[bestbits] [DC] [governance] [Ext] Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF Best Practice Forum on Gender: Access
Jac sm Kee
jac at apcwomen.org
Wed Oct 11 01:41:36 EDT 2017
Hello all,
I appreciate this robust discussion on gender. And I'm glad that the BPF
work has at least evoked this delving in with the IG community.
Gender /has/ become synonymous with women in some way, esp in the policy
field. This is because as Bishakha puts it, it's about structures of
discrimination and power. As cited through the many evidence and data
gathering work that was shared throughout this thread, women and girls
have been largely, disproportionately affected by this and face multiple
barriers to enjoy the same benefits and opportunities, especially in
science and tech, as men and boys. As such, it makes good sense to also
focus resources, work and attention to this particular piece of the pie,
as Bishakha puts it (seen in the thread below).
Within this, are two further issues. One: that gender is a spectrum,
rather than jst about women and men. The BPF's work has a working
definition of "woman" as also including those who self-identify as
women, and with that, hope to have a more inclusive and broader
definition. A first step if you can put it that way. Also, one of the
communities identified for this year's work was LBTQ women, but as this
is a community-driven initiative, with such a tight timeline, there
wasn't anyone who could be a focal point to this particular group. If
there is anyone here who may be interested to take this on, we would
greatly welcome this at the Gender BPF (please join the mailing list or
write to me offlist).
The second is about men and boys. I agree that they need to be part of
the solution. But this solution cannot be simply, "What about the men
and boys?" Gender is constructed through an interplay of power in the
family, social structures, economic power, religion, political
structures and so on. In all of these domains, there are clear
statistics and evidence that demonstrates the overarching dominance of
men in decision-making power and influence. So the question is, what
will men and boys do about this power?
There has been good work emerging around deconstructing masculinities,
in particular, harmful forms of masculinities that are built on the
basis of subjugating women as a group as well as other groups of men
perceived as "not being male enough." This has not been fully translated
into policy work yet, but policy is always slower and more deliberate in
pace. It would be good to start looking at research around harmful
masculinities in the domain of digital technologies and see how this can
inform our deliberation and work. Here's one that also includes really
interesting analysis around infrastructure and code:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444815608807
I also appreciate that intersectionality issues are raised in this
thread - that women are not singular, and that there are other
structural issues that has an impact on this, including age,
disabilities, sexualities, economic power, history of colonialism and so
on. But minimally, if we can't even address gender issues, which is one
of the most basic forms of identity markers that has an impact on our
rights and abilities, then we have little chance of addressing the more
nuanced and complex aspects.
And thank you for raising the fact that access barriers are not simply
jst about economic power. At last year's BPF work, the biggest barrier
that appeared was social and cultural norms, which underpins many of the
other forms of barriers. And also speaks to the value lag that you
mention Charity, which is a significant issue. Here's the link to the
report for easier referencing:
http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3406/437
In the interim, much appreciated, as always, dissemination and responses
to the BPF survey for this year's work. The link is here:
https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/783797/lang-en
Best regards,
jac
---------------------------------
Jac sm Kee
Manager, Women's Rights Programme
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe
On 04/10/2017 01:22, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I agree that there is more than enough global, regional and national
> evidence of one gender - women and girls - having much lower access to
> digital spaces, including the internet. So it strikes me as totally
> valid to pick up one piece of the gender pie - women and girls - and
> work to increase the internet access of this group. And still call it
> gender, because it is part of the gender pie.
>
> If we call it gender, we can then retain the intention to increase
> access to other genders, and then actualize this at a later point.
> Implicit in calling it gender is the understanding that it's an arc or a
> spectrum, not a binary. And that it's a broad umbrella or 'parent'
> category with 'child' categories contained within it.
>
> So for instance, this year the BPF on Gender is working to understand
> marginalized women's access barriers to the internet - specifically
> disabled, rural, refugee, young or indigenous. It's a piece of the
> gender pie.
>
> As long as we retain the title Gender, we might later on eg next year or
> at some future point explore barriers to access through the lenses of:
> -trans women
> -trans men
> -intersex individuals
>
> Retaining the term gender allows us the possibility to work with all
> these categories - that's why I am personally very much in favour of
> calling it gender, not women at the broad level (BPF on Gender), while
> being specific at the category level (eg disabled women).
>
> Again, to offer an analogy, one could have a BPF on Disability and work
> on only one type of disability to begin with eg visually-impaired
> women's access to the internet. Over time, one could include numerous
> other disabilities. That doesn't negate the use of the term disability;
> like gender, it's an umbrella term.
>
> Best
> Bishakha
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Dhanaraj Thakur
> <dhanaraj.thakur at webfoundation.org
> <mailto:dhanaraj.thakur at webfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I appreciate the point about looking at gender from all angles
> including those of men. We in the Caribbean are in (probably) a
> unique situation where women outperform men in various areas (though
> not the important ones).
>
> However, the IGF BPF on Gender is focused on/Internet access/.
