2015: Public Welfare and Gender

中文 English

Editor’s Note:

This is an edited and abbreviated version of an article from the Chinese Academy of Social Science’s annual “Blue Book of Philanthropy” of 2015. The article argues that gender issues came to the forefront within Chinese civil society following the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. Around 2008, when many international NGOs started leaving China, the concept of gender became marginalized, but in 2015 it made a comeback, following an increase in feminist activism coinciding with the 20th Anniversary of the Beijing conference.

 

The concept of gender became widespread among Chinese social organizations following the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, drawing on support from cooperation programs for poverty alleviation in the field of international development. Around 2008, as many international organizations were leaving China, causing changes in the available resources for Chinese NGOs, gender became a marginalized issue. In 2015, during the commemorations for the 20th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women, feminists involved in the field of charity held up slogans like “Restart from Beijing,” “Let’s talk about Gender again,” “Gender concerns make charity more effective,” once again introducing the topics of gender and gender equality into the field of Chinese philanthropy and public welfare.

Looking back on the Chinese nonprofit community in 2015, there is one phenomenon in particular that differentiates it from previous years, and that is the re-emergence of the topic of gender equality—starting at the beginning of the year with the March 7 incident, followed by discussions on China’s law against domestic violence, demonstrations surrounding the anniversary of the World Conference on Women in September, and the emergence of issues such as “female empowerment,” “gender,” and “gender equality” on all kinds of traditional media and new social media platforms. Gender equality repeatedly turned into the main topic of discussion in seminars and forums, and even some large-scale symposiums of the NGO community have started to focus on the topic of gender equality. All of these developments following the 1995 World Conference on Women indicate that the concept of “gender” is experiencing a second awakening in Chinese philanthropic circles.

 

The First Awakening: The Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing

 

In September of 1995, the United Nation’s Fourth World Conference on Women was held in Beijing. This was the largest international conference that the Chinese government had agreed to undertake since its founding. Over 30,000 women from all around the world gathered in Huairou, expressing their desire and resolution for “Action for Equality, Development, and Peace” in many different ways. 189 members of the UN adopted the “Beijing Declaration” and the “Platform for Action,” which form strategic objectives and a policy framework for the promotion of gender equality and protection of women’s rights. This was history’s most successful World Conference on Women; the mission and spirit that it proclaimed to the world created major and positive change, and its impact is still apparent today.

The Spread and Dissemination of the Idea of Gender in China

One of the effects the World Conference on Women had on Chinese NGOs was the spread and dissemination of the idea of gender.

Gender, as an academic concept, holds that in addition to the fundamental biological differences between men and women, there exist social differences and relationships as well. The concept of gender is described by sociologists as the group characteristics, roles, activities, and responsibilities of men and women that are expressed within a specific society.[2] In sociology, when it comes to gender, differences in class, ethnicity and geographic location are all used as important tools for analyzing differences between groups of people.

In recent years, any mention of gender in public welfare circles is often immediately associated with feminism, but this is actually a false connection. There are two main avenues by which gender has been disseminated in China.

The first one is women’s studies. In the middle of the 1980s, with the new awakening movement in intellectual circles and the appearance of a large number of women’s issues in China as the country entered into a new era of reform and opening, the field of women’s studies in China was gradually gaining ground. Around the early 1990s, the concept of gender was translated and introduced into China as an important theoretical school of Western thought in women’s studies, and it became used in academic circles as an influential analytical model for explaining gender discrimination. However, at the time, the field of women’s studies was comprised of a very small number of people, and their potential for influence was not large.

The second avenue is international development aid. In the 1980s, China’s reform and opening up opened the door into the country, and the large population and poverty rate attracted the attention of international aid organizations such as the United Nations. After many of these types of bilateral and multilateral aid organizations entered China, a wide variety of poverty alleviation development programs were started in the northwest and southwest, where impoverished populations were highly concentrated. The concept of gender was widely disseminated in China through the development of these international programs.

bkncn-20151001000315055-1001_05411_001_01b

The Current Situation: the Marginalization of Gender in the Nonprofit Sector

1. The Current Situation

Despite the lack of supporting research and data, there is no question that in recent years the topic of gender has been marginalized within the nonprofit sector:

(1) The issues of women’s development and gender equality have faded from the vision of the sector as a whole, reduced now to being issues for women’s organizations alone. This can be seen from three facts.

First of all, there is the amount of organizational development. One of the important effects that the Fourth World Conference on Women had on the Chinese nonprofit sector was the legalization of NGOs in China, as well as the expedited support and promotion of the growth and expansion of women’s NGOs. In 2008, during the One Foundation’s first annual selection of the “Model Project,” 3 of the 7 organizations selected were feminist organizations, which demonstrates the maturity and level of influence of feminist organizations at the time.[5] 2008 has been called “China’s first year of philanthropy.” The earthquake in Wenchuan that year gave birth to many nongovernmental organizations as well as a fervour for forming associations. This caused a huge gush of nonprofit organizations to spring up. Unfortunately, within this huge wave of new organizations, the number dealing with women and gender was very limited, making the overall proportion of feminist organizations in the industry relatively small.

Secondly, it can be seen from program performance. The number of programs directly related to gender equality and women’s empowerment is getting smaller and smaller. Community service programs that maintain a degree of sensitivity to gender are very difficult to find. Even when there is a project proposal related to this topic, the proposal often fails early on due to a lack of talent within the organization. This can be glimpsed at from the all the colourful awards and honours awarded within the sector.

