gender Archives

Gender Equality is Fundamental to Promoting Democracy

The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meeting that concluded in late March was focused on the theme of “Women’s full and effective participation and decision-making in public life.” Importantly, at CSW, Vice President Kamala Harris emphasized the key connection between women’s leadership and strong democratic government: “The status of women is the status of democracy. The status of democracy also depends fundamentally on the empowerment of women, not only because the exclusion of women in decision-making is a marker of a flawed democracy, but because the participation of women strengthens democracy.”

Indeed, gender equality strengthens democracy. Research and on-the-ground experience shows that democratic institutions such as government ministries, elected decision-making bodies, political parties, and civil society organizations are stronger with gender equality. All must include women’s voices. But the world has a long way to go on this front. In national legislative bodies, 22 percent of parliamentarians, and 20 percent of parliamentary speakers, are women. Furthermore, women hold only 10 percent of political party leadership positions.

As Harris noted, women’s political participation results in tangible gains for democracy. This includes greater responsiveness to citizen needs and increased cooperation across party and ethnic lines. Women’s meaningful participation in politics affects the range of issues considered and the types of solutions proposed. Countries with high marks on civil rights and political liberties have higher proportions of women in national legislatures than countries with low marks. Higher numbers of women political leaders also correspond with higher standards of living, better outcomes in access to education, infrastructure and health, and more responsive government.

In addition to bringing their lived experiences to policymaking, women tend to work in less hierarchical, more participatory and more collaborative ways. Globally, women lawmakers are perceived as more honest and responsive than male counterparts, qualities that encourage confidence in institutions.

Gender Equality and Democratic Principles

There is a global movement to infuse foreign policy and national security with a gender lens. To date, feminist foreign and/or development policies have been adopted by the governments of Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Luxembourg, and Mexico. Current feminist foreign policy discussions encompass many issues, including climate change, global health, and food security. Missing from much of this discussion is the importance of democratic institutions and governments.

There has been recent, growing advocacy in the U.S. on feminist foreign policy. Some practitioners are focused on incremental change, while others are more radical. The Biden administration has announced several policies and institutional changes which align with proposals from advocates: a White House Gender Policy Council, a commitment to diversity of political appointments, and robust civil society consultation. This emphasis on gender is in contrast to a focus on solely women and girls and a critical step toward institutionalizing structural change.

The following principles provide a framework for progress and are linked to a widening global conversation on feminist foreign policy. They are critical to advancing both gender equality and strong democratic governance.

Representation in politics and public life. As noted above, women are vastly underrepresented in political office and democratic institutions. Yet, beyond increasing the number of women, more feminist voices—men and women—need to champion gender equality in public life. Not every woman is a feminist; not every person with a feminist voice is a woman. Last month, the Violence Against Women Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives with the support and sponsorship of both male and female House members.
Participation and input from those affected by policies. Over the last decade, many governments have focused on responsiveness to citizens’ needs, but often these efforts have been gender-blind. Decision-makers must consider more feminist and women’s voices to better understand the impact of policies and how those policies are perceived. During the 2014-2016 Ebola crisis in West Africa, local women’s organizations identified community needs and informed elected leaders about the health situation in their districts and how best to respond.
Accountability and transparency. A more open government can accelerate gender equality and close critical gaps in information, access, and participation when the experiences of women and girls are taken into account. Elected and appointed leaders, women and men, must prioritize the collection, reporting, and sharing of sex-disaggregated data at every level of government. Kenya’s public procurement policy, for example, reserves 30 percent of government contracts for women, youth, and persons with disabilities.

The overlapping of these joint principles has not always been acknowledged. Doing so would strengthen the movements for both gender equality and for democracy. Funders and implementers of democracy promotion should insist on gender equality as a core democratic principle, while those advocating for feminist foreign policy intentionally work for its implementation through democratic systems and institutions.

Feminist Foreign Policy and Democracy Promotion

In addition to the shared principles above, feminist foreign policy and democracy promotion programs both seek to address structural constraints to equality and correct power imbalances, but those working on the issues often do not see them as related or mutually reinforcing. This is an opportunity to make that connection. Women’s leadership is indeed critical to strong institutions, and electoral quotas have been used to increase women’s access to political decision-making. However, increasing women’s participation or leadership is no longer enough.

As we look forward to a Global Democracy Summit, a declared priority of the Biden administration, the summit’s agenda as well as democracy assistance programs must address gender equality, structural barriers, and power.

First, structural change is needed because civil society organizations, election management bodies, political parties, and governing institutions are unwelcoming to women in many aspects of their day-to-day operations, procedures, and internal cultures. Often, these institutions are structured and operated in a way that is intended, in fact, to protect male incumbents rather than to serve their members and citizens well. For instance, candidate qualifications, such as education level, while gender neutral, disproportionately disqualify women seeking to run. Also, current democracy assistance programming focuses almost exclusively on the training and capacity-building of individual women and the development or strengthening of entities such as legislative caucuses or women’s wings of political parties.

