Talk:Gender mainstreaming

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yunxin Yao. Peer reviewers: Yihuan Wang, Sunnycxz, Bai03lee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Can someone explain what happened to the references?--Mgoodyear 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Street sign

I've removed the following part of a sentence:

"lady with ponytail and protective helmet to warn of ongoing road construction works"

The aforementioned sign will not be seen on the streets of Wien. It is part of an advertising campaign promoting the new signs. The city government cannot simply invent new street signs as the look of the street signs is prescribed by (road) traffic regulations (Straßenverkehrsordnung).

See this reference (in German): [1]

This page needs an overhaul. It consist of a definition and two disconnected cases, one of a city in Europe and one of a country in Asia.

occurred

The concept of gender mainstreaming occurred on 1985 Third World Conference on Women in Nairobi.

What does it mean for a concept to occur? Marnanel 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence: "Gender mainstreaming is the process of assessing the implications for women and men ..." etc.

Women and men? I do realize that the article's opening sentence is taken from an "official" UN definition of gender mainstreaming (repeated in toto further down the article) but, official or not, it's still nonsense - and dishonest nonsense at that. It's a non-definition. It's very meaninglessness might hint to those with some exposure to tranzi quango doubletalk that coded information is being conveyed but the wholly innocent reader can learn nothing at all about the nature of gender mainstreaming, and the opening sentences of Wikipedia articles should be aimed at the wholly innocent reader. So I have again deleted the "and men" from the opening sentence of this article. It's a small step towards clarity (the whole article needs rewriting) but, IMO, an essential one. That's all for now, ladies and gentlemen, women and men. Be nice to each other, pay your taxes. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that the UN definition is dishonest or nonsensical, perhaps you should be editing United_Nations#Controversy_and_criticism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you insist that gender mainstreaming only applies to women, find a definition from another body that only mentions women. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant, "applies only to women". Please confirm. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

They are pretty much semantically identical in this usage. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming from 3O; changing the article because you don't agree with a UN definition is pretty much the exact definition of original research. Charles 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also coming from the WP:Third Opinion request. I edited the article so the U.N. article is now a link and we can all easily read it. Seems to me the NYU paper says "women" its first usage and describes Women's conferences where this idea developed. The UN report always says "women and men". The article as it stands is a bit mysterious for the general reader (like me) who was unaware of this exact concept. These are my suggestions:

• Put "public policy concept" in the first clause of the first sentence so we know what this is about.
• Use the "women and men" formulation. The next paragraph explains that the concept derives from a "World Conference on Women". That sentence clears up any confusion for me. It does not need to be a new paragraph.

So I would suggest this lead: "Gender mainstreaming is the public policy concept of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned policy action, including legislation and programmes, in all areas and levels. Gender mainstreaming was first proposed at the 1985 Third World Conference on Women...". With no wikilink on the year. That's my suggestion. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That lead sounds good to me. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Scrupulously fair. If you can find someone on the public gender mainstreaming payroll who agrees with you then I'll agree with you too. Until then, I see no reason to pander to NGOnglish just because the UN says so. Whatever gender mainstreaming is, it's mainly about women. About women and men, it is not. Or not directly. See? Vinny Burgoo (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and WP:OWN. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion redux. I'm still thinking about my suggested edit above. My concern is that it is only clear on the second reading. The two meanings of "women and men" are:

1. "all people"
2. "differentially women and men"

The first is the traditional reading, while the second, equally valid, arises from context.

Also, I agree the U.N. having a definition does not make it a correct or clear definition of the actual concept. The key to addressing that issue would be to find WP:reliable sources which place the definition in a critical context. Always WP:secondary sources are preferable to WP:primary sources, such as the U.N. document.

A way to clarify the meaning of the opening sentence, though a bit arcane, would be: "Gender mainstreaming is the public policy concept of assessing the differential implications for women and men of any planned policy action, including legislation and programmes, in all areas and levels. Gender mainstreaming was first proposed at the 1985 Third World Conference on Women..." -Colfer2 (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That intro is nearly there in terms of neutrality, IMO, but it still doesn't actually say what gender mainstreaming is. GM is passing laws to ensure that feminist pressure-groups must be consulted at the earliest stage of any public - and, increasingly, of any private - project and that their concerns must be built in to whatever ensues. (I've restored the 3rd example to the article. Hope it helps.) Vinny Burgoo (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism ?