(2) Many NGOs do not understand gender. In August 2015, China’s first Women’s Charity Summit Preparatory group commissioned China Development Brief with an investigation into the current status of gender in society. They collected questionnaires from 37 organizations in nine provinces and municipalities in China. Out of these, there were 22 local organizations, five international NGOs, five GONGOs, and five private foundations. From this survey, we can see the following things:

(2.1) At the strategic level, organizations rarely consider gender equality. Excluding women’s organizations that focus primarily on promoting gender equality, it is very rare for an organization to have gender equality written directly into its policies or organizational principles. Of the 37 organizations that participated in the survey, there were only 12 that had any content related to gender equality in their strategy. This accounts for 32% of the total. There were 17 organizations that had not even considered gender, accounting for 46% of the total.

(2.2) The leaders of the organizations lack an understanding of gender and gender equality. Out of the leaders of the 37 organizations in the survey,  2 “had no understanding of gender in society”, and 11 “knew a little bit”. Taken together these two categories accounted for 35% of the participants.

(2.3) The vast majority of employees in the nonprofit sector lack training on gender. Despite the lack of rigorous research, no one familiar with the nonprofit field will deny this fact. Seventy percent of the organizations in this survey had not undertaken any gender training, and 54% of the organizations had not considered gender factors when hiring employees. [8] Due to a lack of training, the vast majority of employees in the industry do not have any awareness of gender issues, and many organizations lack staff that utilize a perspective of gender understanding. This is causing a decrease in sensitivity to gender concerns in community service-related programs, resulting in a decrease in the effectiveness of implemented programs. Moreover, some young people in the nonprofit community mistakenly believe that gender equality is the same as feminism or refuse to even acknowledge it.

From the above analysis we can see that the marginalization of gender issues in the nonprofit world has already become a reality. The vast majority of staff and organizations lack a gender perspective, and this has become a shortcoming that is constricting the healthy development of China’s nonprofit sector.

 

2. The Causes

(1) The withdrawal of international development organizations. In recent years, China’s economy and economic strength has been developing rapidly, and many foreign aid organizations have been withdrawing from China in quick succession. This has caused a large reduction in the amount of resources available for promoting gender issues. After 2008, this type of training has seen a sharp fall, and many in the new, younger generation in nonprofit have no idea what gender even is. This is especially true for newly established foundations, which are especially unfamiliar with it.

“Although our organization does do women’s rights, I don’t think we really fall under the categorization of public welfare anymore. The monopoly over the right to speak on diversification and inclusivity in the nonprofit sector, the hegemony of the male elite and their indifference towards gender issues is no different than how it is other sectors; in some cases, it is more serious here. When the international organizations—which understood our thinking—left, our entire discipline has become increasingly marginalized and harder and harder to be a part of. Many of our colleagues have not yet become aware of this, but many have adjusted their organizational development strategy as a direct result of the availability of resources.” [9]

(2)  Fundamental shifts in the nonprofit sector. With the rise of domestic public and private foundations, the East is gradually replacing the West and becoming the driving force of the Chinese philanthropic sector. But these shifts are causing fault lines to appear; experience and tradition are not linking up. These fundamental shifts are also changing the basic topics of discussion in the nonprofit sector. In the past, we spoke of participatory development, advocacy and empowerment. Today we talk about service models, outreach, and influence. Young, domestic foundations are leading these discussions, revealing the shortsightedness and immaturity of the industry.

“There is almost no financial support from domestic sources that focuses specifically on gender and women’s issues. The vast majority of foundations do not pay much attention to a program’s mission or principles. Instead, the fashionable thing to do now is focus on trainings for “fundraising”, “outreach”, “transparency”, “public credibility”, and “innovation”. In actuality, this has nothing to do with the issues we deal with on a basic, community level; there is a disconnect with these things…… Furthermore, the bigwigs monopolizing the dialogue who are emphasizing these very noble-sounding words are basically all men. There is no gender perspective. This makes finding resources and doing our work that much harder.” [10]

(3) The weakening influence of women’s organizations in the industry. Many of the veteran feminist organizations founded in the last century are very internally focused, contained, and maintained by the same network of people. This internal consistency juxtaposed with the rapid, external changes has caused their influence in the industry to weaken. In recent years, the rising new generation of feminists has been making use of the internet, but because of their aggressive behavior, social organizations have often misunderstood feminists, and have kept away from them. In addition to this, there are some foreign concepts from past trainings that have not been absorbed well; consequently, there have been some misunderstandings of gender, in some cases even to the point of developing a negative stigma. Some equate the concept of gender with women and feminism, and they think that feminism is a radical social movement that targets men. There needs to be a clear division between gender and feminism.

 

1733674872

The Second Awakening: Making Public Welfare More Sensitive to Gender Issues

 

For those feminists who experienced the World Conference on Women, the current state of gender in the nonprofit world is heartbreaking. In 2015, an opportunity finally came with the 20th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Organizations hosted all kinds of roundtables, research symposiums, and written reflections that were published in all types of media, particularly making use of opportunities in the new media to promote the spirit of the World Conference on Women and to advocate for a “Restart of Beijing.” [11]

This reawakening movement hosted an event in September called “Beijing +20”, the high point of which was the Chinese Nonprofit Summit on Women. The summit’s main topic of discussion was “how to give NGOs a gender perspective,” which was a clear battle cry directed towards the Chinese nonprofit sector. The summit was organized by a group of women activist leaders in the public welfare sector: Gao Xiaoxian, Yang Tuan, Guo Hong, Xie Lihua, Huang Yi, Chen Yimei, Zheng Bing, Liu Xiaogang, a group which includes some members of the older generation of feminists. There were also theorists active in public welfare areas other than women’s rights, as well as some leaders of foundations. All of the 60 participants at the summit were women leaders of social organizations that are influential in the public welfare sector. Everyone gathered in Xi’an to carry on the spirit of the Beijing World Conference on Women, and discuss issues brought up during the conference. Discussions focused on how to promote a gender perspective in public welfare, demonstrating the commitment, dedication, and responsibility of these women towards promoting gender equality.