> Research (from the Web Foundation, ITU, and others) show that
> globally when we look at access in terms of gender, women are less
> likely to use the Internet than men. Thus, if we want more people to
> get online and benefit from the Internet the way we do, we need to
> address why this gap exists. In that sense, we therefore need to
> focus on women and girls when it comes to access. This is why the
> IGF BPF on Gender has this initiative now to identify ways to
> improve women's access in these various areas.
>
> Obviously, in some places women use the Internet at similar levels
> of men. In fact in the Caribbean (for the few countries where there
> data does exist), it appears that women are more likely to use the
> Internet than men. However, that is not the reality for most of the
> world. As the IGF BPF is global in scope (and as long as globally
> the Internet use rate for women is less than men) I think the focus
> on women in terms of gender and access makes sense.
>
>
> take care,
>
> Dhanaraj
>
>
> --
> Dhanaraj Thakur
> Senior Research Manager
> Alliance for Affordable Internet <http://a4ai.org>
> +1 240 232 5878 (USA)
> @thakurdhanaraj
> PGP: 0xFCB84FE2A0E7C147
>
> *World Wide Web Foundation | **1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
> Washington DC 20005, USA.*
>
>
>
> On 10/03/2017 12:23 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>> Thank you Bishakha for supporting my argument - or at least adding
>> supporting material.
>> This is the list of issues that was posted for comment:
>> a) Indigenous women
>> b) Refugee women
>> c) Women with disabilities
>> d) Young women
>> e) Rural women
>> Nowhere is there any indication of the diversity of gender you
>> describe.
>> This is not to say that the diversity is not being addressed, but
>> in the interest of creating an atmosphere of trust and a sense of
>> fair play the addressing needs to be SEEN to be done.
>> Do we need a change of language - is the word "gender" itself part
>> of the problem? Or do we need a different perception of what
>> gender is - a spectrum rather than a dichotomy? (Although even
>> that would seem to exclude the un-gendered.) Should there be a
>> Dynamic Coalition on Women? But then where would the needs of
>> everyone else be addressed?
>> Language and how it is defined becomes more and more important to
>> us as the discussion spreads further and further. Language is the
>> first tool that we have to begin to find solutions to the
>> problems. As the discussion spreads so the number of languages
>> which must interact with one another becomes greater and greater.
>> Accurate translation requires a more than casual understanding of
>> the original text.
>> So - back to the question - how do we make "gender" work for us,
>> ALL of us?
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On 3 October 2017 at 11:05, Bishakha Datta
>> <bishakha at pointofview.org <mailto:bishakha at pointofview.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I wanted to jump into the discussion on the use of the term
>> 'gender'.
>>
>> This is a complex and multi-layered issue.
>>
>> At the IGF's Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet
>> Governance, which Jac is very much a part of and has shaped
>> since its inception, we talk about gender not to mean one or
>> two genders, but multiple genders - men, women, trans persons
>> etc. Several individuals all over the world define themselves
>> as neither male nor female, which must also be taken into
>> account in any discussion on gender.
>>
>> Even though we know that there are multiple genders, the
>> reason we focus on women and trans persons (sometimes unnamed)
>> in these discussions is simply because women as a 'gender'
>> lack power, resources, opportunities, decision-making - both
>> online and offline. A focus on women in gender discussions
>> does not /exclude /men; it does the reverse. It actually
>> /includes /and brings women, who have traditionally been
>> excluded or under-represented, into the picture.
>>
>> Increasing diversity always means looking at - and taking
>> measures to include - those who have traditionally been
>> excluded or under-represented. From a gender perspective, this
>> means women and trans persons. From a language perspective,
>> this means thinking about languages that are under-represented
>> online. From the perspective of ability, diversity means
>> taking steps to include those who are seen as disability (eg
>> accessibility measures etc).
>>
>> I'm making the broader analogies around diversity only to
>> demonstrate that the same 'rule' applies to thinking around
>> diversity and inclusion, not only in the context of gender.
>>
>> Best
>> Bishakha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Capda Capda
>> <capdasiege at gmail.com <mailto:capdasiege at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Asène,
>>
>> Tu soulèves là un très bon point. J'ai toujours eu comme
>> l'impression que la notion du genre est considérée par la
>> majorité qui y défend comme la problématique de la femme,
>> ce qui constitue une erreur et un déséquilibre grave.
>> Vivement que nous puissions recentrer cette notion
>> importante pour la gouvernance de notre société. Vive la
>> diversité.
>>
>> Cordialement.
>>
>>
>> Hi Asene,
>>
>> You raise a very good point here. I have always had the
>> impression that the notion of gender is considered by the
>> majority who defend it as the problematic of women, which
>> constitutes a mistake and a serious imbalance. We strongly
>> hope that we can refocus this important notion for the
>> governance of our society. Long live for the diversity.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> 2017-10-03 15:45 GMT+02:00 Arsène Tungali
>> <arsenebaguma at gmail.com <mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>>:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thank you very much Deidre for raising that issue with
>> regards to "gender". I tend to agree with you on all
>> your points and do believe we need to reconsider the
>> way we see/talk about and define gender.