Thee should be comparisons between feminist economics and mainstream economics, so that possible criticisms might be detected. This is especially true since feminist economics are increasigly being blamed for the demographic and economic crisis in Europe and the United States, where feminist and anti-discrimination ideas have been implanted almost everywhere in the workplace. ADM (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    What on earth are you talking about? 2.101.224.86 (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Requirements and Principles of Gender mainstreaming

On the 23 of September I added an important part on the major principles of gender mainstreaming. If anyone should erase the changes made, please explain on what grounds. Sincerely, Barak Pick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakpick (talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding these principles – good job. Maybe it is time for another improvement and I am happy to contribute. Therefore, I would like to work on the following suggestions. The current introduction of the “Principles” section seems to imply that Lombardo and Charlesworth are the ones who brought forward these principles, while it seems that these objectives (or principles) have been introduced by the Beijing Platform for Action. Hence, I suggest that we could maybe start this section by mentioning the ideas of the UN, instead of immediately referring to Lombardo and Charlesworth – however I do think that we should keep these references. Besides that, I would suggest to more elaborate on these principles. It seems that the current structure is based on the work of Lombardo, consequently I was thinking to deviate a little more from this work of Lombardo. Maybe I can find some inspiration in the Beijing Platform for Action? First I was thinking to change the subsection based on the objectives set forward in the Beijing Platform for Action (Women and poverty, Education and training of women, Women and health, Violence against women, Women and armed conflict, Women and the economy, Women in power and decision-making, Institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women, Human rights of women, Women and the media, Women and the environment, The girl child), but maybe this is too much linked to the Beijing Platform for Action? Please feel free to share your opinion and thoughts. DewinneA (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism on Gender Mainstreaming

I also added some points concerning criticism on gender mainstreaming. Proper academic refrences were added (also to the previous part). As said before, please explain if one would choose to change or delete. Barak Pick

Gender Mainstreaming in Hebrew

I want to begin writing the concept in Hebrew. Does anyone know how to technically allow a new language option for the concept?

Sincerely, Barak Pick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.35.178 (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to revise

I am planning to make some revisions to this article as part of a project of my Feminist Economics and Public Policy class.

I am thinking of adding something to the last paragraph of the introduction. Instead of merely mentioning the concept defined by ECOSOC, I would make clear that ECOSOC agreed on conclusions (1997/2) that established some important overall principles for gender mainstreaming.

I am as well thinking of revising the section on “Principles” (see reaction to “Requirements and Principles of Gender Mainstreaming” above).

I would like to add a subsection on the initiatives of the European Union. There are several initiatives in the context of EU. In a short introduction I will mention some of them (e.g., several women’s networks (WECF, EWL, etc.)). Then I would cover more expansively the experience of gender mainstreaming within the European Employment Strategy. Since 1997, the EU is promoting a system of policy-making that requires governments to adopt a gender-mainstreaming approach to major area of economic and social policy.

Please feel free to comment or make any suggestion.

I will use the following references: European Commission, 2008, Manual for Gender Mainstreaming. Employment, Social Inclusion, and Social Protection Policies, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Unit G1; Jämstöd. 2007, Gender mainstreaming manual. Swedish Government Official Reports SOU 2007:15. Stockholm: Edita Sverige AB; Calvo, D., 2013, What is the problem of gender? Mainstreaming gender in migration and development policies in the European Union, Gothenburg : Department of Sociology and Work Science. (Doctoral Dissertation); Goetschy, J., 1999, ‘‘The European Employment Strategy: Genesis and Development.’’ European Journal of Industrial Relations 5(2): 117–137; Lang, S., 2009, Assessing Advocacy: European Transnational Women's Networks and Gender Mainstreaming, Soc Pol (2009) 16 (3): 327–357; Plantenga, J., Remery C., and Rubery, J., 2007, Gender mainstreaming of employment policies – A comparative review of thirty European countries, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Rao A., and Kelleher D., 2005, Is there life after gender mainstreaming? Gender and Development. 2005 Jul; 13(2): 57–69; Rees, T., 1998, Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union. London: Routledge; Rubery, J., 2002, ‘‘Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in the EU: The Impact of the EU Employment Strategy.’’ Industrial Relations Journal 33(5): 500–522; Rubery, J., 2004, ‘‘‘More (and Better) Jobs for Women?’ The Employment Task Force Report and Gender Mainstreaming,’’ in E. Honekopp, ed. Impulses for European Employment Policy, Impulses for Germany, pp. 77–94. Nurnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesagentur für Arbeit; Rubery, J., 2005, Reflections on Gender Mainstreaming: An Example of Feminist Economics in Action?, Feminist Economics 11(3), November 2005; Walby, S., 2005, Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice Soc Pol (Fall 2005) 12 (3): 321–343; Woodward, A. E., 2008, Too late for gender mainstreaming? Taking stock in Brussels Journal of European Social Policy (2008) 18 (3): 289–302;

Does anyone have a suggestion to add to this reference list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DewinneA (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi DewinneA,

I enjoyed reading your article and I think that it will be in great shape. You’ve added some very important content and your edits really help in building the article. I recommend that you expand a bit more on the section on “Principles” to build on this with additional sources; you could probably merge certain principles (example, “gender equality” and “prioritizing gender equality”). Please also consider sourcing for certain unreferenced sentences and also assess the neutrality of such statements. Also, try to break down the section on “Examples” so that the legal principles that you provide with respect to each jurisdiction can be more easily understood. Lastly, see if you can get creative with images. Otherwise, I think you’ve put in a great effort in your contribution and it really reflects in your article. Good luck for the final submission!