After a one-day seminar, the “Gender Perspective in Public Welfare” consensus was adopted, focusing on the main ideas this wave of reawakening hopes to convey:

1. Gender equality and public welfare have the same goals. Modern philanthropy—whether it be simple charitable giving or giving to programs for “finding solutions to problems of socially vulnerable groups”— already holds the sustainable development of “social justice”, “justice”, and “equality” as the core values and objectives of the nonprofit sector. Women’s empowerment and gender equality “is the only way to create sustainable development and a fair, developed society. It is mankind’s prerequisite for achieving political, social, economic, cultural, and environmental safety.” [12] Philanthropy shares the same goals and objectives with gender equality, and it has already become the most important non-governmental force promoting gender equality.

2. Gender equality makes nonprofits more effective. This can be understood through two perspectives on the social system of gender constructed by history and culture. Even today, it still influences people’s thoughts and behaviors, causing a division of labor and power relationship. It exists in all sectors of society and groups of people that nonprofits serve; women outnumber men in socially vulnerable groups, and they live in situations that are even more vulnerable. This is true, for example, for the poor and lowly educated groups, for female household caretakers without a salary, and for medical services, technology, or the ability to use the Internet. If we do not see this power relationship and the resulting differences in behavior, it will cause us to overlook, ignore, and neglect service to people in need. On the other hand if we introduce gender analysis, when we address these differences we will be more sensitive, have a clearer view, and implement plans and programs that are more effective. We will provide services and take steps that are more targeted and have a better social impact. The nonprofit sector has been invigorated by a large number of female volunteers, professional staff and administrators. Giving them equal resources and equal opportunity would not only increase the number of people engaged in the nonprofit sector and the amount of charitable contributions, but more importantly, they would bring a gender perspective with them, which would make public welfare more compassionate, more humane, closer to the groups it serves, and more appealing.

3. The introduction of a gender perspective will help the professionalization of the nonprofit sector. The groups of people that nonprofits serve are differentiated by gender. If the differences between the two genders are not understood in regards to cognition, behavior, needs, and identified values, then social organizations have no business discussing things such as their effective intervention and high quality service. A gender perspective is an essential component in the professionalization of philanthropy. The participants in the summit made it clear that the process of mainstreaming gender is an indicator of maturation and growth.

4. When nonprofits do have a gender perspective, this will be reflected in their project management and institutional governance. There needs to be gender analysis in project design and within each stage of planning, not only to respond by providing solutions to the immediate needs of women, but more importantly, to focus on their strategic needs. Project activities need to have components that enhance women’s awareness and ability to participate in community development. Program implementation should pay attention to female participation. Program evaluation should include female empowerment, indicators of gender, and the representative participation of women. This should be done with respect to the realities of China today, and work manuals should be published for different sectors that have particular gender considerations in order to meet the diverse needs of the industry, for example, gender perspectives in rural community development, gender perspectives in emergency rescue and disaster management, gender-sensitive project management, social work and sharing technology.

All nonprofit organizations need a gender-friendly organizational model: one that has clear gender-equality advocacy, established professional staff positions dedicated to gender, specialized gender training provided for all staff, a promise that all projects will be gender-sensitive, and sensitivity to the sex ratio of people at the executive, management, and employee level, while increasing the proportion of women at the managerial level.

5. In order for nonprofits to have a gender perspective, governments, businesses, and foundations must work together to push this forward. This also requires the full participation of the people, and especially of the women that these communities and services aim to help. Governments, enterprises, and foundations hold the resources for public welfare; they have a leading influence on the issues nonprofits turn their attention to. The participants of the summit call on the government, foundations, and private enterprises to agree to push gender equality and gender issues into mainstream programming by investing more resources and emphasizing the need for feminist organizations to adapt to external changes. They can play a leading role in advocating and spreading the process of mainstreaming gender.

In 2015, there were two important international events that also added fuel to the flames. In August, the United Nations passed the “2015-2030 Sustainable Development Goals”. In comparison to the Millennium Development Goals passed in 2000, the original 8 goals have increased to 17. Gender equality and female empowerment is still one of the goals, but the wording is much stronger than before– “promoting gender equality” has been changed to “achieving gender equality.” In September the Chinese government and the Women’s office of the UN jointly held the World Summit on Women. Chairman Xi Jinping spoke at this summit: “We have just passed the 2015 development plan. A gender perspective has already been incorporated into all areas of this development plan. Let us carry forward the spirit of the Beijing World Conference on Women, reaffirm our promise, and add energy to the promotion of gender equality and the comprehensive development of women.”

On behalf of the Chinese government and UN Women, 10 million US dollars were donated to support the implementation of the “Beijing Declaration”, the “Platform for Action”, and related programs in the 2015 development plan. After 20 years, this brought the attention of the government and the public back to the issues of gender and development. “Women’s empowerment,” “gender equality,” and a “gender perspective” are once again gaining attention. One difference between now and the 1990s is that China’s rapid economic development has turned it from a country that receives international aid to a country that gives international aid. Because of this, the nonprofit world is talking about potential international horizons, and it is starting to care about the issue of “soft power” that would come with China’s international monetary aid and giving, as well as the associated values of theories and models of development, or similarly, the “China experience” or the “China model” that has spilled over into the area of poverty development. [13] The experience of gender development in China after the World Conference on Women has become a topic followed closely by scholars and activists. [14]

This reawakening presents some clear differences with the first awakening: first of all the leading ideological force is no longer coming from international organizations, but rather from local feminist organizations, women’s rights workers, and female leaders in the nonprofit sector. These women include some from the older generation, but also many from the new generation born after 1980. In the absence of foreign financial support, these women have spontaneously acted within the areas and regions that they have access to, acting similarly but without coordination to hold various commemorative activities and discussion forums. Taken together, this has had an impact on the industry.