>>
>> We might run into the lack of balance if we consider
>> men, leaving women behind and vice versa. Though i
>> believe we all fight for diversity.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>> -----------------
>> Arsène Tungali,
>> about.me/ArseneTungali <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>
>> +243 993810967 <tel:+243%20993%20810%20967>
>> GPG: 523644A0
>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
>>
>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Deirdre Williams
>> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
>> <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jac,
>>>
>>> Dear Jac,
>>>
>>> While I support your work on behalf of women and
>>> girls I’m noticing a trend which is very disturbing –
>>> that is the creation of “gender” as being synonymous
>>> with “women/female”, at times almost acting as a
>>> euphemism.
>>>
>>> Consider what you wrote yesterday:
>>>
>>> the multiple forms of disparity and discrimination
>>> that the diversity of women face
>>>
>>> and what Michael wrote this morning:
>>>
>>> To put it mildly, helping to empower women and girls
>>> with meaningful and sustainable access is imperative
>>> to our future
>>>
>>> Where are the men?
>>>
>>> We seem to be being driven into an unfortunate case
>>> of divide and rule. A huge theme for the internet is
>>> inclusion, and yet “gender” is excluding
>>> approximately half of its population. So if we want
>>> to say “women” couldn’t we just say “women”? Do we
>>> think it’s a bad word? And if we’re discussing
>>> gender, couldn’t we include the men too? For example
>>> there might be workshops considering things from both
>>> sides, offering a male perspective as well. Are there
>>> men who facilitate internet access for women? Are
>>> there men who actively block access? How is this done
>>> and what measures have been implemented to get round
>>> the blocking? Are there men who are themselves denied
>>> access to the internet?
>>>
>>> The human race is diverse, in gender as well as in
>>> many other things. Denying diversity has been
>>> demonstrated as an unsuccessful way to try to solve
>>> problems, because the diversity persists no matter
>>> how much it is denied.
>>>
>>> What do other people think?
>>>
>>> Best wishes from the Caribbean (where we have a
>>> concern about the “marginalised male”)
>>>
>>> Deirdre.
>>>
>>> On 2 October 2017 at 05:52, Jac sm Kee
>>> <jac at apcwomen.org <mailto:jac at apcwomen.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Much thanks for all the considered thoughts on
>>> this issue. Being a
>>> committed advocate of this issue, I appreciate
>>> the reflection and
>>> insights on why it is both difficult and
>>> important to integrate gender
>>> into IG and policy conversations, including and
>>> esp on access.
>>>
>>> I hope this thread of discussion helped to
>>> clarify why it doesn't make
>>> sense to stack the multiple forms of disparity
>>> and discrimination that
>>> the diversity of women face before we take action
>>> to address whatever
>>> that is within our ability, capacity and
>>> responsibility to address. Also
>>> happy to take this conversation further if more
>>> doubts or questions
>>> surface.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, we continue to appreciate your
>>> support in responding to
>>> as well as disseminating the survey to your
>>> networks who do work in this
>>> area.
>>>
>>> As a reminder, the survey link is:
>>>
https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/783797/lang-en
>>>
<https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/783797/lang-en>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> jac
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> Jac sm Kee
>>> Manager, Women's Rights Programme
>>> Association for Progressive Communications
>>> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org> |
>>> www.takebackthetech.net
>>> <http://www.takebackthetech.net> |
>>> erotics.apc.org <http://erotics.apc.org>
>>> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but
>>> knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize
>>> Economics, 1979
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, click here:
>>>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/arsenebaguma%40gmail.com
>>>
<http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/arsenebaguma%40gmail.com>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, click here:
>>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/capdasiege%40gmail.com
>>
<http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/capdasiege%40gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> **
>>
>> *
>>
>> Michel TCHONANG LINZE
>>
>> Coordinateur Général
>>
>> _ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC_:*
>>
>> * *ITU TELECOM WORLD du 25 au 28 Septembre 2017 à
>> Busan-Corée du Sud*
>> * *CMDT-17 du 09 au 20 octobre 2017 à Buenos Aires -
>> Argentine*
>> * *6ème Forum de la Gouvernance Internet Afrique (AfIGF)
>> du 04 au 06 décembre 2017 au Caire - Egypte*
>> * *12ème FGI du 18 au 21 décembre 2017 à Genève - Suisse*
>>
>> *
>>
>> CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et
>> le Développement de l'Afrique)
>>
>> BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 67775-39-63 /
>> 24212-9493 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com
>> <mailto:capdasiege at gmail.com>* Site : www.capda.ong
>> <http://www.capda.ong>*
>>
>> *
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DC mailing list
>> DC at intgovforum.org <mailto:DC at intgovforum.org>
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org
>> <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DC mailing list
> DC at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20171011/de545a7a/attachment.sig>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list