With both a democracy promotion and feminist foreign policy lens, structural changes would include an assessment of and changes to the formal and informal ways civil society organizations, election management bodies, political parties, and governing institutions function. That would include how they handle staffing, share information, and schedule meetings and votes.

Second, power imbalances between men and women, as well as between dominant decision-makers and other marginalized groups such as youth, ethnic and religious minorities, and rural citizens, must be addressed. Current democracy assistance programs almost exclusively include the easiest-to-reach and most eager individual participants, who often have attended many foreign government-funded workshops and meetings.

Conversely, applying both a democracy promotion and feminist foreign policy perspective, outreach and programming would focus on those who are most impacted by government policy (or the lack or abuse of it) and heard from the least. Further, grassroots organizations would receive long-term support to build sustainable movements, which is not current standard practice. The Equality Fund in Canada, a partnership between the government and the private sector, directly funds communities of activists to advance their own solutions to improve women’s rights and gender equality in their own contexts.

This is the time to bring together work on women’s empowerment, gender equality, and democracy promotion. A feminist foreign policy is a framework for transforming how the U.S. government supports democracy abroad and addresses power imbalances that serve as barriers to women’s leadership.

This column originally appeared in Just Security.

Robust Gender Analysis Will Be Key to Effective US Policy Development

As the Biden-Harris administration begins to develop and implement gender-focused policies across the federal government, it is a good time to deepen commitments to gender equality in policymaking, and fully empower the White House Gender Policy Council. In foreign policy and national security, this means both implementing existing requirements for gender analysis across the relevant agencies and ensuring that those requirements apply to all government decision-making.

Current Legal Framework for Gender Analysis

There are currently three laws that mandate gender analysis as part of foreign and/or development policy. These laws, however, are agency- or issue-specific, and do not provide an overall government requirement to use gender analysis. The laws are:

The Women Peace and Security Act of 2017 (WPS Act) ensures that the U.S. promotes the meaningful participation of women in mediation and negotiation processes seeking to prevent, mitigate, or resolve violent conflict. To accomplish this, among other things, the WPS Act mandates the use of gender analysis to improve program design in four key national security and foreign policy institutions: the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.)
The Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018 (WEEE Act) mandates that U.S. international development-cooperation policy shall be gender-focused, and affirms women’s right to own and control land and property, to live free of violence, and to access the financial tools they need to start and grow businesses. It also requires that all international development work done by the U.S. government (with a focus on USAID) is subject to a gender analysis from planning and project design to measurement and evaluation.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA) references the gender analysis requirements of both the WPS Act and the WEEE Act. It also mandates the participation of women in the capacity-building activities of security-cooperation programs in several ways, including incorporating gender analysis and women, peace, and security priorities into educational and training programs, and integrating gender analysis into security sector policy, planning, and training for national security forces involved in such partnerships. With regard to post-conflict engagement on human rights in Afghanistan, the NDAA further mandates that activities use gender analysis and rigorous monitoring and evaluation methodologies.

While these laws provide guidance to departments with regard to specific activities — gender and conflict, gender and economic opportunity, and gender and development — they are far from an overarching mandate to employ gender analysis across all national security and foreign policy agencies in the U.S. government, and they have yet to be fully implemented.

What is Gender Analysis?

Gender analysis is a socioeconomic analysis of quantitative and qualitative information to identify, understand, and explain differences in access, opportunity, and impact between people because of an individual’s identity. Such an analysis includes looking at a variety of factors, including gender, sex, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, age, economic status, education level, ability, and other factors.

In the context of foreign and/or development policy, a gender analysis examines the differences that exist (or do not) between women, men, girls, and boys in terms of:

access to and control over assets, resources, education, opportunities, and services;
access to and control over technology and the internet;
norms on how people divide their time between paid and unpaid work;
constraints, opportunities, and entry points for leadership roles and decision-making;
prevalence and impact of violence; and
potential differential impacts of development policies and programs, including unintended or negative consequences.

This type of analysis takes into account how women and men live and work, what they do to support their families and communities, and the constraints that they are under in doing so. Gender analysis should also include conclusions and recommendations to inform national security policies and interventions to 1) narrow these differences based on gender, 2) increase gender equality, and 3) improve the lives of women and girls.