Secondly, there is a diversification of the methods and models. Rather than relying solely on programming and training, new media, social platforms, and preexisting forums can be and should be used more often.

Thirdly, flexibility is increasing at the strategic level. There are the bold, strong, fighting feminists, as well as the less public, moderate women advocates who work with the female leaders of nonprofit organizations, who have changed the image of the lone feminist fighting by herself. This change is also dependent on the use of different discourses and advocacy models depending on what the targeted audience is ready to accept, which can also be seen in the way the women’s summit was initiated and in the general consensus that came from the summit. This shift is also related to the diversification of the development of Chinese women’s organizations as well as the rethinking of gender training in women’s organizations over the past 20 years.

Fourthly, the process of localization has caused “gender equality” and the “gender perspective” to integrate better with other topics popular in the nonprofit sector: for example, the basic nature of philanthropy; the efficiency, professionalization, and sustainable development of social organizations, disaster management, targeted poverty relief, the “one belt and one road” strategy etc… This has had the added effect of making it easier for the industry to accept the line of advocacy that “a gender perspective makes public welfare more effective.”

The commemorative events for the 1995 World Conference on Women may have already passed, but the conversations about gender within the nonprofit industry are far from over. The effect of this reawakening will be lasting and continuous. The reawakening has brought about an accumulation of strength, and the rise of the new generation fills us with hope for the future.
[1] Gao Xiaoxian, Shaanxi Research Center on Theory of Marriage and Household, Founder of the Yunhui, Shaanxi Gender Development Training Center.
[2] Candida March, Ines Smith, Maitrayee Mukhopadhyay, translated by Gender Awareness Resources Group, “A Guide to Gender-Analysis Framework,” Social Sciences Publication, 2004, page 7.
[3] United Nations, “Report on the Fourth World Conference on Women,” (internal information), Article 202 on page 103, 1995, Beijing.
[4]Candida March, Ines Smith, Maitrayee Mukhopadhyay, translated by Gender Awareness Resources Group, “A Guide to Gender-Analysis Framework,” Social Sciences Publication, 2004, page 6.
[5] The three organizations are: the Beijing Rural Women Cultural Development Center, the Shaanxi Research Center on Theory of Marriage and Household, and the Liangshan Yi Minority Women and Children Development Service Center
[6]Yang, Jin: “The Current Situation and Challenges Regarding Gender in the Nonprofit Sector,” 8 September 2015, China Development Brief, Web. http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief,org.cn
[7]Yang, Jin: “The Current Situation and Challenges Regarding Gender in the Nonprofit Sector,” 8 September 2015, China Development Brief, Web. http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief,org.cn
[8] Same as 6
[9] Zhao, Hailing: “‘A Female Perspective: My Road to Philanthropy'” statements in interview,” West Women Network. http://www.westwomen.org
[10] Zhao, Hailing: “‘A Female Perspective: My Road to Philanthropy'” statements in interview,” speech from the China Women’s Philanthropy Summit, West Women Website, http://www.westwomen.org
[11] Feng, Yuan: “Inventory and Departure—Writings on the 20th Anniversary of the Beijing World Conference on Women,” China Development Brief, 5 March 2015 http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief,org.cn
[12] “Program of Action” adopted by the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women
[13]See statement from October 2015 “Sixth Forum on Innovation and Philanthropy in Western Communities” held in Lanzhou
[14] See Bu Wei’s “‘Beyond ‘Women and Media’ — A Review of the “Beijing Platform for Action,” China’s Experience and Evaluation of Beijing+20″, as well as a statement from Gao Xiaoxian and Song Shaopeng from 14-15 October 2015 at the “International and Chinese Women’s Forum” hosted in Beijing by the Song QingLing Foundation and the United Nations Development Program.

2015:公益与社会性别

高小贤[1]

摘要:

1995年第四次世界妇女大会之后,借助国际发展领域的扶贫合作项目,社会性别在中国的社会组织中得到普遍传播。08年前后,随着国际机构撤离中国,国内公益慈善资源和中心发生改变,社会性别随之边缘化。2015年借第四次世界妇女大会召开20周年纪念之际,公益圈的女性主义者喊出“北京再出发”、“重提社会性别”、“社会性别让公益更有效”的倡导声音,使社会性别和性别平等再次成为中国公益慈善领域的启蒙话题。

 

关键词:社会性别、边缘化、二次启蒙

回观2015年中国公益慈善界,一个不同于往年的特别的现象是性别平等的话题再次热了起来:从年初的 3.7事件,中期《反家庭暴力法》的讨论,到9月份的各种纪念北京世界妇女大会20周年活动, “妇女赋权”、“社会性别”、“性别平等”等话题不断出现在各种媒介及新媒体社交平台上,各种主体论坛和讨论会也频频不断,公益慈善界的一些大型论坛也开始有了性别平等的话题。种种现象,形成了95世界妇女大会之后“社会性别”在中国公益慈善领域的二次启蒙。

一、第一次启蒙:北京第四次世界妇女大会

1995年9月,联合国第四次妇女大会在北京举行,这是建国以来中国政府承接的最大规模的国际会议。来自世界各地的近3万名妇女聚集怀柔,用各种方式表达“以行动谋求平等、发展与和平”的意愿和决心;189个联合国成员通过了《北京宣言》和《行动纲领》,达成促进男女平等、保障妇女权利的战略目标和政策框架。这是史上最为成功的一次妇女大会,所宣示的精神和目标对世界产生了重大而积极的变化,影响力今天仍存。

(一)社会性别在中国的传播和推广

世界妇女大会对中国社会组织的影响之一,就是社会性别的传播和推广。

社会性别”作为一个学术概念,它由英文Gender翻译而来,指人们所认识到的基于男性和女性生理差别之上存在的社会性差异和社会性关系。社会性别概念被社会学家用来描述在一个特定社会中,由社会形成的男性或女性的群体特征、角色、活动及责任。[2]在社会学中,社会性别同阶级、族裔、地域等都是分析人群差异性的重要纬度和工具。