Sm1986 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Great work so far. A few suggestions -- first, it might benefit in the future from a "process" or "strategy" section explaining how countries have formalized gender mainstreaming. Second, could Himmelweit's article on Gender impact analysis be a source for expanding some of the principles? Third, both the Nicaragua and UN Peacekeeping seem to suffer a bit from POV issues. Finally, I second the call for more images if possible -- though I'm sure it's challenging to find!! -- and would suggest some more cross-linking to other Wikipedia articles! Good luck! Melody.waring (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Many thanks for your reactions, highly appreciated and very useful.

Taiwan

I am revising this article on Gender Mainstreaming and I think this section could be improved. However, I don't have relevant resources to revise this section. Maybe anyone can help to improve this section about Taiwan? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DewinneA (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Vienna

Hi everyone, I added some references to the Vienna subsection. Does anyone have additional references to add? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DewinneA (talk • contribs) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference check

Under subsection "other criticism", the following is said: "When gender mainstreaming polices are drafted without consulting sections of the women’s movement (i.e. women’s rights civil society groups), they lack ground level-expertise. Policy decisions related to gender that are made without consulting sections of the women’s movement do not demonstrate a clear political willingness to addressing gender inequality. When institutions reach out to the women’s rights movement, it demonstrates transparency, inclusiveness, accountability and the implementation process is more likely to be monitored with diligence." I wanted to verify the reference stated, however without success. Could maybe someone check this? Many thanks! DewinneA (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Any examples and more specific rules that would finally explain how it actually works or is intended to work?

I wanted to learn something about the Gender Mainstreaming subject just because the term has been used many times in a late night tv discussion I was watching yesterday without explaining what it actually means.

After reading this Wikipedia page I have to admit I still do not feel I have got it. OK, I admit I am the one who failed here, but is not that so Wikipedia should serve uneducated readers first of all? ;)

I see the definition - it makes some sense to me - it is a theoretical phrase saying:
Whatever is going to be politically introduced as a rule, we should make sure it is not preferring men or women but it is done for prosperity of both genders (assuming the rule can imply differently depending on gender at all).
In case there is a kind of inherited inequality already, we are still allowed to help the poorer (i.e. 'positively discriminate' either women or men, but I take as a fact that women are the oppressed ones in most cases).
Something like that?

OK, assuming I understand the main point properly, still perceiving the article too vague to cover the big deal adequately, I have some questions/suggestions:

1. Gender Mainstreaming means we think about the gender-related consequences all the time and therefore all the examples are logically just implementations of this general approach into legislative - so it is a "meta-rule" and expecting any example showing how this "meta-rule" implemented in real life has some real final effects correlated with its intents is too much to expect? Or is there an example that is not like "EU legislative requests Gender Mainstreaming be part of legislative in all the member nations" (I do not even consider such examples being examples).
2. Does not Gender Equity idea presuppose the only you need to do not end up with preferring women or men is to never use words "women" or "man" in the legislative and approach people equally - as human beings? The same rights declared to both genders are assured by simply not mentioning genders - they should simply not be a source of a new generated difference here. Not: "Think about genders all the time" but "do not think about genders at all" seems to be the better approach here. Why not?
3. If there are specific needs of genders and Gender Mainstreaming wants to take them into account (with no Gender Equity concept in mind), i.e. it is assessing not equal implications to not equal genders as much as possible, what is the standard routine of deciding how to reach Gender Equality - a standardized metrics proposed to be implemented or something less vague than what I read in the definition?
   Request for "assessing implications" should describe also HOW to do that, otherwise one can end up with legislative declared Gender Equality* compliant _{(*assessing not equal implications)} not allowing women with small children to work while asking men to pay 50% tax to support them, because it is somehow better for all the genders involved - especially for the children (hyperbola). Why not?

Gender Equality as a goal, request for assessing different implications depending on gender as a key approach - does it make ANY sense? Seriously, can it be explained?
Thanks.
Eltwarg (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender mainstreaming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001054742/http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/1997/66 to http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/1997/66

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)