Next Steps

While these mandates for gender analysis exist, and the White House announced the formation of the White House Gender Policy Council, it’s unclear how gender analysis will inform U.S. government policies. In order to ensure impact, we recommend the Biden-Harris administration take the following steps:

Empower and fund the White House Gender Policy Council: While previous iterations have focused on domestic issues and departments, the new council needs to ensure a partial focus on foreign policy and, more importantly, ensure that the United States is consistent across domestic and international policies regarding women, girls, and gender equality. U.S. values at home must match the values we promote across the globe, whether it is preventing gender-based violence or providing access to comprehensive reproductive health care or economic opportunity.
Embed gender expertise in each department at the highest level: All departments should ensure responsibility for the gender portfolio and agenda at the highest possible level by designating a full-time point person on these issues, reporting to the secretary or agency head. These gender advisors should play a critical role in effective policy and program development and should have gender expertise. While the White House Gender Policy Council is a great first step, this is not enough to develop and implement government-wide, gender-focused policies.
Ensure gender training for all staff: All national security and foreign policy entities should create at least one entry-level course on gender analysis for staff. In addition, a gender focus should be integrated into all courses at the Foreign Service Institute, USAID University, and military schools and academies. This includes training for incoming Foreign Service officers. Additional, ongoing gender training should be available by sector, in the field, and online. This is in addition to the requirement of the WPS Act that “appropriate” personnel receive training in conflict prevention, protecting civilians, and international human rights law.
Require gender analysis: The president should mandate gender analysis in every decision memo that comes to him and that goes to the heads of foreign policy and national security entities. The President’s Daily Brief should include a gender analysis of each issue presented. Further, gender analysis should be used to analyze the impact of government funding and resources, policy frameworks, and their implementation. There must be new ways to measure accountability regarding the participation of women in security, political, and economic processes, and to track U.S. government budget expenditures, as well as measure outcomes. Further, all relevant entities should collect sex-disaggregated data about program implementation and impact and make it available publicly.

This is a critical time for the U.S. government to focus on gender equality, as well as the rights of girls and women in the United States and around the world. As the Biden-Harris administration prioritizes issues such as COVID-19 recovery, economic relief, climate change, and racial equity, a strong White House Gender Policy Council and gender analysis will be key to ensuring the policy solutions are effective and have an impact.

This column originally appeared in Just Security.

Transforming the US Human Rights Report to Reflect Gender Rights — and Security

President Joe Biden has a record of standing up for human rights across the globe. He has backed Chinese rights activists and defenders, and advocated for full equality for the LGBTI community. During the campaign, he and Vice President Kamala Harris pledged to stand up to the forces of authoritarianism worldwide, rejoin and reform the United Nations Human Rights Council, and place democratic values at the core of foreign policy. Biden told the New York Times, “When I am president, human rights will be at the core of U.S. foreign policy.”

One way his administration can follow through on that pledge is by reversing the politicization of the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (also known as the Human Rights Reports). Another is to add reporting on the status of human rights in the United States. A third is to reject the findings of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, an issue analyzed extensively at Just Security.

The Trump administration damaged the credibility of the annual Human Rights Reports, which previously were considered the “gold standard” of objective information about human rights around the world. It is critical to return to the kind of reporting that accurately and fully addresses human rights issues, especially those faced by women and girls. This is also an opportunity to rethink the reports, so they are more dynamic, reflecting progress toward gender equality and documenting the interplay between the treatment of women and girls and a country’s level of peace, security, and stability.

Background on Human Rights Reports

The United States was a key architect of both the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Further, pursuant to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Trade Act of 1974, the Department of State submits human rights reports on all countries receiving assistance and on all U.N. member states. The U.S. began compiling these annual reports in 1976, and they cover internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights as set forth in the UDHR and other international agreements. In the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, the United States and 188 countries affirmed their commitment to women’s human rights across the political, economic, educational, and health spheres. From 2011 to 2016, the Human Rights Reports included detailed information on women’s reproductive rights.

In February 2018, under Pompeo’s predecessor, Rex Tillerson, Politico reported that State Department officials were ordered to cut back on passages in the Human Rights Reports discussing reproductive rights and violence against women, as well as sections on racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender-based discrimination.

While the framework of the Human Rights Reports remained largely intact during the Trump administration, experts found that reporting downplayed the seriousness of human rights abuses on the ground and was not consistent with reporting by other reliable sources of information. A recent study shows reporting on women’s human rights dropped by a third between 2016 and 2017. In the Afghanistan report, women’s rights and issues were mentioned 195 times in 2016 and only 85 times in 2017.

According to the Asylum Research Centre, the Trump administration omitted or altered critical information, including about torture, reproductive rights, and persecution based on sexuality. For example, the 2019 Eritrea report no longer mentioned widespread sexual violence against women in military training camps amounting to torture, and the forced domestic service of women and girls in training camps amounting to sexual slavery.

Further, in 2019, Pompeo formed his Commission on Unalienable Rights to provide advice on human rights grounded in our nation’s founding documents and the UDHR. The commission’s report ignored advancements in the legal and human rights of racial minorities, women, children, people with disabilities, and the LGBTI community, and declared that religious freedom and property rights are the “foremost” human rights. As a good start, Secretary of State nominee Antony Blinken said during his Jan. 19 Senate confirmation hearing that the Biden administration would reject the findings of that commission.