近些年在公益圈一提社会性别,很多人就和女权主义联系起来,这实在是一个误读。社会性别在中国的传播主要有两个途径:

一个是妇女研究。上世纪80年代中期,伴随着思想界的新启蒙运动以及改革开放后大量涌现的妇女问题,中国的妇女研究逐渐兴起。大约在90年代初,社会性别作为西方妇女研究的一个重要理论流派被翻译介绍进来,成为学界用来解释性别歧视原因的又一有影响力的分析范式。不过当时的妇女研究还是一个少数人的小圈子,这个路径的影响力不大。

二是国际发展援助。80年代中国改革开发打开国门,大量的贫困问题及人口成为联合国、国际发展援助机构关注的对象,随后大量的多边双边援助机构进来,在贫困人口集中的西南、西北等区域开展了各色的扶贫发展项目。社会性别在中国大范围的传播,是随着这些发展项目进来的。

90年代末,受《行动纲领》和《千年发展目标》的影响,推动社会性别主流化及性别平等已经成为国际发展机构的热点议题。当年在中国实施援助项目的机构,如世界银行、联合国发展署(UNDP)、加拿大发展署(CIDA)等,以及一些在华的民间发展机构,如福特基金会、英国救助儿童会、香港乐施会等,都在援助项目中强调性别平等与社会性别视角,包括项目申请时的社会性别分析,项目执行阶段的妇女参与与赋权,项目评估时的社会性别指标等。在那个阶段,项目建议书中若做不到社会性别敏感是很难获得批准的,因此接受社会性别培训、提升社会性别意识、掌握社会性别分析工具几乎是当时对所有发展工作者的基本要求。

发展机构为什么要关注性别平等?这与国际社会对“发展”的认识不断深化有关,是半个世纪以来对全球发展实践反思与批判的成果。

60年代是联合国第一个发展十年,当时的口号是“把贫困从发展中国家赶出去”,其指导理论就是我们大家熟知的现代化理论,认为所有的发展国家都必须走发达国家的模式,即由技术与资本的输入带动工业化与城市化的进程,可最后的效果并不理想,单纯的GDP增长解决不了很多发展中国家存在贫富分化、政局动荡等的社会问题。70年代联合国第二个发展十年时,发展界开始意识到反贫困项目没有穷人的参与是不行的,而妇女占到贫困人口的70%,即“贫困长了一张女人的面孔”,因此,妇女如何参与发展便被正式提到联合国议程中。到了80年代,人们意识到单纯的以经济增长为目标的发展模式的局限性,提出了“以人为中心的可持续性发展”的概念,发展不仅包括经济增长、生活水平提高和知识水平的进步,还包括所有社会成员的机会均等,有能力参与并从中获益。当人成为发展关注的终极目标时,“社会性别”连同“参与”、“赋权”等概念便成为发展界的热点词汇,因为在实际生活中人不是一个抽象的概念,它是分性别存在的,占人口一半的妇女也应成为发展的主体和受益者。到90年联合国发展署提出“人类发展新概念”,进一步丰富了对“发展”内涵的解释,社会发展目标越来越得到国际社会的重视。

和这一认识不断深化过程相伴随的,是联合国在提升妇女地位方面的努力。从1975年到1995年联合国共召开四次世界妇女大会,特别是1995年在北京召开的第四次世界妇女大会,大会通过的《行动纲领》所呈现出的高度至今没有超越,以至于之后的20年联合国没有召开新的妇女大会,只是以北京+5、北京+10、……北京+20的方式继续着北京世妇会提出的战略和目标。

《行动纲领》指出:“女性进步和男女平等的实现是人权的内容,也是实现社会公正的条件,不应把它们孤立地视为妇女问题。它们是建立可持续发展的、公正的和发达的社会的唯一途径。女性赋权和性别平等是实现人类政治、社会、经济、文化和环境安全的先决条件。”这样,性别平等不仅成为发展的内容同时也是发展的目标,之后在联合国通过的千年发展目标中,也将“促进两性平等并赋予妇女权力”写了进去,有128个国家签署,使之成为国际社会的共识和努力方向。

目标达成共识后,如何推动性别平等的实现?《行动纲领》提出的策略是“将社会性别纳入决策主流”,即“在处理提高妇女地位的机制问题时,各国政府和其他行动者应提倡一项积极鲜明的政策,将性别观点纳入所有政策和方案的主流,以便在做出决定以前分析对妇女和男子各有什么影响。”[3]之后联合国相关机构进一步归纳表述为“社会性别主流化”,即“把对社会性别问题的关注融入每个机构的优先考虑事项和工作的各个方面;使对社会性别的关注成为一个机构中所有人的责任,并保证将其纳入所有的体系和工作中去。”[4]

社会性别主流化本身并不是一个目标,而是实现性别平等的一种策略或手段。可归纳为以下几个主要步骤:

1、明确而坚定的政治承诺。即将对性别平等的承诺纳入组织机构的章程、战略规划或重要的纲领性文件中。95世界妇女大会之后,很多国际NGO和发展资助机构都将性别平等作为组织的战略或原则,例如亚洲开发银行的五个战略发展目标中就有“改善妇女地位”。

2、 机构设置、人员配置和培训。要求所有的组织设置相应的机构、部门或岗位,专门负责有关性别平等的事务。由于社会性别意识是后天培养的,而不是先天具有的,因此,对所有员工开展社会性别培训就成为最基本的训练。1997年联合国志愿者将“参与式社会性别与发展”培训引进中国,很快就成为国际扶贫发展项目中的一项必备内容。过程中也培养了很多本土的社会性别专家及参与式培训的协作者,主要集中在京津、云南和陕西地区。

