gender Archives

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.

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.

Siri’s #MeToo responses show why tech needs women

The Guardian recently reported that Apple’s Siri virtual assistant deflected questions about feminism or the #MeToo movement.

More troubling is that when asked about feminism, Siri had previously been programmed to say, “I just don’t get this whole gender thing,” and, “My name is Siri, and I was designed by Apple in California. That’s all I’m prepared to say.”

Then, as reported by the Guardian, there was a “reset” for initial answers to questions about the #MeToo movement: Once, when users called Siri a “slut,” the service responded: “I’d blush if I could.” Now, a much sterner reply is offered: “I won’t respond to that.”

I’m glad these programming missteps were corrected, but they could have been avoided altogether if there were more women involved in Siri’s design and programming.

Every day and in every way, we all depend on technology like Siri, our phones, computers and other applications. Technology helps us access information and each other, and organize our business and personal lives.

But there are increasing concerns about who designs tech tools and the related implications: whether the designers, who are mostly men, embed gender and other norms in what they design; and, how technology perpetuates offensive and dangerous offline behavior.

It is imperative that women and girls can use technology to fully access education and financial services, grow their businesses and communicate with family and friends. At the same time, it is critical that technology reflects the lives of women and girls, and does not perpetuate outdated norms or replicate offline harassment and gender-based violence.

In order to do that, we must increase the number of women — across the globe — who design technology. Programs and apps will be different when they’re created by a more diverse group. Jobs designing technology must be filled by a broad range of people. Effective problem solving occurs when people with diverse voices, viewpoints and life experiences are involved.

Research published by the Harvard Business Review supports this approach, finding that diversity, both inherent and acquired, helps drive innovation.

Yet barriers limit the kinds of people who enter and remain in these fields; women, especially, are often left out of the talent pool. A report by the American Association of University Women found that, in the United States, 80% of science, technology, engineering and math jobs are in engineering and computer science, but women comprise only 12 percent of the engineering and 26 percent of the computing workforce.

There is a lot of work to be done by the tech community, governments and educational institutions to meet this goal. Experts estimate there will be 1.4 million computer science jobs in the U.S. by 2020. We need to increase the portion of women and people of color in the computing workforce.

There is so much opportunity in technology. We need to make sure that this future is designed by the most diverse group of programmers so that missteps like the one with Siri don’t continue to happen.

This column originally appeared in the San Jose Mercury news.

12 3