Opportunities for the Biden Administration

In the 2021 Human Rights Report, in addition to restoring critical reporting, the administration has an opportunity to think more broadly about women’s human rights and embed these issues within the national security context.

The prevalence of gender-based violence in a country is a national security issue. It can predict a nation’s potential for hostility toward other nations, as well as internal political violence and civil conflict. Gender-based violence, as well as the lack of women’s human rights, are not simply problems faced by an individual, family, or community. A study funded by the Department of Defense and published just last year, demonstrates that a country’s commitment to upholding women’s human rights is intertwined with nearly every dimension of national security. Countries that foster gender equality are less likely to go to war or use force first when in conflict. Moreover, higher levels of women’s political participation and personal empowerment at the household level decrease conflict and instability.

Accordingly, we urge the Biden-Harris administration to take four immediate actions.

First, the State Department should restore reporting on maternal mortality and access to reproductive health care. Make no mistake — this is a human rights issue. In 2011, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women decided that U.N. member States have a human rights obligation to guarantee all women timely and non-discriminatory access to appropriate maternal health services. In the relevant case, Pimentel v. Brazil, an Afro-Brazilian woman died from pregnancy-related causes after misdiagnosis and the delay of emergency obstetric care.

Second, such reporting should consistently include quantitative data points on gender-based violence, including the age of marriage. Often, country reports describe current law but not the prevalence of the abuse. For instance, the 2019 Human Rights Report on Colombia includes both the law regarding early and forced marriage and data from UNICEF on the prevalence of these practices, while the same year’s Guatemala report only describes a 2017 national decree prohibiting underage marriage and provides no independent statistics.

Moreover, the reports should include reporting on emerging trends, such as online violence and/or violence against women in politics. One in 10 women in the European Union report cyber-harassment, including unwanted and/or offensive sexually explicit emails or text messages, or offensive and/or inappropriate advances on social networking sites. In a 2020 report by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an organization of national parliaments, 34 percent of women parliamentarians were exposed to torture, ill treatment, and acts of violence, compared with 18 percent of male colleagues. In the same report, 98 cases of violations against women were reported in 2020, up from 85 in 2019.

Third, overarching gender indicators should be added to place the human rights reporting in context. There are several well-established reports with gender data points on education, health, economic opportunity, and political office for virtually every country, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Gender Gap Report, the UNDP Gender Inequality Index, and the World Bank Women, Business and the Law report. Utilizing consistent indicators for each country will help place the status of women and girls in a broader context. As an example, for the last 15 years, the WEF report has tracked progress towards gender equality, ranking 53 countries on four key dimensions and allowing for effective comparisons across and within regional peers.

Lastly, the State Department should begin to report on human rights, including women’s rights, in the United States. In 2010, the State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report added the United States to that annual report, given that trafficking occurs in every country, including this one. Considering the U.S. public’s increased focus on issues such as policing and the criminal justice system at home, this reporting is critically important. It will also send a signal globally that, as Biden said, the United States will lead with humility and take its own human rights violations seriously.

Taken together, these concrete actions will demonstrate the new administration’s deep commitment to human rights both at home and abroad, and perhaps begin to rebuild U.S. credibility and diplomatic strength with allies, partners, and adversaries.

This column originally appeared in Just Security.

Concrete Steps to a Feminist Foreign Policy

In order to increase the prospects for peace, stability, and security, and to demonstrate American leadership and commitment to human rights, foreign policy must integrate the goal of gender equality into national security strategies and approaches. The principles of women’s rights, human security, and cooperation, and the need for the actions of the U.S. government to be aligned domestically and around the world are central to a feminist approach to foreign policy. This paper seeks to do one thing: to make recommendations about how a feminist foreign policy could be operationalized within the institutions and policy-making processes of the U.S. government, through the implementation of existing policy and legislation, most notably the Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017 (WPS Act). Feminist foreign policy can also be furthered with new policy and legislation.

The Women, Peace and Security policy framework and its implementation globally over the last 20 years are key drivers of any feminist foreign policy, as witnessed by the origination and development of feminist foreign policy agendas in other countries. This policy framework builds on earlier human rights and women’s movements as well as the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. It widens the aperture beyond conflict prevention and resolution and supports a “rebalancing” of our approach to global engagement, so that the full range of diplomatic, development, and defense strategies are used to meet U.S. goals and objectives. Women, Peace and Security is a feminist approach to foreign policy because it broadens the definition of security to include human security and address overarching issues such as global health, climate change, and food security.

Since the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000, the Women, Peace and Security agenda has challenged gendered assumptions about power and conflict resolution. These assumptions include the belief that the use of military force, or hard power, alone makes us more secure than the use of diplomacy, development, and other levers of soft power; and that human dimensions of security are less critical than geopolitics, which should mostly guide foreign policy and national security decisions. The Women, Peace and Security agenda and feminist lens on foreign policy fundamentally question these assumptions.