3、社会性别分析,是一个包括识别和理解社会性别不平等原因的过程,目的在于找出影响妇女不利地位的社会、政治、文化等结构性原因,以利于发展有针对性的政策和措施,从根本上改变不平等的状况。国际发展机构开发出系列的分析框架和工具,如哈佛分析框架、摩塞框架、妇女赋权框架、能力与脆弱性分析框架等,供发展工作者在项目规划、实施及评估中使用。

4、社会性别计划,是指在社会性别分析的基础上制定的有针对性地干预方案和措施,以促进现实中的社会性别平等。所有的项目计划书实质上都是一个干预方案,社会性别敏感也就成为发展援助方评审项目的一个重要指标,申请的发展项目如果没有社会性别方面的内容是很难获得资助的。那个年代有关妇女发展的项目很多也是缘于此。

5、社会性别评估,即在项目的整个过程中对社会性别平等方面的进展情况进行评估,包括计划评估、过程评估、结果评估和影响评估,都要有社会性别方面的指标。

发展理论与女权主义理论这两股力量相互影响和交融,相继产生了“妇女与发展”、“社会性别与发展”等理论流派,并发展出一系列的干预模式、分析框架和评估工具,使之成为一门专业。在主流化背景下这些框架和工具随着国际发展援助机构和项目进入中国,成为本地发展组织能力建设的主要内容,并采取请进来和送出去的办法培养了一批本地的社会性别发展专家,借助这些力量完成了对中国社会组织的社会性别启蒙。据陕西妇女研究会的不完全统计,2000—2005年期间共承担了140余场的社会性别培训, 培训对象包括所有的项目合作伙伴,有各级政府干部、民家组织和项目点的社区骨干。这是社会性别在中国传播的主渠道。

二、现状:公益慈善行业社会性别边缘化趋势

(一)、现状

尽管缺少相关的调研数据支持,但近些年社会性别在公益界呈边缘化趋势却是个不争的事实:

   1、妇女发展与性别平等议题淡出整个行业的视野,仅沦为妇女组织的议题。表现在三个方面:

一是组织发展的数量。第四次世界妇女大会对中国公益界的又一个重要影响是它让“NGO”在中国合法化,并催生和促进了中国妇女NGO组织的发展壮大。2008年壹基金举办的第一届“典范工程”评选中,入选的7个组织中有3个是妇女组织[5],可见当时妇女组织的成熟度和影响力。2008年被誉为“中国公民社会元年”,汶川地震催生了民众的公益与结社热情,使中国的社会组织井喷似的涌现,遗憾的是在这股大潮中与妇女/性别有关的新机构很少,使得妇女组织在行业的比重呈下降趋势。

二是表现在项目上。和性别平等妇女赋权直接相关的项目越来越少也越来越小;社区服务类项目中保持性别敏感的也很难找到;即使有这样的项目建议书也因为基金会缺少“伯乐”而夭折。这可从行业热闹的各种评选、评奖活动中窥见一斑。

三是表现在议题话语上。社会性别不再是一个热门话题出现在各种论坛会议中,它已经逐渐淡出人们的视线,成为妇女组织的“专利”。拿行业中富有盛名的“非公墓基金会论坛”为例,从2009年起至今已经举办了7届,只有在2015年第七届的议程中才看到有妇女发展的议题。

2、多数的公益机构不了解社会性别。

2015年8月份,中国首届民间公益慈善妇女峰会筹备组委托《发展简报》对公益界的社会性别状况做了一个的调研。他们从全国9个省市抽取了37个机构参与了问卷调研,其中22个本土社会组织、5个国际NGO、5个GONGO、5个非公墓基金会。从调查数据可以看出:

1)机构在战略层面很少考虑性别平等

除以推动性别平等为主旨的妇女组织外,很少有机构将性别平等写进组织的策略或原则中。在调查的37个机构中,仅有12个组织在机构战略层面有社会性别平等的内容,占总数的32%;未考虑社会性别的有17个,占46%。

图1 机构战略与项目层面推行社会性别情况[6]

(2)、机构负责人缺乏对性别平等和社会性别的认识。在被调查的37个机构中,负责人“完全不了解社会性别的2人”,“大概知道一些”的11人,这两类加起来占到总数的35%。

图2:机构负责人对社会性别的了解程度 [7]

(3)、公益行业大多数员工缺乏社会性别训练。尽管缺乏严谨的调研数据,但凡熟悉公益圈的人都不会否认这一事实。这次调查中有70%的机构没有开展过社会性别培训,有54%的机构在招聘员工时不考虑社会性别因素[8]。因为缺少培训,绝大多数从业人员没有社会性别意识,多数机构也缺乏有社会性别视角的员工,致使社区服务类项目中性别敏感性越来越少,项目实施的效果也因此降低。更甚者,公益圈一些年轻人误将性别等同于女权主义而拒绝认同。

从以上分析中可以看出,社会性别边缘化在公益慈善界已经成为事实。大多数组织和员工的社会性别视角缺失,也成为制约中国社会组织健康发展的短板。

(二)原因:

1、跟国际发展机构的撤离有关系。这些年因为中国经济快速发展,中国经济实力增强,很多境外援助机构纷纷从中国撤离,导致社会性别方面的推广资源大量的减少。2008年之后这样的培训锐减,公益圈新进来的年轻人很多都不知到什么是社会性别了,特别是近些年新成立的基金会,对此更为陌生了。

   “我们机构虽然是做女权的,但我觉得自己已经不太属于公益圈了。本应多样化、包容多元的公益圈里出现的话语权的垄断、男性精英的霸权以及对于性别议题的漠视已经跟其它领域并无区别,有些时候甚至更严重。当理解我们理念的国际组织撤出之后,我们整个领域已经越来越难做,也越来越被边缘化,而很多本来我们的同行对此并无察觉,不少直接根据资源的可获得性,而调整了机构的发展战略”。[9]

