ‘us and them’, but of allies and cooperation.

The tendency to want to mainstream gender in ‘everything’ and all at once when carrying out institutional capacity building should also stop, since it can be overwhelming for some. Achieving gender equality requires cultural modifications and is, therefore, a long term process. Instead, gradual gains should be sought, particularly working with male allies who support gender equity and can champion the cause to other men. 

When such allies are not available, a subtle approach is best. This includes gradual sensitisation of resistant persons to the idea, over time and in a non-confrontational way.

It would be interesting to hear other ideas for rebranding ‘gender mainstreaming’ and the way forward. Any thoughts?