The recommendations made here for instituting a feminist foreign policy in the U.S. and fully implementing the Women, Peace and Security agenda are not possible without strong leadership and political will.

To better advance U.S. national security objectives and to ensure lasting change, a focus on gender equality must be integrated into a broader approach to foreign policy, with regular senior-level attention and the capacity to coordinate different parts of the government with relevant areas of responsibility. As mentioned previously, these recommendations align with feminist approaches to foreign policy and international development agendas of other countries including Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Luxembourg, and Mexico.

Summary of Recommendations:

Diversify Representation
Prioritize Gender in Information Collection and Analysis
Ensure Input From Those Affected
Reform the Institutional Structure
Increase Accountability of Individuals and Transparency of Institutions
Increase Resources
Utilize Technology

The full paper can be found on the Our Secure Future website HERE.

Reviving the US Commitment to Women’s Rights and Gender Equality: The UN Commission on the Status of Women

President-elect Joe Biden has a history of advocating on behalf of women and girls in the United States and around the world. In 1994, then-Senator Biden co-authored and advocated for the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, landmark legislation to strengthen legal and community-based responses to domestic violence. Further, he introduced the International Violence Against Women Act, which provided a framework for the United States to address gender-based violence globally. During the campaign, the Biden/Harris ticket made strong and substantive commitments to gender equality and to the role of women as leaders. In the first 100 days, we urge the new administration to showcase this leadership at the next annual session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).

What is CSW?

CSW is the principal global intergovernmental body dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. Established in 1946, CSW meets each March in New York, and brings together representatives of the U.N. and member governments as well as civil society to promote women’s rights. CSW is an important opportunity for governments to speak to their commitments on women’s empowerment and gender equality. At CSW, governments set out their overall approach to addressing gender gaps, outline relevant accomplishments, and make commitments to future policy initiatives. For example, in 2012, the U.S. government highlighted the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), the first comprehensive and standardized gauge to directly measure women’s empowerment and inclusion in the agricultural sector.

At each session’s conclusion, CSW issues a set of non-binding “agreed conclusions” related to pressing issues facing women and girls. Member States also submit reports tracking their progress toward the goals set out in the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Current and emerging issues of women’s political, economic, and social rights are raised at CSW, and as such, that influences U.N. policy and national policies. CSW has provided a gender lens on many U.N. programs, including those focused on increasing property rights, ending sexual violence in conflict, and increasing access to education, health, and self-determination.

History of U.S. Participation with the Commission

Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used CSW as a platform to signal their approach to gender policies and programs and to announce new initiatives for women and girls. In addition, the U.S. delegation has highlighted individuals and organizations from outside government whom the administration sees as important allies in shaping those initiatives.

At the CSW annual meeting in 2010, for example, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed U.S. leadership on women’s rights and gave a major address on gender equality and women’s rights, with examples of how this approach would be incorporated into Obama administration initiatives on global health, food security, and climate change. In addition to Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer, and senior White House and administration officials, the U.S. delegation included leaders from the private sector and civil society.

The Trump administration, however, utilized CSW to step back from global leadership on gender equality, which otherwise would ensure that everyone has equal opportunity and access to resources. In 2019, for example, acting Deputy Ambassador to the U.N. Cherith Norman Chalet led the delegation and stated, “Let’s be clear – we are not about gender jargon. Today, here at the Commission on the Status of Women, we are about women. Women and girls.” According to news reports, during negotiations on the agreed conclusions, the U.S. sought to prevent the word “gender” being used as a substitute for “women and girls,” haggled over the definition of the word “family,” and tried to restrict wording on migration, technology, and climate change. The U.S. delegation included administration officials from the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Department of Health and Human Services, but no list of public delegates was released.

The Biden Administration

The Biden administration should use CSW65 this March to reaffirm the importance of women’s leadership and gender equality to its foreign policy agenda. According to incoming National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Biden has asked his national security team to “reimagine” national security to address global crises, including inequality in all forms.

As a first step, the 2020 U.S. delegation to CSW should be led by senior administration officials, such as Vice President Kamala Harris or the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield (assuming she has been confirmed). The delegation should also include executive and legislative leaders, and representatives of like-minded partners from the private sector and civil society.

CSW speeches and events should be used to highlight policy or program announcements that reflect a commitment to gender equality at home and abroad. Such announcements should include the creation of a White House Council on Gender Equality, as the Biden-Harris campaign pledged to do, and the designation of key appointments across the government with responsibility for integrating a focus on gender equality into policymaking.