2、和公益组织的板块移动有关,随着国内公募、非公募基金会的兴起,东部逐渐代替西部,成为中国公益慈善的活跃区域,致使中国的公益圈有断层现象,以前的经验和传统衔接不上。板块移动也使公益圈的话题在发生着变化,过去我们讲的是参与式发展、倡导和赋权;今天谈的是服务模式,传播和影响力。年轻的国内基金会成为议题的引者,暴露出行业的短视和不成熟。

“国内现在专门关注性别和妇女议题的资助几乎没有,而且大多数基金会也不看重项目的理念使命之类的,流行的反倒是关注各种的“筹款”、“传播”、“透明度”、“公信力”、“创新”等等的培训,其实跟我们这种在底层社区做事情的没有什么关系,跟这些东西都是脱节的。……而且强调这些高大上的词的大佬们垄断了话语权,自身又是基本上都是男的,没有什么性别视角,使得我们做工作、找资源就更难了”。[10]

3、和妇女组织对行业的影响力减弱有关。

成立于上世纪的老牌妇女组织大都处于代际交替之际,内部的交接班与外部的快速变化,导致她们对行业的影响力在减弱;近几年兴起的女权运动新生代借助互联网声名鹊起,但因为行为方式激进,让很多社会组织对女权主义产生误读并避而远之;加上在过去一些培训中存在着对外来概念消化不良的现象,致使社会性别被误读、甚至有污名化的迹象,有的将社会性别等同于妇女或女权主义,认为女权主义是以男人为目标的激进的社会运动,要跟女权主义划分界线。

   三、第二次启蒙:让公益具有社会性别敏感

社会性别在公益界的现状让那些经历过世妇会的女性主义者们痛心。2015年机会终于来了,借助纪念北京第四次世界妇女大会20周年的机会,她们组织召开各种论坛、研讨会,撰写总结反思性的文章见诸各种媒体,特别是抓住机会利用新媒体制造话题,宣扬世妇会的精神,发出了“北京再出发”的倡议,[11]

这股启蒙活动以9月份在西安召开的“北京加20:中国民间公益慈善妇女峰会”为高潮。峰会的主题为“让公益具有社会性别视角”,旗帜鲜明地向中国的公益慈善界喊话。峰会的发起者是一群公益届活跃的社会组织女性领导者:高小贤、杨团、郭虹、谢丽华、黄奕、陈一梅、郑冰、刘晓刚,其中既有老一代女权主义者,有也有非女权的公益届活跃的理论家和基金会的负责人,60名参会人员都是公益慈善领域有影响力的社会组织的女性负责人,大家聚集西安,延续北京世妇会的精神与议题,讨论如何让公益慈善具有社会性别视角,以表明这批女性推动性别平等的责任、决心和担当。

一天的研讨活动之后通过了“让公益具有社会性别视角”的共识,集中了这次启蒙所要传达的主要观点:

1、强调性别平等与公益慈善在目标上是一致的。现代公益慈善,已由单纯的施舍和给予转向“寻求解决弱势群体问题”的方案,“社会公平”“正义”“平等”“可持续发展”已成为公益慈善事业的核心价值观与目标。而妇女赋权与男女平等“是建立可持续发展的、公正的和发达的社会的唯一途径”“是实现人类政治、社会、经济、文化和环境安全的先决条件”[12]。公益慈善与性别平等在目标上的高度一致性,使得今天的社会组织,已经成为政府之外推动性别平等最重要的力量。

2、明确提出“性别平等让公益慈善更有效”。这可从两个方面来看历史文化建构的社会性别制度,至今仍在影响着人们的观念与行为,导致两性不同的分工与权力关系,它存在于公益慈善所有领域的服务人群中,这也造成了各类弱势人群中女性占多数、并处于更弱势的状况,如贫困人口和低识字人群的女性化、女性家庭照顾人员的无薪化、医疗服务、科技与互联网使用中的性别差距等。我们若看不到这种权力关系以及由此带来行为差异,会使得我们忽视、漠视甚至无视服务人群的需求和问题。反之,如果引入社会性别分析,面对这些差异时我们就会敏感、就会正视,就会有助于形成更为有效的解决方案和计划,就会使我们提供的服务和措施更有针对性、并获得更好的社会效果。公益慈善领域活跃着大批的女性志愿者、专职工作人员及管理者。给她们以平等的资源与机会,不仅可以增加从事公益慈善事业的人数和慈善捐款数额,更为重要的一点是她们带进的性别视角,会使公益慈善事业的服务更温暖更人性化,让公益慈善更贴近服务群体,更有感召力。

3、引入社会性别视角,是提升公益慈善事业专业化的需要和表现。公益慈善的服务人群是分性别的,如果不了解两性在认知、行为、需求及价值认同上的差异,社会组织的有效干预和优质服务就无从谈起,社会性别视角是公益慈善事业专业化的必备条件。峰会旗帜鲜明地提出社会性别主流化程度也是公益行业走向成熟的指标之一。

4、让公益慈善具有社会性别视角,就要体现在项目管理与机构治理中。在项目设计和规划阶段要做社会性别分析,不仅要回应解决妇女眼前的实际需求,更要关注其战略性需求,项目活动中要有提升妇女意识和参与社区发展能力的内容;在项目的执行中要重视女的参与,在项目评估中要有妇女赋权及社会性别的指标,要有妇女的代表参与。要依据中国的实际,开发不同领域的具有社会性别敏感的工作手册,如社会性别视角下的农村社区发展、社会性别视角下的紧急救援与灾害管理、社会性别敏感的项目管理、社会工作、技术传播等,以满足行业的多样化需求。

