Development Archives

Equality and Effectiveness: Lessons Learned

About the Authors: Stephenie Foster is a Co-Founder and Partner at Smash Strategies, Yeva Avakyan is Associate Vice President, Gender Equality at Save the Children, and Kristin Kim Bart is Senior Director, Gender Equality, International Rescue Committee. All three are recognized experts in this field.

We recently participated on a panel marking the launch of Save the Children’s Gender Equality Hub. The Hub is a cross-functional team that has been established to oversee the development and implementation of Save the Children’s Gender Equality Strategy through collaborative, cross divisional efforts.

Each of us brought unique expertise on how to promote gender equality and empower women and girls. Collectively, our work spans the government, business, and non-profit sectors. Each sector is different, but we identified overarching lessons learned to increase the effectiveness of this work across sectors.

Why a focus on gender equality? In business and development, we ignore gender equality at our peril. While the term “gender” is often used interchangeably with “women and girls,” the terms are distinct. In short, gender equality is not just about women or girls, but about the different ways women and men experience their lives, have access to resources and take advantage of opportunities. A focus on gender broadens our perspective, so that policies and programs reflect these differential experiences and concentrates work on structural constraints to gender equality. Importantly, this helps us create systems and structures to promote equal opportunity and outcomes for everyone: women and men, boys and girls. It increases organizational effectiveness and helps ensure we use all of the talent available to solve problems and address challenges in a sustainable and durable way.

Here are some key lessons:

We must design, and operate, for change. Words aren’t enough. An organization needs to be purposeful in how it designs a gender strategy and implements it, and use this process to be clear about what success looks like. A gender equality strategy is relevant to both an organization’s internal operating environment and implementation of its outward facing work. It guides an organization’s substantive work to ensure that the differential impact of policies and programs is taken into account. Internal gender teams or working groups can help guide the work so that knowledge is shared within the organization, and the work isn’t siloed. These linkages between organizational and programmatic work ensure better coordination and implementation. Organizationally, gender mainstreaming across functions is important, but can dilute the focus on gender and decrease accountability for real change. It’s critical to ensure that there is a functional group (or person) that only focuses on gender, and helps hold the organization accountable. This helps ensure a sharp focus on gender equality doesn’t get lost along the way.
Organizational leadership is key. Commitment from the top sends a strong signal to others at every level of the organization that paying attention to gender is fundamental to success. But, that’s not enough. Leaders are needed at every level who are committed, and have the resources, financial and otherwise to integrate gender issues into the way the organization functions and to do their jobs. The organization’s leader should refer to gender issues or gender equality in public comments, on social media and during internal meetings throughout the year – not just around International Women’s Day in March. Attention to gender should be integrated into annual (or other) job evaluations so that everyone in the organization is held accountable for implementing a gender policy.
A vision about how a gender focus enhances organizational effectiveness is critical. In addition to a rights-based case for a focus on women and girls — and gender — it’s also important to make a case that focusing on gender translates into more effective policies and programs. In the economic sphere, the data is clear: When women’s participation in the labor force increases, GDP rises. When women start businesses, communities flourish. When women are promoted to senior management and appointed to corporate boards, companies do better. This compelling data is important to highlight and can provide an entry point to skeptics.
Meet people where they are. As a corollary, you will encounter organizational and individual roadblocks and skeptics. It’s important to understand that not everyone prioritizes the issue the way gender experts do. We need to listen to what people say and the concerns they raise, and respond in a way that respects their views. We won’t convince everyone (and there are some who will never be convinced), but it’s critical to make sure we use every opportunity to have this critical conversation and frame it in a way that moves people. Using data and research, and continuing to build the case for why a gendered approach matters using stories, as well as sex-disaggregated data and metrics, helps with these arguments. Sex-disaggregated data is fundamental. It examines differing needs, constraints, and opportunities for women/girls and men/boys. It provides the information to see if interventions are reducing gender disparities in access to, and control over resources, wealth, opportunities, and services, or increasing capability of women and girls to realize their rights and influence decision-making in the public sphere. You won’t know the differential impact of your programs if you don’t segregate the data.
Develop and customize training programs that are practical and help people do their jobs more effectively. Off-the-shelf tools and toolkits aren’t the only answer, but they help practitioners across disparate offices and locations get the start they need. More specialized, hands-on workshops where gender experts help the rest of the staff see how gender can be taken into account in their day-to-day tasks helps make the issue of gender manageable, and something that staff can relate to as they do their work.

Finally, we know it’s important to go beyond gender in recognizing that men or women are not homogenous groups. They have intersecting social identities of race, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, social class, physical ability among others. In doing a gender analysis, taking into account these intersecting inequalities is critical for understanding lived experiences, constraints and needs of different population groups. This is a long game, but worth every step. Making the case everyday — and in every meeting, forum and conversation — matters.

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Feminist?

This is a year of milestones for women: the 25th Anniversary of the Beijing Conference on Women, the 20th Anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, and the 100th Anniversary of women’s suffrage in the United States. In this context, Our Secure Future commissioned a poll of 1,500 registered voters in the U.S. to get a sense of how they view foreign policy decision-makers, whether they see themselves represented in that arena, and whether they consider themselves to be a feminist. The results illuminate some thinking on these issues and are useful to decision-makers and advocates alike as they develop and debate foreign and national security policy.