This includes the ambassador-at-large for Global Women’s Issues at the State Department and the senior gender coordinator at USAID. These are more than personnel announcements. These individuals spearhead and guide the work to embed and advance gender equality and women’s leadership across U.S. foreign and development policy. At the Department of State, the Office of the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues has a mandate to promote the rights and empowerment of women and girls through U.S. foreign policy and leads these efforts in U.S. diplomacy, partnerships, and programs. At USAID, the senior gender coordinator provides guidance on a range of complex government programs and policies to the USAID administrator and other leadership, serves as a liaison internally between the Office of the Administrator and USAID bureaus, missions, and independent offices, and represents the agency both internally and externally regarding gender issues.

CSW is also an ideal backdrop for the United States to reaffirm Biden’s commitment to pursue ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which has been ratified by 189 countries. CEDAW is often described as the international bill of rights for women, but while President Jimmy Carter signed CEDAW in 1980, the U.S. Senate did not ratify it. Only the United States, the Holy See, Iran, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga have not ratified CEDAW.

In the U.S., ratification requires consideration and recommendation of the document by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) and the support of two-thirds of the full U.S. Senate. The last time CEDAW’s ratification was recommended to the full Senate in 2002, then-Senator Biden chaired the SFRC. While ratification is likely an uphill battle, the landscape of women’s political and economic participation (and the U.S. Senate) has changed a great deal since 2002.

Taken together with campaign statements and recent Cabinet-level and senior staff appointments, these actions will demonstrate the U.S. government’s renewed commitment to meaningfully engage with other governments, multilateral institutions, and civil society organizations to further gender equality and women’s leadership.

Taking Steps Toward Gender Equality

After The Hill published our piece about the need to increase the number of women experts testifying on foreign policy, we received questions about what other concrete steps Members of Congress and their staffs can take to promote gender inequality.

As we noted, gender equality is not just about women. It’s about changing the gender norms and roles that affect us all at work home, and in public life. We need both men and women, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, to actively address these norms, gender biases and systemic structural causes to make sustainable change.

On Capitol Hill, concrete steps include 1) co-sponsoring, supporting and advancing legislation that supports gender equality and women’s empowerment in the U.S. and abroad, 2) requesting a gender analysis of every piece of legislation introduced and considered, and 3) ensuring a gender balance of experts called to testify before committees.

There are Members of Congress and staff who lead on women’s rights. But, there are times when having another Member introduce or lead on a bill or amendment is more effective. Members should consider where they can lead and where they can support others’ efforts. Key questions are: What is needed to move a legislative agenda item or policy? Is it more strategic to lead or support another Member’s effort? How can I amplify, rather than replace or usurp, existing gender equality and women’s empowerment efforts?

In addition to being a legislative champion for women and girls, Members of Congress can actively address gender inequities every day at work and in society, speak up for their colleagues, treat everyone fairly, and understand the social privilege they hold.

Here are four other specific actions to take:

Listen and learn from colleagues, staff, constituents, and experts about gender issues or the gendered aspects of other issues you work on, such as veterans affairs, education reform, transportation, agriculture or international development assistance. There is a gender dimension shaping virtually every issue, and understanding it will ensure that policy is more effective. Issues around gender, equality, and rights, as well as gender aspects of other issues can be complicated. Gender is not just about women and it affects all aspects of life.
Use a gender lens when planning every visit to your state or district and/or Congressional delegation abroad. Plan to meet with women leaders of all kinds of organizations (public, private, for- and not-for-profit). Visit organizations that provide services to women constituents or can speak to the gender aspects of other issues. Make sure that there are women invited to every meeting you hold, no matter what the topic. Ask to see lists of meeting attendees.
Question speaking on a panel that is composed of all men or all women. When receiving an invitation to speak, ask who else is speaking. If you are asked to speak on a panel, and the only person of another sex is a moderator, ask if it possible to change the mix of speakers. As we noted in our earlier piece, there are women and men capable of speaking to every issue.
Run a diverse and gender equal office with equitable numbers of female and male staff, pay equity, zero tolerance of sexual harassment, and family leave. Members need to understand the gender aspects of everyday life for the people, men and women, who work in their offices, and address them.

Taken together, these steps will make a difference in addressing gender equality. The process for creating policy and legislation on the Hill – whether in Members’ offices, in committee hearings or in public – impacts the lives of women and girls in the U.S. and around the world. Everyone has a role to play.

Foreign policy congressional committees need to call more women experts

It is imperative that those who make U.S. foreign policy reflect who we are as Americans. Today, most foreign policy and national security decisions are made in centralized and closely held processes. This is true across institutions. We recently reviewed the list of experts called to testify in Congress on foreign policy from 2017-2020 and found that most of them are men.

There are now discussions about what a feminist foreign policy would look like in the United States. Most recommendations have focused on the executive branch and, among other things, call for greater representation of women in the relevant institutions and decision-making processes. Yet, the legislative branch has a key role to play. As part of its constitutional responsibility, Congress holds hearings that include both government officials and outside experts.