所有的公益慈善机构要做性别友好型组织:有明确的性别平等主张,设置社会性别专员职位,为员工提供专门的社会性别培训,承诺所有的项目做到社会性别敏感,注意理事会、管理层和员工中的性别比,提高女性在管理层的比例等。

5、让公益慈善具有社会性别视角,需要政府、市场、基金会、妇女组织的协同推进,需要社区、服务对象特别是妇女的充分参与。政府、企业和基金会掌握着公益慈善的资源,对公益慈善关注的议题有引领作用。共识呼吁政府和更多的基金会、企业为愿意为推动性别平等及社会性别主流的项目投入更多的资源,也强调妇女组织应适应外部的变化,在倡导和传播社会性别主流化中发挥引领者的作用。

2015年有两个重要的国际事件也起了推波助澜的作用。8月份联合国通过“2015-2030年后可持续发展目标”。和2000年通过的“千年发展目标”相比,目标由原来的8个增加到17个,性别平等和妇女赋权仍然是其中的一个目标,但措辞比以前更加强硬,由“促进性别平等”变为“实现性别平等”。9月份中国政府和联合国妇女署联合召开了世界妇女峰会,习近平主席在会上讲话:“我们刚刚通过2015年后发展议程,性别视角已纳入新发展议程的各个领域。让我们发扬北京世界妇女大会精神,重申承诺,为促进男女平等和妇女全面发展加速行动。” 并代表中国政府联合国妇女署捐款1000万美元,用于支持落实《北京宣言》和《行动纲领》,落实2015年后发展议程相关目。这让20年前的社会性别和发展议题再次进入政府和公众视野,“妇女赋权”、“性别平等”、“社会性别视角”再次引起关注。和90年代的一个不同点是,中国经济的迅猛发展已经使自己由被援助国变为资助国了,因此公益界在这轮讨论中多了一些国际视野,开始关心伴随着中国援助资金输出时的“软实力”问题[13],即和价值观相联系的一套发展的理论和模式,与之相联系的“中国经验”或“中国模式”的讨论 也溢出扶贫发展领域,世妇会之后中国在性别发展领域的经验也成为学者和行动者关注的议题[14]

这次的启蒙,和第一次相比有着明显的不同特点:

一是推动引领启蒙思潮的主角已经不再是国际机构,而是本土的妇女组织、女权工作者和公益圈的女性领导人。她们中既有老一代世妇会的参加者,也有80后的新生代。在没有外来资金支持的情况,她们自发地在各自区域和能力所及的范围内,不约而同地发起各种形式的纪念活动和议题讨论,使之形成合力在行业产生影响力。

二是在渠道和形式上更加的多样化,不再像以往那样单靠项目或培训,更多地利用新媒体、社交平台和已有的各种论坛。

三是在策略上更加富有弹性。有旗帜鲜明、战斗力很强的女权主义者,也有不张扬女权的温和派,并和公益组织中的女性领导者结盟,改变以往女权主义者单打独斗的形象,也会依据不同对象的接受力而采用不同的话语和倡导方式,这可从民间妇女峰会发起的方式和通过的共识中窥见一斑。这一转变即这些年中国妇女组织发展的多元化有关,也与妇女组织对20年来社会性别培训的反思有关。

四是在议题上更加的本地化,将“性别平等”、“社会性别视角”和公益慈善领域关注的热点话题结合在一起:如公益慈善的本质、社会组织的可持续发展、效率与专业化、灾害管理与精准扶贫、一带一路等等,发出了“性别平等让公益更有效”的倡导口号,更容易为行业接受。

95世妇会的纪念活动已经过去。公益圈关于社会性别的话题讨论并没有结束,启蒙仍然在延续并继续发力。启蒙也带来了力量的积聚,新生代的崛起让我们对未来充满期待。

[1] 高小贤,陕西妇女理论婚姻家庭研究会、陕西妇源汇性别发展培训中心创始人。

[2] 坎迪达.马奇、伊内斯.史密斯、迈阿特伊.穆霍帕德亚著,社会性别意识资源小组译,《社会性别分析框架指南》,社会科学文献出版社 2004年,第7页。

[3] 联合国,《第四次妇女问题世界会议报告》(内部资料),第103页地202款,1995年,北京。

[4]坎迪达.马奇、伊内斯.史密斯、迈阿特伊.穆霍帕德亚著,社会性别意识资源小组译,《社会性别分析框架指南》,社会科学文献出版社 2004年,第 6页。

[5] 三个组织是:北京农家女文化发展中心、陕西妇女理论婚姻家庭研究会、凉山彝族妇女儿童发展服务中心。

[6]杨晋:《公益行业中社会性别现状和挑战》,2015年9月8 日,〈中国发展简报〉网,http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief,org.cn

[7] 杨晋:《公益行业中社会性别现状和挑战》,2015年9月8 日,《中国发展简报》网,http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief,org.cn

[8] 同6。

[9] 赵海伶:《“女性视角:我的公益之路”访谈发现陈述》,西部女性网, http://www.westwomen.org 。

[10]赵海伶:《“女性视角:我的公益之路”访谈发现陈述》,“中国民间公益慈善妇女峰会”发言,西部女性网站, http://www.westwomen.org 。

[11] 冯媛:《盘点和出发——写在北京世妇会20周年之际》,《中国发展简报》2015年3月5日,http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief,org.cn

[12] 联合国第四次世界妇女大会通过的《行动纲领》

[13]参见2015年10月在兰州举办的“第六届西部社区服务创新公益论坛”的发言。

[14] 参见卜卫的《超越“妇女与媒介”——〈北京行动纲领〉回顾、中国经验与“北京+20”评估》,以及2015年10月14-15日宋庆龄基金会与联合国计划署联合在北京召开的“中外妇女论坛”上高小贤、宋少鹏的发言。

Translated by Kelly McCarthy

No related content found.

Share: