Abstract
Kara Ellerby, a political scientist who teaches at the University of Delaware, has thoroughly and painstakingly undertaken the task of demonstrating how language influences how we define, measure, and discuss gender equity. Over the past 40 years, the subjugation of women has been recognized and addressed in a number of meaningful ways. Although policies have been made at various levels of government, the implementation and impact of those policies depend more on what is not addressed than what is said.
Ellerby takes an historic look at international policies based on how the United Nations has addressed the issue of gender equity. She looks in depth at three topics: the lack of women’s representation in government, barriers to securing economic rights for women, and the ways governments protect women from violence.
She clearly demonstrates that although indicators appear to be on the rise in many categories, much is dependent on what those indicators measure and what important underlying issues are being overlooked. For example, the percentage of the women in the workforce has been used as an indicator of women’s economic well-being. But although there are more women in the workforce, women’s earnings are still markedly lower than men’s. Women are still doing unpaid work, during economic downturns women are often the first to lose their jobs, and the poverty rates for women are still high. Ellerby calls the increase of women in the workforce indicator, an “illusion of progress.” The United Nations also measures progress on addressing violence against women by the number of states that have passed national policies to address this issue. Yet lifetime violence against women is still occurring in one in three primary relationships, sexual harassment in the workplace is pervasive, and sexual violence is still an epidemic, particularly in war-torn areas.
What is the impact of the change of language from use of the term “woman” to the use of term “gender?” Ellerby traces the origins of this change to the UN’s millennium development goals (MDGs) and posits that the term “woman” allowed male decision makers to push “the women problem” aside for more “pressing needs.” The term “gender” was less threatening, more palatable, and allowed women’s issues an opportunity to be included in the broader human rights agenda. The term “gender” was therefore used as synonym for women or female but camouflages the social constructions of masculinities and femininities that contribute to women’s status. She argues that the term “gender” shortcuts the need to discuss the power inequities between men and women. Furthermore, intersectionality issues such as race, class, sexuality, and geography are missing from the MDGs.
This is a well-organized, well-written book, and uses well-researched data and examples to demonstrate the author’s points. She addresses the shortcomings of a neoliberal global perspective, a framework that proposes that liberating an individual’s entrepreneurial freedoms and skills supports the best interests of the individual. This neoliberal framework is compatible with liberal feminism, based on the assumption that when some women have access to power, all women would be empowered. Ellerby argues that this worldview has led to a status quo that has inadvertently reinforced male power and privilege. She calls this strategy “add women and stir.” Her concluding chapter addresses the need to change the discourse “to focus less on women and more on the dynamics of gender in shaping women’s experiences” (p. 187).
If your interests lie in advancing a more equitable world, this book is an excellent reference source. It also injects a global perspective in advanced policy courses. Reading this book reminded me of an assignment in my domestic violence courses. Students had to pick a country and use the United Nations websites to identify the social indicators that may serve to protect or enhance women’s risk for violence. Using their countries’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) reports, students then orally reported their countries’ progress in addressing violence. After presentations, the discussion invariably led to a recognition that just because a law was passed that doesn’t mean it was being enforced or enforced consistently throughout a country. This book could serve as an excellent resource for a more in-depth discussion as to the reasons for this inconsistency.