In order to ascertain who is called upon for foreign policy expertise, we looked at 1,143 witnesses who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) and the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) in the 115th and 116th Congresses (between January 2017 and June 2020).

Overall, more men than women are called as non-government witnesses to testify about foreign policy. However, we are heartened by recent HFAC numbers outlined below and we expect that HFAC will continue to call witnesses at this rate. Further, SFRC should call at least this percentage of women to testify as experts going forward.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee: During both the 115th and 116th Congresses, the SFRC consisted of 22 men (96 percent) and one woman (4 percent). Of the 352 witnesses the committee called, 77 percent were men. Of the non-government witnesses, 75 percent of the experts were men and 25 percent were women.

House Foreign Affairs Committee: In the 115th Congress (2017-2019), the House of Representatives was controlled by the Republican Party; HFAC consisted of 38 men (81 percent) and nine women (19 percent). Since control of the House changed in January 2019, HFAC consists of 40 men (85 percent) and seven women (15 percent).

From January 2017 to June 2020, HFAC called 791 witnesses; 68 percent were men and 32 percent women. Of the non-government witnesses, 69 percent of the experts were men and 31 percent women. In the 115th Congress (2017-19), 76 percent of HFAC non-governmental witnesses were men and 24 percent were women. To date in the 116th Congress (2019-20), 58 percent of HFAC non-governmental witnesses were men and 42 percent were women.

In an effort to close this clear gap in representation, we recommend that the Senate and House leadership require a gender balance in witnesses called to testify. Informally, committee leaders should call equal numbers of male and female witnesses. At the same time, foreign policy experts who are often called to testify could pledge not to serve on a panel of three or more witnesses when no women are included.

Further, these committees must examine hearing topics with a gender lens and choose witnesses to include that point of view. Such an analysis will broaden and deepen an understanding of the policy landscape and the solutions considered. The committees must call more women to testify as foreign policy experts, on all subjects not just those related to gender. Policymakers need to understand that even “traditional” security issues, like force readiness, can be analyzed with a gender lens. Such an analysis will show how men and women are impacted differently by U.S. foreign policy interventions.

While increasing the number of women experts testifying doesn’t ensure a full gender analysis on foreign policy topics, it would be a great start to better ensure that policy is formulated and debated by a more diverse group of experts and policymakers with a broader range of expertise.

Molly Opinsky is an intern at Smash Strategies and a rising senior at Tulane University studying international relations and economics. She contributed to the research of this piece.

COVID-19 Demands We Rethink Gender Roles

Analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic is bringing the role of gender in society sharply into focus. As we look at the impact of the pandemic in subjects as diverse as political leadership, violence in the home, caregiving and what constitutes “essential” work, we are confronting the role that gender plays across the world. As a point of reference, gender is the socially defined set of roles, rights, responsibilities, entitlements, and obligations of females and males in societies. While many gender norms have shifted, these norms still inform our actions and roles every day. These norms translate into women being viewed primarily as caregivers, while men are viewed as leaders. In most of our societies, we see family violence is a private matter, but COVID-19 is bringing these issues to the forefront as our public and private lives have become more intertwined.

We’re able to discuss gender differently during this global crisis because gender impacts are being discussed in “real time”—as they are happening—rather than analyzed months or years after the fact. Advocates and practitioners have been working to include this type of gender analysis for years but topics like foreign policy, crisis response, and trade have traditionally—and wrongly—been seen as gender blind or gender neutral. This new focus on real-time analysis of gender impacts provides us an opportunity to create lasting change.

Women’s Unseen, Essential Role in Labor

According to a recent New York Times article, one in three jobs held by women has been designated as essential, and nonwhite women are more likely to be doing essential jobs than anyone else. These women are core to a part of the labor force which keeps the country running and takes care of those most in need, pandemic or not. In health care, 77% of essential workers are women and in essential retail, 53% are women. According to the New York Times, 83% of those in health care jobs paying under $30,000 are women. We know that women are paid less than men, and this is more pronounced for women of color. In the U.S., women overall earn 81 cents for every dollar a white man earns, while African American, Hispanic and Native American women earn 75 cents. We must use this window to address the twin issues of pay disparity and how we value certain jobs and types of work.

Successful Women’s Leadership During Catastrophe

Women leaders like Prime Minister Jacinda Arden of New Zealand, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan are taking bold action to stem the impact of COVID-19. They are praised as “voices of reason” for their clear and effective communication, decisiveness and empathy in the face of this pandemic. We need more leaders like them. As of January 2020, women serve as heads of state in only 10 out of 152 countries (6.6%) and women serve as heads of government in 12 out of 193 countries (6.2%). Women hold about 25% of the seats in parliaments globally and 24% of those in the U.S. Congress. This is a time to rethink the way we view leadership and the traits we value in leaders. These women demonstrate that a leader should be both decisive and empathetic.