According to the poll, almost 60 percent of respondents do NOT think that those who have made U.S. foreign policy and national security decisions over the last decade generally share their beliefs and interests. 22 percent were unsure. Here are some more details:

There was a gap between women (55%) and men (64%).
There was a wider gap between Democrats (50%) and Republicans (67%)/Independents (64%).
There was an even wider gap between those who frequently watch MSNBC (44%) and Fox News (68%).
Surprisingly, a greater percentage of white respondents (62%) do not feel represented in U.S. foreign policy and national security institutions than black (49%) or Hispanic (51%) respondents.

The same poll showed that less than half (48%) of those surveyed think that women are sufficiently represented in the U.S. government when it comes to making decisions about foreign policy and national security. Additional details:

The largest gap was based on political party affiliation with 10 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of Republicans believing that women are sufficiently represented. Independents were split (42% yes/41% no)
There was also a gap between women (35%) and men (44%).
The widest gap was between those who frequently watch MSNBC (5%) and Fox News (74%).

The survey also found that party affiliation and age were affiliated with whether a respondent thinks of her/himself as a “feminist”.

59 percent of Democrats said they consider themselves a feminist (62% for frequent MSNBC viewers), but just 7 percent of Republicans and frequent Fox News viewers did.
50 percent of 18-34 year-olds said “yes” to the feminist label while 29 percent of those over 65 years did.
Black (47%) and Hispanic (49%) respondents were more likely to think of themselves as feminists than white ones (30%).

This information — while preliminary — can help guide discussions and provide background for work being done to advance policy proposals around Women, Peace and Security, and a more inclusive foreign policy.

Member Spotlight: Stephenie Foster

Q: What was the path that brought your attention specifically to Afghanistan, and to Afghan women in particular?

A: Afghanistan was always on my radar. I went to Afghanistan in 2011, for IFES, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, for a project that focused on an analysis of what had happened in the recent elections in Afghanistan with respect to outreach to women. The reason I wanted to do that project was because I had followed, obviously, what had gone on during the Taliban, and then what had happened from 2001 on. I had also spoken to some groups of Afghan women who had come to Washington on the International Visitor Leadership Program and had done a project with Vital Voices with a group of Afghan women parliamentarians in Istanbul. I was really struck by how dogged they were in trying to figure out how to move forward.

I’ve always had the view, because I’ve worked in a lot of countries, that we all face very different challenges; women in all these different countries, based on the culture and the context; but there is a lot of similarity. It always strikes me that, for all the differences, it all kind of comes down to the fact that we are working in structures that are developed by men and really for men. The question is how to help women break through that and try to get a place in those structures to change them. In some ways, Afghanistan is ground zero for thinking about how to really rebuild a society in a way that can be more gender-equal.

Q: What did your work with IFES in Afghanistan involve?

A: We were looking at how the election commission was structured in terms of its outreach to women as voters, and trying to ensure it had a plan to have enough female poll administrators, women to actually work at the polls, and enough security for female voters, and a whole range of issues around the ability of women to fully participate in the political system.

We were also looking at things like, where were women’s polling places situated? As you know, in Afghanistan, women and men tend to vote in different parts of the building, or actually, in different buildings entirely! I had worked in other places where women’s polling stations were very difficult to get to, and men’s polling stations were not. So, it was a really wide-ranging analysis of where the election commission could see places to improve, where they had done well, all around the issues of addressing Afghan women’s ability to participate in the electoral process.

Q: And after that you were at the US Embassy in Kabul?

A: Yes, I went to Kabul in 2012. I was there for about a year and a half and focused on outreach to women in civil society. As part of that, I was able to travel in Kabul, quite a bit, and around the country, meeting and talking with women who were active in politics, women who were building businesses and the Afghan Women’s Chamber of Commerce, women in higher education — most particularly at the American University of Afghanistan, and also at Kabul University — and women who were engaged in developing NGOs to provide services, such as in response to gender-based violence, or for needs in education and training.

As part of that, also, as I travelled and talked to people, I identified individuals who ought to meet with the Ambassador or others at the Embassy, or high-level visitors. We had a lot of those: we had the Secretary of State come, and we had several senators come fairly regularly. Part of what I was able to do was to ensure that as these people, very important decision-makers, were learning about the country, that they were also listening to women, who are actively building Afghan society.

Q: What impressed you the most as you were doing this?

A: A lot of the women were exceptionally inspiring. One thing I worked on when I was there, which Secretary Kerry talked about all the time when he talked about Afghanistan, was a sort of mini-bazaar that we would put on at the Embassy on the compound, comprised of eight woman-owned businesses or NGOs that were reflective of the work going on in the country. These were people who were dealing in a broad range of sectors, everything from trucking, to computer science, to import-export, to clothing manufacture and design, to light manufacturing. There were women making great strides in politics and education as well, not only in places like Kabul or other cities, but around the country.

Q: What did you do after that?

A: After I left Afghanistan, I went to the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues at the State Department, and worked for Ambassador Cathy Russell. I did oversee some of our work in Afghanistan, but also worked on women and politics more broadly: women and economic empowerment, women and security, and in regions in Africa, the Western hemisphere, and Europe. I worked on a broad range of issues and represented the US at multilateral forums such as ASEAN or the G7. It was a lot of different things, whether it was addressing sexual violence in conflict and looking to strengthen legal systems around that issue in countries that had been through conflict, or other things like the Equal Futures Partnership, which was a group of thirty countries that had committed to work on legal reform that could increase women’s political and economic participation in their countries. So, it was an opportunity to not only work on Afghanistan, but also to bring a lot of those other issues into the foreign policy discussion at the State Department.

Q: And what inspired you to launch Smash Strategies?

A: My business partner and I were both appointees in the Obama Administration, and, even before the election, we’d thought about pursuing a business model where we could really utilize the knowledge that we’d developed both within the U.S. government and also for many years before that, to advise companies and large non-profits on gender equality and women’s leadership. So, we launched the business in March of 2017. And we’ve been able to have a broad range of clients. We do a lot of different things for them depending on what they need. It can be anything from corporate social responsibility around women’s empowerment to how to get more women-owned businesses in their supply chains, to a more general strategy around reaching as customers. It’s also how to think about your workforce and ensuring that you have consistent values both internally and externally. Most of our clients — all of them I would say — have some global or regional impact; they are not, for the most part, just in the United States. So we are able to use the experience that we have gained globally to be able to better inform and give advice to these clients. I think what we have seen is that there is a tremendous appetite in both business and the non-profit and foundation sectors to really focus on gender equality and women’s leadership.

Q: What is your top wish or hope for Afghan women in 2020?

I hope that as Afghanistan engages in negotiations with the Taliban, or negotiations in any way, that women are fully at the table. That they are able to participate, to have their views heard, and to have a big impact, in order to really continue to protect the rights that they have, and to expand their ability to participate in Afghan society.

Toward a Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S. – a starting point

A new paper, Toward a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, was recently released. With the launch of Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy in 2014, Canada’s Feminist Foreign Assistance Policy in 2017 and France’s Feminist Foreign Policy in 2019, a group of Washington-based foreign policy experts and advocates for global gender equality came together over the course of three days in August to sketch out what such an effort might look like for the U.S. I was happy to take part in the gathering.

Our discussion built off of a research review of feminist foreign policy as expressed by other countries, ideas surfaced from consultations with more than 100 feminist activists from over 30 countries and a paper Smash Strategies recently released. This paper is much broader covering policy ideas in the following areas: diplomacy, defense, foreign assistance and trade, as well as in the cross-cutting issue areas of climate change and sexual and reproductive health and rights.

This paper is just a starting point. A final policy agenda will be refined through global consultations and input of additional experts and organizations, and will be published ahead of events marking the 25th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and resulting Declaration and Platform for Action. This document elucidates a vision for the highest standard of U.S. foreign policy that promotes gender equality, human rights, peace and environmental integrity. It includes a proposed definition, key principles and policy recommendations that will be expanded and refined over coming months.

Defining a Feminist Foreign Policy for the United States

A country’s foreign policy is a statement of its values and priorities. The implementation of foreign policy, across all of its various levers, is one demonstration of how a nation lives its values. Now more than ever, the United States needs a feminist approach—one that fundamentally alters the way the nation conducts itself, prioritizing the importance of diplomatic solutions, cooperating with allies and international institutions, embracing a progressive, inclusive and rights-based agenda, valuing the voices of the most marginalized and addressing racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic and patriarchal and/or male-dominated systems of power.

Foreign policy shapes how a government defines and prioritizes peace and security, structures trade, provides humanitarian aid and development assistance and works with other nations and non-state actors. Coherence across all aspects of foreign policy is paramount for a feminist approach; so too should coherence extend across domestic and foreign policy, with both embracing the same feminist values.

To clarify the goals of a feminist foreign policy and to promote coherence of a feminist approach across policy domains, the following draft definition is proposed:

Feminist foreign policy is the policy of a state that defines its interactions with other states, as well as movements and other non-state actors, in a manner that prioritizes gender equality and environmental integrity, enshrines the human rights of all, seeks to disrupt colonial, racist, patriarchal and male-dominated power structures, and allocates significant resources, including research, to achieve that vision. Feminist foreign policy is coherent in its approach across all of its levers of influence, anchored by the exercise of those values at home and co-created with feminist activists, groups and movements, at home and abroad.

Taking that as the guiding vision for feminist foreign policy, there are a number of key principles and policy recommendations that apply across the whole of the U.S. government.

Key Principles for U.S. Feminist Foreign Policy

Given the complicated legacy of U.S. global engagement as both a colony and colonizer, as well as its associated history of struggles for racial, gender and environmental integrity both at home and abroad, a number of key principles should underpin a U.S. feminist foreign policy.

First, human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights. U.S. foreign policy must respect the rights recognized by international and domestic law and should place itself on the side of those seeking to defend and expand the rights and freedoms of individuals and groups around the world.

Second, U.S. policy should be representative, inclusive, responsive and accountable to stakeholders. Foreign policy has traditionally been informed by patriarchal and discriminatory social norms and implemented through male-dominated institutions. A feminist approach demands gender parity in representation, as well as active commitment to gender, racial and other forms of diversity, equity and inclusion. A U.S. government commitment to diversity and inclusion should not exclusively focus on rhetoric and internal processes, but also on the impact of its policies and public-private partnerships on diverse communities. As such, this principle includes a government-wide commitment to consultation with civil society and feminist movements outside of government, including and especially in the Global South.

Third, a feminist foreign policy should take an intersectional approach to feminism. This is an approach that takes into account and seeks to address the multiple and often intersecting forms of discrimination such as gender, race, age, class, socioeconomic status, physical or mental ability, gender or sexual identity, religion or ethnicity.

Fourth, a feminist foreign policy should promote and protect bodily autonomy. Recognizing that the oppression of women and gender-nonconforming individuals has traditionally been expressed in the regulation and restriction of bodies and rights, a feminist approach would model its inverse, starting with the basic principle of bodily autonomy. A feminist approach embraces sexual and reproductive health and rights, which according to the Guttmacher Institute is defined as: “A state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to all aspects of sexuality and reproduction, not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction, or infirmity. Therefore, a positive approach to sexuality and reproduction should recognize the part played by pleasurable sexual relationships, trust and communication in promoting self-esteem and overall well-being. All individuals have a right to make decisions governing their bodies and to access services that support that right.” This approach should also enshrine bodily autonomy, which the Blueprint for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice defines as: “Achieving the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health and rights is based on the fundamental human rights of all individuals to: have their bodily integrity, privacy and personal autonomy respected; freely define their own sexuality; decide whether and when to be sexually active; choose their sexual partners; have safe and pleasurable sexual experiences; decide whether, when and whom to marry; decide whether, when and by what means to have a child or children and how many children to have; and have access over their lifetimes to the information, resources, services and support necessary to achieve all the above, free from discrimination, coercion, exploitation and violence.”

Fifth, environmental integrity. Here, environmental integrity is defined as the sustenance of biophysical processes that support all living organisms, by protecting diversity, ecological functions and resilience of all ecosystems. Climate change erodes human freedoms and limits choice. However, the impacts of climate change are not felt equally. Climate change affects everyone, but women and men experience the impacts differently, and women are often disproportionately negatively affected. Women, compared to men, often have limited access to resources, more restricted rights, limited mobility and a muted voice in shaping decisions and influencing policy. Climate change can also impact security, particularly for those who are already most vulnerable in a society, often women, girls, gender minorities and LGBTQIA+ persons, those with disabilities and most especially those with intersecting marginalized identities. Threats related to the climate crisis generally viewed as a “threat multiplier- a phenomenon that can worsen or exacerbate other sources of instability and conflict, such as competition for natural resources and ethnic tensions.” By way of just one example, following extreme climate-related flooding in Bangladesh, child marriage rates soared. All efforts to adapt to and mitigate climate change must include specific protections for and acknowledgment of the harm to communities of color, indigenous peoples and other frontline and marginalized communities around the world, while seeking to address gender inequality.

Cross-Cutting Recommendations for Implementation of Key Principles

There are five cross-cutting elements that are necessary to advance feminist foreign policy across the whole-of-government: (1) High level leadership with mandate to promote feminist foreign policy; (2) Commitment to gender parity, diversity and inclusion both internally, among leadership and staff, and externally, co-created with feminists outside government; (3) Training and capacity-building to ensure robust implementation; (4) Gender analysis underlying all aspects of foreign policy; and (5) Adequate resourcing to ensure all of the above.

Following this in the paper, specific policy recommendations are made for each of the major levers of foreign policy—aid, trade, diplomacy and defense. This is not yet a complete policy package; additional consultations and efforts will augment, refine and supplement this opening salvo over the course of ensuing months. However, it is a solid start.

If you are interested in taking part in an upcoming consultation or would like to send written feedback, please contact me at smash@smashstrategies.com.

Operationalizing a Feminist Foreign Policy – Recommendations for the U.S. Government

This document focuses on how to operationalize a new feminist foreign policy within the U.S. context. The complete document can be found HERE. Current events and conversations challenge us to consider a new way of thinking. They take place at a unique time when the U.S. leadership role is being transformed in part due to the rise of China and other powers. The use of cyber weapons, the greater role of non-state actors, and the ability of technology to give citizens access to their governments and demand greater transparency are upending the way diplomacy works. Further, the Trump Administration has thrown away the rule book by antagonizing allies, pulling out of international accords, and shattering traditional foreign policy thinking. It has “hyper-masculinized” the U.S. approach to national security. Finally, Sweden’s groundbreaking adoption of a feminist foreign policy has spurred a deeper consideration of how a feminist policy applies in other countries.

As we ground the principles of human rights and equality in foreign and national security policy, we must envision how a country as unique as the United States with a bureaucracy as large as the U.S. government can turn these ideas into practice. These recommendations will help the U.S. foreign policy establishment actors and officials promote gender equality, defend human rights, and protect fundamental freedoms by addressing power imbalances, utilizing gender analysis to increase the range of issues and solutions considered, increasing the number of feminist voices promoting gender equality, and increasing the number of women leaders.

CHANGE THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
In envisioning a feminist foreign policy, it is important to note the unique role of the United States and its large footprint in global economic and political affairs. The US federal government is large and complex. With a population of 327 million people, the U.S. government employs over 2 million people,14 includes 15 executive departments or agencies, and has an annual budget of about $4 trillion. There must be thought given to how to best integrate this policy across the executive branch agencies. Further, the coordination mechanism, and the individual leading that work, must be at the highest level and only dedicated to implementing this policy.

