In an earlier blog (https://gendereval.ning.com/profiles/blogs/from-gender-and-developm...), I argued the need to shift from gender and development (GAD) to gender, intersectionality, rights and development (GIRD) approach if SDG5 are to be achieved by 2030, and if the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women is to be upheld.
Intersectional discrimination is distinct from "multiple discrimination". Multiple discrimination describes a situation where different forms of discrimination operate separately or at different points of time. For example, an ethnic minority woman experience only gender-based discrimination in one situation and only ethnic discrimination in another. Intersectional discrimination on the other hand refers to a situation where several grounds operate and interact with each other at the same time in such a way that they are inseparable. For example, a migrant woman from minority community being denied access to community toilets during lockdown facing violence during open defecation, while women and men migrants from other communities had access. Intersectional discrimination can operate in institutions of family and community, or markets, state or supra-state institutions. For example, state denying permanent methods of contraception to women from primitive tribes as it wants their population to grow.
In this blog I discuss what background information is required before any evaluation on inter-sectional discrimination in country context/project context. Information is required on:
Contextual analysis would also entail assessment of the extent to which rights holders facing intersectional discrimination are organised and able to demand state accountability on intersectional discrimination, and reduce the occurrence, as well as hold family, community and markets accountable to ending intersectional discrimination. For example, a Dalit women's group (from landless households) in Theni district of Tamil Nadu went on a protest to demand higher wages and non-use of caste names with land owners, and mobilised land for cultivation from the state.
Unfortunately, there is a gap between contextual analysis in evaluation reports and analysis inter-sectional discrimination as described above. Many evaluation reports stop at sex/gender (binary) analysis, and rarely capture intersectional analysis of discrimination, institutions, articulation of rights/accountability and state accountability. Identities of caste, race, class, abilities, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, migrant status, marital status, relation position, location, incarceration status are just a few oppressive identities to take into account
Till gender, intersectionality and rights are woven into contextual analysis t is difficult to evaluation policies, projects and programmes.
Add a Comment