Domestic Violence Spikes Amid the Pandemic

With 90 countries in lockdown because of COVID-19, billions of people are now sheltering at home. While this has kept many people safe from the virus, it has put many women at risk of violent behavior behind closed doors. Stay-at-home orders put those in violent relationships in close proximity of their abusers, with little ability to leave home or reach out for help. In Argentina, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the U.S., sharp spikes in the incidence of domestic violence and concurrent heightened demand for emergency shelter have been raised by government authorities, women’s rights activists and civil society organizations. It is critical that countries make the prevention and redress of gender-based violence a key part of national response plans.

Shelter-at-Home Highlights Need for Caregiving Infrastructure

Finally, COVID-19 has laid bare the reality that most caregiving is still done by women. Even when both parents work full-time, women do the majority of the childcare and housework. Recent calls to build an infrastructure of care in the U.S. have gone unanswered. But now, with schools closed and large numbers of family members at home, or when people with school-aged kids or dependent parents have to go to work, it is clearer how much care and household work is needed and who does that work. Before COVID-19, many families relied on others (often women) to formally or informally care for children or other dependents, clean their homes or cook meals. Now, many of those workers are unable to continue these roles. Once again, it is important that organizations and governments recognize that many workers have a full-time job outside the office.

Make no mistake, we are facing a global crisis. But, we can use this as an opportunity to reimagine a different future, one that values gender equality, women’s participation and women’s leadership. Women must be part of COVID-19 response and recovery planning and decision making. We must value work the unseen work done by women. We must use every tool possible to restructure caregiving systems and address the causes of domestic violence. We can do this, using everyone’s talent, skill and experience to inform our choices.

COVID-19 and Gender

Like almost everything, the current coronavirus pandemic has a gender angle. Why? Because the gender roles that each of us play – the socially defined set of roles, rights, responsibilities, entitlements, and obligations of females and males – impact and are impacted by this crisis.

While it seems that men are more likely to die of this and other viruses because of genetics and chromosomes. But men may also be more susceptible because of gender norms that cause greater stress, higher rates of tobacco consumption and a reluctance to seek medical care. When we look back, research will give us a better picture of the outcomes for all of those affected and how it was divided by sex, gender, age and race.

At the same time, women are also bearing the brunt of much of the crisis. An April 3 U.S. Department of Labor report, shows the same unemployment rate (4 percent) for adult men and women. But, according to the National Restaurant Association, women account for 71 percent of all servers nationwide. Restaurants have been among the hardest hit by the coronavirus. We will see in the coming weeks if a gender gap appears in the numbers due to the different kinds of jobs men and women hold.

The combination of economic and social stresses brought on by COVID-19, as well as restrictions on movement, have dramatically increased the numbers of women and girls facing gender-based violence, in almost all countries. United Nations chief António Guterres put out a video statement on April 6 focused on the worldwide issue and the strains that institutions that often mitigate GBV – healthcare workers, police and support groups – are under.

Importantly, issues that are rarely part of a mainstream conversation, such as the issue of caregiving (for older family members and children) are being discussed. While women have traditionally taken care of the majority of care and other chores within the home, it has remained largely invisible. Calls from some like Anne-Marie Slaughter to build an infrastructure of care in the U.S. have gone unanswered. But now, with schools closed and large numbers of family members at home, or when people with school-aged kids or dependent parents have to go to work, it is becoming clearer how much care and household work is needed and who does that work. Once again, we will see how U.S. companies respond to the realization that many workers carry a full-time job away from the office.

COVID-19 has caused many parts of the U.S. and the world to slow down and take a look at our society. It has allowed us to examine what we value and what we have forgotten to value in our lives. After we get through the next uncertain and unhappy weeks and months, I hope the business, academic and advocacy communities, as well as individuals, take the opportunity to rebuild our institutions, like work and healthcare, in a way that is more equitable and remembers those things we valued during these dark days.

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.

12 3

Gender Equality is Fundamental to Promoting Democracy

Robust Gender Analysis Will Be Key to Effective US Policy Development

Transforming the US Human Rights Report to Reflect Gender Rights — and Security

Concrete Steps to a Feminist Foreign Policy

Reviving the US Commitment to Women’s Rights and Gender Equality: The UN Commission on the Status of Women

Taking Steps Toward Gender Equality

Foreign policy congressional committees need to call more women experts

COVID-19 Demands We Rethink Gender Roles

Women’s Unseen, Essential Role in Labor

Successful Women’s Leadership During Catastrophe

Domestic Violence Spikes Amid the Pandemic

Shelter-at-Home Highlights Need for Caregiving Infrastructure

COVID-19 and Gender

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Feminist?

Recent Posts

Categories

Sign-Up for Email Updates