Example: There have been far-reaching structural changes made in the US government in the past. Following the attacks on the United States in September 2001, President Bush established the Department of Homeland Security, transforming the federal government by combining 22 federal departments and agencies into a unified cabinet agency to respond to threats. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was created by Congress in 2004 to apply a new approach to U.S. foreign aid.

HOLD INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNTABLE
As part of transforming government institutions, the people implementing policy need to change the way they do business. Promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment should be a shared responsibility of all who work in foreign policy and national security: staff, contractors, military members, and appointees. This work must be championed by leaders, carried out at every level, and not only be the purview of “gender offices” and “gender experts.” Performance evaluations and promotion criteria should be changed to reflect this priority.

Example: Promoting women’s empowerment and equality is not new to the US government. At USAID, the 2013 Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy set forth the policy’s goals and principles and included roles and responsibilities for all of its staff, including the regional, functional, and administrative offices in Washington and in the field. Moreover, Gender 101, a mandatory online training course, was launched to increase the understanding of gender in development. Every USAID staff person involved in the program cycle was required to take it within their first two years of employment.

DIVERSIFY REPRESENTATION
As noted above, there are not currently enough women in senior-level positions. Given the slow speed at which the number of women in foreign policy and national security is growing, US government institutions should consider the following to reach gender balance. The President must commit to a gender-balanced cabinet and instruct the head of each executive branch agency that she wants a gender balance in political appointees at every level.

An overhaul of the civil service and foreign service recruitment and selection processes is needed to more easily recruit and promote qualified women already working in think tanks. Nongovernmental organizations and other parts of the government should focus on increasing the number of women in leadership positions across foreign policy and national security fields, including arms control, counter-terrorism, intelligence and analysis, and military strategy.

Example: Increasing the number of women in leadership is possible. During Secretary of State John Kerry’s tenure, one of the two Deputy Secretaries was a woman; the majority of Undersecretaries were women, and all but one of the regional Assistant Secretaries were women.

ENSURE INPUT FROM THOSE AFFECTED
Beyond the women who work for the U.S. government, foreign policy and national security decision-makers must listen to, and consider, the voices and views of those most affected. By consistently reaching out and listening to these individuals and organizations, these professionals will have a better understanding of not only how actions and interventions will affect people but how those actions will be perceived. This can build stronger relationships at the grassroots level that are not tied to those in power, who often say what they think the US government wants to hear or diminish flash points that should be factored into decisions. Memos and reports must include the perspectives of those outside of government and powerful elite.

Example: There are fierce internal battles about how the principals and other high-level US government officials spend their time, especially when they travel. As a result, whom they meet with has a disproportionate impact on how they understand a place or an issue. On Secretary Kerry’s first trip to Afghanistan as Secretary of State, he met a group of eight Afghan businesswomen. After that, his speeches often recounted those interactions as a basis for reaffirming the importance of Afghan women to the future of the country.

PRIORITIZE INFORMATION AND INTELLIGENCE
Those who provide analysis for the intelligence community, and others in the foreign policy and national security agencies, must make it a priority to gather information about what is happening in a country with respect to women and other gender issues. Incorporating a gender analysis provides a broad and deep understanding of the situation. Beyond the standard “F” indicators at the U.S. State Department, there must be new ways to measure accountability regarding the participation of women in security, political, and economic processes; track US government budget expenditures to implement feminist foreign policy; and measure outcomes. Collecting sex-disaggregated data allows issues to be seen, measured, and addressed.

Example: Through its gender policy, adopted in 2006, the MCC requires that gender issues and metrics are integrated throughout the threshold and compact cycle, from the initial country selection and assessment to the development and design of programs, project implementation, the monitoring of program results, and evaluation of program impacts. More recently, the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation has started to apply a gender lens to all its investment projects to help ensure women will benefit.

INCREASE RESOURCES
Along with setting a new policy framework, it is critical that there are sufficient funds and other resources to support the implementation of these laws and policies. This includes funds to hire specific gender experts as well as educating all US foreign service, development, and military professionals about this policy framework. This means everything from equal access to development assistance for women and men, to increasing the number of women in security forces abroad by funding slots for women in professional foreign military education. This all costs money and takes time. The US government, both the executive and legislative branches, must be willing to put the needed resources toward this new way of doing business.

Example: Successful and lasting initiatives are backed by resources. The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is widely considered the most consequential initiative ever launched against HIV/AIDS. Through 2017, the United States had spent more than $70 billion on PEPFAR activities, dwarfing that spent by other donors to eradicate HIV/AIDS.

UTILIZE TECHNOLOGY
The use of technology, from social media to online banking, is transforming the lives of millions of people in developing and high-risk parts of the world. It can deliver information, connect people, and close gender gaps in information and employment. Like any other tool, technology used for foreign policy will not be as efficient or effective without planning that ensures a diverse set of users has access to the technology and frameworks that collect usable and informative data.

In the foreign policy arena, technology can help us gather data and information and analyze it in a way that informs policy decisions. This can encompass the use and collection of both macro-level data (i.e., about changes caused by climate change) and micro-level data (i.e., about the incidence of violence).

Example: New technologies have been used by the government through the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, which makes it possible for technologists to take on temporary projects within government to help agencies take advantage of technological advances.

We are at an inflection point both within the United States and in the world. Rethinking U.S. foreign and national security policies is critical to restructuring the role of the United States as a global leader and to creating a safer and more stable world. These policies will be more effective if we infuse them with the principles outlined in this paper. This paper provides a road map for those within the U.S. government to operationalize a feminist foreign policy.

Hitting the Road: Women and Entrepreneurship

52 women (and one man) from 53 countries. 11 cities. 21 days.

It’s not. It’s a snapshot of the itinerary for a recent U.S. State Department International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), organized by Meridian International Center, to promote women and entrepreneurship. These 53 leaders were from Algeria to Zimbabwe and everywhere in between.

The participants were entrepreneurs, directors of business accelerators and non-governmental organizations supporting women in business, corporate executives, government officials, and academics. All play a role in their country’s efforts to support women entrepreneurs, whose enterprises contribute substantially to economic growth and poverty reduction.

I met with the group in Washington, DC both at the beginning of their visit to the U.S. and when they returned from travel to cities as diverse as Kansas City, Missouri; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Pensacola, Florida. At the first session, they talked with each other about their role in the ecosystem of entrepreneurship and in supporting women entrepreneurs. They shared views about the fundamentals for advancing successful women’s entrepreneurship and business and how to ensure that more women have access to the tools they need to succeed. They each outlined their goals and objectives to maximize the IVLP for themselves, their business or organization, and their community. They listed the types of contacts and skills they wanted to gather as well as the types of policies and innovations that interested them, such as accessing supply chains, meeting angel investors and talking with successful women entrepreneurs.

We met again when they returned from their intensive program outside of Washington, DC. They talked about what impressed or surprised them, whether the IVLP changed their perspectives, and what new individuals and organizations they would connect with upon their return home. (Side note: they also talked about how their packing and unpacking skills had improved.)

They each had a unique experience, but overall, several things stood out:

Globally, women entrepreneurs face common challenges. The most common takeaway was that women, particularly women business owners, across the world face similar issues. Participants were struck by how their everyday challenges were similar to those faced by their fellow participants from different countries and by women in the U.S. Bottom line, since there is so much we have in common, there is much we can learn from each other.
Support systems and women’s networks matter. The IVLP participants met with organizations supporting women entrepreneurs and providing platforms for women business owners to connect. This strategic networking and relationship building is critical to business development, and to business success and growth. Many took away lessons about the types of organizations and platforms that exist in the U.S. for developing connections and business opportunities, as well as for helping women learn how to be effective networkers. While in DC, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) organized a roundtable with pioneers and leaders in building strong environments for women’s businesses. In Charlotte, NC, the group met with the National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO), which gives U.S. women business owners a place to organize as an economic and advocacy force.
Broader policy support for women and girls is critical to economic empowerment and opportunity. Women can’t succeed as entrepreneurs if they can’t stay in school, learn critical thinking and financial literacy skills, or make their own life decisions. In several countries represented, child marriage is prevalent and the women participants are committed to changing that reality, as they see its negative impact on women’s economic futures. In the countries represented, most decision-makers are men and women are subject to restrictive laws that create barriers to business success, such as those that restrict women’s ability to get credit or have access to child care and family leave. The participants focused on the importance of advocating for changes in these laws and policies as well as those that narrowly target barriers to entrepreneurship.
Government support of women’s entrepreneurship makes a difference. Participants were struck by the critical role that government in the U.S., at every level, plays in supporting women and business. This includes advocacy around increasing the allocation of government contracts and procurements set aside for women-owned businesses, and regulatory reforms that increase access to capital and markets for businesses.

These 53 leaders — representing almost one-third of the world’s countries — are already successful. The purpose of the IVLP, and their exposure to what is happening here in U.S, is to ensure that they become force multipliers. From my viewpoint, I have little doubt that will be the case.

Gender vs. Women’s Empowerment in Development

In many discussions, the term “gender” is often used interchangeably with “women and girls.” These concepts both get at gender norms and roles, but are different. Here’s a overview of these terms and how they differ. In short, we’ve learned that gender equality is are not just about women or girls, but about the different ways women and men experience their lives, have access to resources and can take advantage of opportunities. It broadens our perspective, so that policies and programs take into account those differential experiences of women and men, and address structural constraints to gender equality. Importantly, taking gender into account also encourages programs to include men and boys – political, business and religious leaders as well as husbands, brothers and fathers – because their gender or social roles will also change.

While “sex” refers to the biological characteristics that define us as female or male, “gender” refers to the economic, political, and cultural attributes and opportunities associated with being male or female. How gender is defined varies among cultures and changes over time.

Gender equality is the concept that all human beings, both men and women, are free to develop their personal talents and abilities and make life choices without the limitations set by stereotypes, rigid gender roles, or prejudices. It does not mean that women and men are the same, but that their rights, responsibilities, and opportunities should not depend on whether they are born male or female.

The role of women and the idea of “gender equality” in development has changed over time. For a very long time, development programs did not take sex or gender into account. Commodities or services, such as food, healthcare or education, were provided by richer countries to developing ones without attention paid to the characteristics of the beneficiaries.

A few decades ago, discussions and program implementers began to take into account that women might have different needs than men and/or might prioritize assistance in a different way. An example — for a long time rice was distributed around the world in 50 lb bags. While most men could haul the bags onto their backs and carry them home, the weight made collection of this food almost impossible for women. A simple change, made at women’s request, made the bags of rice lighter so that women could transport them.

Next, development organizations began to consider how men and women benefited from their programs. For instance, asking if both boys and girls were able to attend school, and what the barriers might be if there weren’t equal attendance rates. Or, if an agriculture program was teaching how to improve crop yields, were both male and female farmers benefiting from that knowledge. If all of the intended beneficiaries were not being reached or the outcomes were not being reached as planned, implementers started asking questions.

In the last ten years, technical experts have moved from a focus on women to gender. What was acknowledged was that in order to “empower” women, their social or gender roles had to change. For example, if the aim of a program is to create more women business owners in order to increase her family’s income and move them out of poverty, then the program cannot focus solely on the female entrepreneurs-to-be. Training women about how to start and run a business is key, no doubt, but the program must also take into account the local laws that prevent women from having access to credit, and, very importantly, how her income will create a new balance of power within her home. We now know that when a woman, a wife, earns her own income it can change the gender roles of both the woman and her husband. If a women begins contributing to family income (when she didn’t before), this can make her husband feel shame that he cannot solely support his family and lead to an increase in violence against her. And the same is true when women learn more about how their bodies function, play a greater role in politics or even stay in school a few more years.

The United States government, particularly the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has kept abreast of this growing field of gender and development just as it has with other technical fields, gaining new knowledge and improving its programs to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars more efficiently as it ends extreme poverty. USAID collaborates with other governments, private companies and implementing partners to know more and do better for women around the world.

While the gap between the number of boys and girls in primary school has been eliminated, the number of women in elected office has increased and the number of women in the formal workforce is higher than it has ever been, now is a good time to remind ourselves about the importance of these issues, how we arrived at this moment and the need to continue this critical work.

SDG Five, Target Three

Within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or Global Goals, Goal 5 is to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. For Goal 5, there are nine targets. In this, we will focus on SDG5 Target 3: Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation.

Unfortunately, data on these critical issues is not regularly collected in the United States. While we believe that less than 5 percent of girls in the United States are married before the age of 16 and that female genital mutilation is rare or limited to ethnic minority enclaves, we do not know for sure.

Early, Forced and Child Marriage: At the federal level, there is no law against child, early and forced marriage because laws on the age of marriage in the United States are set at the state level. Twenty-seven states have no minimum age for marriage; four states allow girls as young as 13 or 14 years old to marry; and in many states, 16 and 17 year olds can marry with parental consent alone. According to data compiled by Unchained At Last, at least 207,468 minors married in the U.S. between 2000 and 2015. This likely does not reflect the breadth of the issue because ten states provided no or incomplete statistics. A few other nuances:

Eight-seven percent of the minors who married across the country between 2000 and 2015 were girls, with the majority aged either 16 or 17.
More than 1,000 children aged 14 or under were granted marriage licences. (Source)

There have been some advocacy campaigns to set or increase the age of marriage at the state level to match the age of consent for sex. However, in 2017, the Governor of New Jersey rejected legislation that would have banned marriage before age 18, without exceptions. “An exclusion without exceptions would violate the cultures and traditions of some communities in New Jersey based on religious traditions,” the Republican governor wrote. (Source)

Globally, one third of girls in the developing world are married before the age of 18 and one in nine are married before the age of 15. In 2012, 70 million women aged 20-24 had been married before the age of 18. If present trends continue, in the next ten years, 150 million girls will be married before their 18th birthday. While countries with the highest prevalence of child marriage are concentrated in Western and Sub-Saharan Africa, due to population size, the largest number of child brides reside in South Asia. (Source)

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): A federal law making it illegal to perform FGM was passed in 1996, and was amended in 2013 to make it illegal to knowingly transport a girl out of the U.S. to inflict FGM abroad. Since 1990, the estimated number of girls and women in the U.S. who have undergone or are at risk of the practice has more than tripled. This increase is due to rapid growth in the number of immigrants from countries where FGM is a common practice. These girls and women are concentrated in California, New York and Minnesota. Though at-risk girls and women are thought to live in every state but Hawaii, only 25 states have enacted laws against FGM. Prosecution under these laws depends on the age of the victim; who performed the procedure; whether the victim was taken out of the country for FGM; and, whether the accused uses cultural reasons as a defense. Punishments include as much as 30 years in prison and fines that reach $250,000. The first prosecution in the U.S. did not occur until 2017 when two Michigan doctors and the wife of one of the doctors were charged with performing the banned procedure on two 7-year-old girls. (Source) There has been some discussion about more formal data collection about the incidence of FGM in the U.S. with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Globally, an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone FGM in the countries where the practice is concentrated. Furthermore, there are an estimated 3 million girls at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation every year. The practice has been documented in 30 countries, mainly in Africa, as well as in the Middle East and Asia. Some forms of FGM have also been reported in other countries, including among certain ethnic groups in South America. (Source)

SDG Five, Target One

Within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or Global Goals, Goal 5 is a stand alone goal focused on achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls. There are nine targets for Goal 5.

Here, we will focus on SDG5, Target 1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.

It is important to examine the U.S. legal framework that the U.S. to achieve gender parity, as well as the gaps that exist in that framework. While the U.S. does have both federal and state laws and policies to address discrimination based on sex or gender, there is not a comprehensive or constitutional framework for gender equality.

The first gap is that the U.S. is not a party to CEDAW, The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women which is often described as an international bill of rights for women, and was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly. CEDAW has been ratified by 189 states. There are only six other UN member states that have not ratified CEDAW: Iran, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, Togo and the Vatican.

President Jimmy Carter signed CEDAW in 1980, but despite numerous advocacy campaigns, the U.S. Senate has not yet ratified CEDAW. When ratifying the Convention, countries commit to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms. CEDAW is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women, and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations. Countries that have ratified or acceded to the Convention are committed to submit national reports, at least every four years, on measures they have taken to comply with their treaty obligations.

Further, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution has not been ratified. The ERA would ensure that rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply equally to everyone, regardless of their sex. After the 19th Amendment affirming women’s right to vote was ratified in 1920, suffragist leader Alice Paul introduced the ERA in 1923. In 1972, the ERA was passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. The original seven-year time limit was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at that deadline, the ERA had been ratified by only 35 states, three states short of the 38 required to amend the Constitution. The ERA has been re-introduced in every Congress since the deadline.

Another framework for the U.S. to consider is an overarching national plan to advance gender equality. Such a plan would provide guidance to help the government, in conjunction with non-governmental organizations, strategically work towards greater equality. The U.S. government already has several gender oriented action plans, such as the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, which outlines how U.S. foreign assistance programs will help other countries increase women’s leadership, and the Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence. What’s needed is a concerted effort to knit these strategies together with other strategies and plans to advance the empowerment of women and girls, so that work is driven toward one set of goals.

This would complement the many, individual pieces of legislation focused on ending discrimination against women in the U.S.

The Equal Pay Act (1963) made it illegal for employers to pay men more than women performing the same job.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, or ethnic origin.
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) (1968) prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on sex among other characteristics.
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act (1972) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs.
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) (1974) guarantees an equal opportunity to obtain credit and prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of sex among other characteristics.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978) prohibits employment discrimination against female workers who are (or intend to become) pregnant, including discrimination in hiring, failure to promote, and wrongful termination.
The Affordable Care Act (2010) stopped the discriminated by insurance companies against women in coverage and cost, however, that provision, among others, may be repealed.

Looking at the big picture, these laws in the U.S. are a patchwork and gaps, such as with political representation, remain.

Overall, the United States ranks 49th out of 144 countries with regard to the gender-based gaps that exist in access to economic resources and opportunities, according to the 2017 World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap report. There are ongoing advocacy efforts to have the U.S. ratify CEDAW and pass the ERA and send it back to the states for ratification.

Using Soft Power is Not a Hard Choice

Effective U.S. foreign engagement is based on both soft and hard power. Soft power – winning hearts and minds — helps shape global public opinion about the United States, showcases our values, core beliefs, and aspirations, and highlights who we are as a people. Soft power is about diplomacy, both public and private, providing development assistance and aid, and facilitating direct exchanges and interactions between people. Military leaders, charged with the responsibility for hard power, acknowledge that soft power goes hand in hand with the tools they wield. In 2013, now Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis now famously said “[i]f you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.”

What is soft power? Besides governments talking to each other in formal and informal settings, soft power is comprised of programs and policies that have an impact on people’s lives. Examples include PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), President George Bush’s signature initiative to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS; the prestigious Fulbright program, which for 71 years has brought scholars to the U.S. and sent American scholars abroad to teach and study; and our role in providing humanitarian assistance to countries in crisis. We do this work, and so much more, spending only one percent of our federal budget. The impact is real, though sometimes difficult to measure and quantify, and a critical long-term investment in our global stature and role as a nation with values that others want to emulate.

I have seen first-hand how this makes a difference. I spent the last five years at the U.S. Department of State, working to bring a focus on women and girls into US foreign policy. I served at the US Embassy in Kabul, where we helped women learn entrepreneurship skills, girls go to school, and ensure woman had better access to maternal health services. When I returned to the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues in Washington, DC, we did this same work – empowering women politically, economically and socially – because it builds strong societies, increases stability and prosperity, and because it reflects our core values of inclusion, utilizing talent, and our interest in stability and fighting extremism.

I watched John Kerry meet with women business leaders from every corner of the globe; advocate for ways to end sexual violence in conflict; and encourage women and girls to fully participate in every aspect of their lives. This type of engagement – from the Secretary of State on down — promotes our values and beliefs, as well as approaches to problem solving that we have seen work at home. This happens everywhere, and using every possible platform. Whether it is working with China on how to address domestic violence, Malawi on ensuring that girls can access education, Liberia on developing a strong rule of law and legal system, or Vietnam on how to build job skills, these engagements matter. We not only help others, we help ourselves, building good will, understanding and working with leaders who will be influential in their countries for years to come.

We need soft power – and we need to wield in constantly, everywhere and with a strong voice about who we are. Living in a secure and stable world is important to every U.S. citizen. The more people know about us, and about what we stand for, the better able we are to participate in the global public square, and convince others to join us.