Book review: Reproductive Health and Human Rights: The Way Forward.

This article reviews the book: Reproductive Health and Human Rights: The Way Forward. Edited by Laura Reichenbach & Mindy Jane Roseman. Pp. 304. (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 2009.

Men, male bias, patriarchy, masculinity, gender relations: What is the barrier to engendering development

THE field of women-in-development (henceforth, w-i-d) is an evolving one. Its journey – which began in 1970 – has embraced a diversity of ideas that has come from practitioners, scholars and activists in both the countries of the South and the North. As a result, the analysis of women’s experiences has also evolved over this time. At the heart of the field is the premise that women have experienced development differently – if not discriminately – from men. The source and effect of the ‘difference’, however, is contested; the literature of the field is strewn with possibilities of how discrimination comes about. Are ‘men’ responsible, and if yes, which men? Or is the source of women’s oppression a more general ‘male bias’? How is that different from patriarchy? What is masculinity? And how does that contribute to women’s discrimination

Differences that matter: From ‘gender’ to ‘ethnicity’ in contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand

Gender and ethnicity are recognised as two of the leading axes of marginality in late twentieth century western liberal democratic societies – the former emerged in the wake of Second Wave feminism of the 1970s and the latter, with the rise of ‘identity politics’ in the 1980s and 1990s. Both have similarities. As categories of disadvantage, their basis is ‘natural’ in that the complex webs of social and political organisation, and consequent disadvantages, based on gender or ethnicity can be traced to physiology, that is, differences in either skin colour or sex. These are also, as Nancy Fraser (1997) points out, ‘bivalent categories’ of disadvantage in that gender and ethnicity display simultaneous discriminations in areas of resource allocation (Redistribution) and as socially acceptable identities (Recognition). Here, however, the common trajectory followed by these social markers ends. Drawing on the changing nature of society and governance in New Zealand, the present paper argues that the differences between gender and ethnicity, rather than their similarities,expose fundamental attributes of contemporary marginality in increasingly diverse western democracies. This paper advances the following proposition (and contradiction): in the past decade, ethnicity and diversity as an axis of social division has gained credibility and has markedly influenced political, economic and social (re)organisation in New Zealand, while in contrast, it has proven harder to justify gender as structural disadvantage. Thus, while the boundaries of ‘gender’ are ruptured, porous and, at moments, open to erasure, ‘ethnicity’ has coalesced to become a new, valid, and increasingly relevant border of social inequity

Evaluating power in development programmes

SINCE the mid-1990s, there has been a growing interest in, and use of discourse theories within development studies to understand contexts of power inequalities between individuals, groups and institutions. Banded together, several genres of scholarship which can be considered ‘discourse theories’ have emerged – post-development, post-positivist policy analysis, critical/sub-altern theorisations, post-structuralism, post-modernism and their feminist variants, among others – all of which draw some, if not the main bulk, of their core ideas from the perspectives derived by Michel Foucault (1926-1984) and his social/ linguistic/philosophical analyses

‘Approve to Decline’: A feminist critique of ‘Fairness’ and ‘Discrimination’ in a case study of EEO in the New Zealand Public Sector

The present paper aims to look at the contexts of meanings that surround Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) in practice, particularly for issues of gender justice. At the heart of the paper is a critical appraisal of one EEO event; an example drawn from the New Zealand public sector where claims to ‘gender disadvantage’ is made by an employee and responded to by the agency to which the claim is made. The event is representative of an instance where all parties are equally claiming the need to further EEO and fairness. By deconstructing the language and context of EEO in practice, the paper argues the point that EEO policy is not implemented in discursively uncontested contexts. At a substantive level, the paper builds on feminist theoretical perspectives of social justice, and questions if the contemporary frameworks of meaning in the public sector can support transformations of relationships of disadvantage. More pertinently, it asks if the “removal of unfair disadvantage”, on which EEO strategies are based, constitutes the promotion of social and gender justice

Connecting women in the age of difference: Re-thinking gender in twenty-first century Aotearoa New Zealand

Editorial: This special issue of the Women’s Studies Journal is an exploration of the theme of difference and diversity among women in Aotearoa New Zealand in the twenty-first century. As a construct within feminist literature, ‘difference’ has, for over three decades, irrevocably altered the landscape of feminist politics – in both its scholarship and its praxis. Fundamental to the theories of difference that have emerged since the 1980s is the idea that women’s lived realities differ vastly depending on, amongst other variables, their sexual orientation, racial and ethnic background, religious beliefs, age and income status