Power, institutions and gender relations: can gender

This article was downloaded by: [Oxfam UK] On: 13 August 2015, At: 03:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Development in Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20

Viewpoint Power, institutions and gender relations: Can gender training alter the equations? Ranjani K Murthy Published online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Ranjani K Murthy (1998) Viewpoint Power, institutions and gender relations: Can gender training alter the equations?, Development in Practice, 8:2, 203-211, DOI: 10.1080/09614529853819 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614529853819

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

Downloaded by [Oxfam UK] at 03:04 13 August 2015

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Development in Practice, Volume 8, Number 2, M ay 1998

Viewpoint


Power, institutions and gender relations: can gender training alter the equations? R anjani K. M urthy

Introduction Gender training has becom e since the mid1980s an im portant strategy for the wom en’ s movement, NGOs, governm ent, and funding agencies in addressing the subordinate status of wom en in India. This paper is concerned with gender training in NGOs that work at the grassroots. Three distinct objectives underpin such efforts: 1 Gender-aware institutional changeÐ to make NGOs more gender-sensitive through creating spaces to re¯ ect upon objectives, program mes, and internal functioning from a gender perspective. 2 Em powering wom en in NGOsÐ in the context of their personal lives, and interactions within the NGOs and with the com munity. 3 Re-de® ning the power of men in NGOsÐ motivating m ale staff to re-de® ne their relations within their families, the NGOs, and the comm unity from a gender perspective. Central to these is the issue of power: re-negotiating power relations within NGOs, enabling wom en staff to discover the power within themselves, and raising awareness among male staff of the injustice and disadvantages of their retaining overt or covert 0961± 4524/98/020203± 18 $9.00

Ó

1998 Oxfam GB

power over wom en through institutions. This paper examines the strengths and weaknesses of gender training as a strategy in altering the equations of power, both within oneself and in institutions; and identi® es ways to strengthen gender-training efforts. Beforehand, it m ay be useful to clarify the m eaning of power and institutions, and review gender issues in the context of NGOs in India.

Power and institutions Understanding power and institutions Power is an element of social relationships and is dif® cult to separate from related concepts such as authority, control, in¯ uence, and dom ination. Kabeer (1994a) identi® es three kinds of power: power to, power over, and power within. Som e see power as the ability of an individual to in¯ uence decisions in the direction s/he desires even against resistance. Bacharan and Baratz argue against this restricted de® nition as the `power to’ decide at an interpersonal level on con¯ icting issues (cited in Kabeer, 1994a; Stacey and Price, undated). Power, they maintain, is exercised not only in the process of not deciding. Some groups are prevented from raising issues that are inimical to the interests of the power-holders, and these topics are kept off the decisionm aking agenda by the dominant groups. This `power over’ setting agendas is rooted in the institutional rules and practices which by demarcating issues over which decisions m ay or m ay not be taken system atically bene® ts certain individuals and groups at the expense of others. Gender division of 203

Ranjani K. M urthy


labour, rights to property, control over fertility and sexuality, are thus routinely kept off the agenda for decision-making whether at the level of the household or of the stateÐ and within NGOs. A third dimension of power is seen when con¯ icts of interests are not just suppressed from decision-m aking, but also from the consciousness of the various parties involved. Con¯ icts m ay not be seen simply because both subordinate and dom inant groups are unaware of their oppressive implications, or incapable of imagining alternative ways of being and doing . Kabeer (1994a) perceives a considerable overlap between this and what feminists call `power within’ . Institutions in which gender relations are played out conceal the reality and pervasiveness of m ale dom inance through their of® cial ideology, and rules and practices. Four m ajor institutions that impinge upon men and wom en, and often in an interlocking manner, are households, comm unities (inclusive of religion), markets, and states. Multilateral aid agencies have also becom e important institutions. All institutions have an of® cial ideology (Kabeer, 1994b ) nam ely that:

·

·

·

·

·

households are sites of altruism and co-operation; markets are neutral (to gender and other social relations) and are about ef® cient allocation of resources; state is about the national interest and welfare of citizens, including wom en; comm unity is about service provision and promotion of a m oral society; global institutions act in the interest and welfare of m en and wom en in developing countries. How ever, these institutions all em body relations of pow er that operate through ideologies far removed from the of® cial doctrine, people who have internalized these ideologies, resource distribution in favour of the pow erful, structures of hierarchy headed by the powerful, and rules and practices to reinforce these aspects at a policy and day204

to-day level. Pow er within these institutions m ay be exercised on the basis of gender, caste, class, religion, or ethnicity.

NGOs as gendered and gendering institutions NGOs are institutions that constitute comm unities, but are distinct from traditional institutions such as caste, Panchayats, or Gram Sabhas. Most male-headed NGOs (though not all) are also governed by relations of gender power, with ideologies, people, structures, resource distribution patterns, and rules and practices acting overtly and (m ore often) covertly in the interest of m en within the NGO and in the comm unity with which it works. As NGOs re¯ ect power relations in society, they can be seen as `gendered’ (term used by Goetz, 1992) institutions. However, NGOs have a degree of autonom y from the patriarchal structures, and som e have played an important role in renegotiating gender relations within households, markets, and com munity, through struggles around property rights, equal wages, and violence against wom en. Thus, som e NGOs play an active role in the process of what Goetz (1992) calls `gendering’ . How ever, this role is not always positive. Quite often, NGOs reinforce the gender division of labour and resources, and hierarchies of power both through their program mes and in their internal functioning.

Gendered and gendering ideologies, objectives, and programme policies The gendered and gendering dimensions of NGOs are re¯ ected in their objectives, which in turn re¯ ect their underlying ideology. W ith growing pressure from the wom en’ s movement and from fundin g agencies, the terms `wom en’ or `gender’ (often though t to be synony mous) entered the objectives of several NGOs from the mid1980s. But the m anner of this entry,



Power, institutions and gender relations

especially in m ale-headed organizations, re¯ ects or perpetuates gender hierarchies in society. Some NGOs seek to im prove the conditions of wom en, not because wom en occupy a subordinate status, but because they are seen as instruments for developing other fam ily m embers and the larger comm unity. To quote one NGO in M aharashtra: `the lack of education in wom en limits their awareness of the bene® ts of learning for their children ¼ [further] wom en’ s awareness on health will lead to im proved health status of their children and family’ . Such NGOs tend to adopt gender neutral policies (Kabeer, 1994a, b)Ð policies neutral to existing division of labour and responsibilitiesÐ and indeed uses these as the basis for allocating activities to im prove fam ily welfare. In the process, it perpetuates these socially-constructed divisions. Typical examples of such activities are preventive health education, childcare, and family planning, which are m ore or less exclusively targeted at wom en. These perpetuate the m yth that it is `natural’ for wom en to cook, bring up the children, and take care of the health of the fam ily. Other NGOs seek to work with wom en not in an instrumentalist fashion, but because they believe that wom en occupy a secondary status in society. How ever, they perceive that wom en themselves and their poverty are the m ain barriers to their development. W om en’ s illiteracy and lack of m otivation, unity, and skills, combined with their lack of access to (rather than control over) resources, are seen as hindrances. Such NGOs tend to adopt gender-speci® c policiesÐ which are targeted at wom en and seek to address their practical gender needsÐ but leave their strategic gender interests unarticulated, and the position of m en intact. W ater, fuel, credit, skills-training, and incom e-generation programm es (IGPs) tend to promote such policies. Often these are built upon and perpetuate the belief that wom en are primarily responsible for dom estic work and childcare. Programmes that recognize wom en’ s produc-

tive role often perceive wom en as supplementary earners, and do not challenge the gendered division of public and private spaces. It is not uncomm on in IGPs to ® nd wom en involved in home- or village-based activities (extended private domain), and m en mediating on their behalf in public domains like markets, governm ent bureaucracies, and NGO of® ces. Very few NGOs see wom en’ s subordination as arising from the distribution of gender-based power that is re¯ ected in social institutions, or seek through their program mes to alter such power relations. To do so would entail adoption of gendertransformatory or gender-redistributive (Kabeer, 1994a, b) policies to provide spaces for wom en to articulate their strategic gender interests and mobilize around them, organizing for exam ple around m ale violence, property rights, equal wages, or the sharing of domestic work.

Gendered and gendering structures and staff policies NGOs also re¯ ect and perpetuate existing gender hierarchies through their structures and rules (Initiatives: W om en in Developm ent, 1991). In male-headed NGOs, the hierarchy is re¯ ected in the fact that few wom en are able to set agendas (power over) or take decisions (power to). The allocation of tasks within NGOs is also gendered with wom en staff in charge of health and education programm es and home-based cottage industries, while men co-ordinate agriculture and environm ent programm es. W ithin the bureaucracy, wom en are more involved in secretarial work, public relations, cleaning, and making refreshm ents, while the ® nances are m anaged by men. W om en staff in NGOs also have less access to training and career promotion opportunities or to facilities like childcare and toilets. Few provisions are m ade, such as ¯ exible working hours or space, to take into account


205

Ranjani K. M urthy

wom en’ s doubl e burden. W hile most NGOs offer m aternity leave (though not always for three months), few provide paternity leaveÐ and those which do allow only a few days. Sexual harassment also takes place within NGOs. Such divisions in decision-making, allocation of tasks, staff policies, and norms of behaviour give indirect messages to men and wom en with whom the NGO works about their appropriate roles and responsibilities.


Gendered and gendering people In all-wom en and wom en-headed organizations, the gendered hierarchy of power is often less explicit. W om en do have the power to set agendas and take decisions. The gender division of labour on the basis of tasks, or sexual harassment, do not arise. M ost of the NGOs which have adopted gender-transform atory policies are headed and chie¯ y constituted by wom en: autonom ous wom en’ s groups (which prefer not to call themselves NGOs), grassroots wom en’ s organizations like SEW A, W om en’ s Voice, and Mehila Samakhya (a society registered by the government). In fact the gendertransform atory nature of the last two categories of NGO is re¯ ected not so much in program me content as in the process and strategy adopted to address self-identi® ed needs. How ever, the fact that an organization is headed or constituted by wom en does not m ake it autom atically gender-sensitive. Not all wom en are conscious of the exact mechanisms of their ow n subordination and that of other wom en, or can identify and m ove towards their strategic gender interests. This is not surprising as men and wom en are products of various patriarchal social institutionsÐ households, community (including religion), m edia and the stateÐ and are `gendered’ human beings. At the sam e time, wom en and m en can exercise som e individual agency vis-aÁ -vis these institutions, and some do challenge ideologies, structures, 206

resource allocation, and rules and practices. Men have less interest in doing so, as the costs involved (in terms of power, resources, and additional responsibilities) far outweigh and are m ore tangible than the bene® ts (access to the experience of childrearing, self-reliance, and `humanness’ ). W hile the bene® ts of challenging institutions are more tangible for wom en, such gains are not assured. In fact, their efforts can lead to the loss of `bargains’ (see Kandiyoti, 1988 ) which wom en have struck within patriarchal institutions such as marriage, households, and comm unity to address practical needs for housing and water, but also to exercise som e control over their bodies and sexuality which m ay not be possible if they remain single.

Gendered distribution of resources Finally, the distribution of resources within NGOs is also gendered. Gender-neutral and gender-speci® c policies often entail unequal distribution of resources. In the form er, economic program mes and the resources tied to them , often by-pass wom en. In the latter, econom ic resources are targeted at wom en but are often much lower than those targeted at men. For example, loans for irrigation are directed at m en, and loans for petty business and home-based activities at wom en. Men often hold better paid jobs in the NGO than wom en: for instance, Agricultural Extension Of® cers may be paid m ore than Health Of® cers, accountants m ore than secretaries. Apart from salaries, wom en staff may have less access than men to of® ce resources like vehicles and adm inistrative services.

Can training change the equations? Gender training is acknowledged important strategy for changing dered’ nature of NGOs and their ensuring that their `gendering’

to be an the `genstaff, and in¯ uence



challenges the social construction of gender and alters the equation of power within the NGO and with respect to other institutions.

What is gender training?


Despite

its

popularity,

gender

training

m eans different things to different people (Murthy, 1993). For some, it is a strategy for understanding the different roles which m en and wom en play in society in order to increase the ef® ciency of developm ent projects. This is re¯ ected in the objectives of a gender-training programme for NGOs and government of® cials organized by the Indian governm ent and a bilateral aid agency: (To) increase understanding of how to conceptualize the activities of wom en ¼ and how these need to be incorporated in project design and implementation. (To) develop analytical skills to systematically categorize information on w omen in development and translate these into the project framework. (Department of W om en and Child Developm ent, 1988 : 4) M ost gender-training programmes have m oved beyond a concern with ef® ciency. How ever, some see gender training as a vehicle for transferring m anagement skills so that a gender relations perspective is routinely incorporated in program me work. Such training tends to emphasize a package of `planning tools’ for integrating a gender perspective: Moser m ethod, Harvard Case Study m ethod, Gender Analysis M atrix, and so on. As observed by feminists in an Initiatives gender-training workshop `W om en in Development’ , while these frameworks do link up fem inist theories and analysis with developm ent planning, the process of doing so is often depoliticizing since they are not preceded by a grounding in gender relations and an analysis of institutions within which such relations operate (Subrahmanian, 1992) . W hat kind of gender training can, then,

have an im pact on power, social institutions, and gender relations? Gender trainers in India with a socialist±fem inist perspective believe that it can have such an impact only if it is political in nature: that it questions the gendered nature of developm ent, clari® es the concept of patriarchy, perceives gender relations as social relations of power, and links these concepts with a re¯ ection on the individual, and on NGOs as institutions. For us, `gender training’ refers to training programm es with such a perspective.

Limits and potential of gender training As we have already said, gender training in the NGO context often has one or a com bination of three explicit or implicit objectives, with the issue of power lying at the core of each.

Gender training, patriarchal bargains, and power within There are generally two kinds of wom en participants in gender-training programm es: the converted who need conceptual clarity in which to root their understanding, and those who have not yet started the process of questioning . Re¯ ecting on the gendertraining program mes that I have facilitated, I feel that most of them helped strengthen the converted, but did not have enough impact on those who had internalized patriarchal norm s. Part of the problem was with the methodology . For exam ple, in a training of gender trainers (TOGT) workshop, spaces were created for discussions on the concepts of gender, patriarchy, feminism, and how to integrate these into developm ent program mes. The concepts were primarily dealt with through lectures along with group discussions to link these concepts with the experiences of the participants. The participants (especially those who had already started the process of questioning) found the


207


Ranjani K. M urthy

workshop extrem ely useful, and I also felt empowered through it. But then I visited the NGO in which two of the participants worked (one male and fem ale staff at middle level) for an intra-NGO organizational developm ent process, I could observe no visible impact of the program me. Further, thoug h I had hoped to draw upon these staff as co-facilitators, I soon realized that deep down they too believed that wom en’ s subordination partly arises out of their biology: less physical strength, a body that m akes rape possible, and ability to give birth and breastfeed. I then reversed the m ethodology, starting with personal experiences and developing the concept of gender out of this sharing. Participants were asked whether if they were born again and could choose their sex they would prefer to be born m ale or female. This was followed by a discussion on differences between men and wom en in terms of their roles and responsibilities, qualities and behaviour; and the reasons for these. This led to the understanding that the female body was not a problem. Rather, the problem lies with the social reality of m ale violence. The ability to give birth was not a problem, but problem s arose from the social belief that nature dictates that only wom en can bring up children. Thus, the difference between socially-constructed gender and biological sex was clari® ed. At the end of the workshop, a wom an participant walked up to me and said `Didi, I can now understand what we mean by gender’ . If a fem inist consciousness could be raised sim ply through appropriate methodologies, the problem would be simple. Often, wom en NGO staff, like other wom en, have struck bargains with patriarchal structures: they have evolved different gam es to m axim ize security and optimize life options. For example, one older wom an participant was known to harass her daughter-in-law. On probing, we realized that as a young bride she had faced deprivation and humiliation at the hands of her ow n motherin-law and husband, and she had internal208

ized these patriarchal norms. Her only source of security was through her married son; and the only way she could exercise authority was through dom inating her daughter-in-law and controlling her labour. Her inner consciousness would not change just through a workshop. Young wom en also strike bargains. For example, in a workshop with wom en on gender and developm ent, of whom three participants were soon to marry, we discussed the importance of, and strategies for, negotiating conjugal contracts before marriage, and division of parenting responsibilities (not because marriage and m otherhood are the only options for wom en, but because of the reality of their lives). One participant said `W hat can I do? I do not have a choice. If I object to an alliance because he does not agree to my working, my brother and parents will throw m e out. W here will I go?’ . Another suggested that she m ove in with her family, thus compensating for the loss of security which patriarchal structures offer. Thus gender training, while necessary, m ay not be enough to enable wom en staff of NGOs to realize and act upon the power within themselves. Structures such as wom en’ s fora within NGOs m ay be required, and also among NGOs at a district or state level, in order to create spaces for wom en to share their experiences, gain strength from each other, and reinforce and deepen learning from workshops. Nari Shakti in Orissa, which emerged through the process of re¯ ection initiated by Association for W orld Solidarity, is an example of an inter-NGO forum .

Gender training and male power There are generally two kinds of men who attend gender-training programm es: those who are aware of gender hierarchies in society and wish to change these, and those who do not wish to question institutional power as the costs involved are high (in term s of loss of control over resources, and over wom en’ s labour, m obility, and bodies).




Lookin g back at the gender-training programmes I have organized or facilitated, they have had a positive impact on the men who are sym pathetic to change, but who are still unclear about the underlying reasons or strategies for em powerm ent. For such men, workshops on gender and developm ent (with appropriate methodologies) help them to understand that it is not female biology which is the problem , but sociallyconstructed power relations between men and wom en. Further, such workshops often help them to place the issue of domination of wom en by wom en in the larger context of patriarchal structures. These workshops also enable them to understand the non-material gains they could secure through re-negotiating gender relations: the joy of nurturing, bringing up children, letting go of emotions, and the lack of pressure to be the fam ily breadwinner. Nevertheless, back in the workplace, the NGO’ s culture can negate these experiences. This is especially true am ong participants who do not occupy decision-making posts. The issue of translating what they have learnt within their fam ilies is even m ore complex. One participant, whom I m et six months later, expressed that he was, to an extent, able to incorporate a gender perspective within developm ent programmes, but not within his fam ily. His wife, he said, objected to his entering the kitchen; and continued to insist that his daughter help in housework. W hile this could be seen as an excuse for not giving up power, it also reveals the importance of sensitizing not only the staff (m en and wom en) but also their partners. Adithi, an NGO in Bihar, organized a workshop for couples in which one or both partners were involved in development; and at least two couples felt strengthened through this. W hile gender training may strengthen those m en who have come with an open m ind, in my experience, it has rem ained inadequate in changing those who do not want to lose the material bene® ts of the present distribution of power (`power to’

and `power over’ ). Often such men adopt different forms of resistance (Kannabiran and Bhasin, 1992). The ® rst is to deny wom en’ s subordinate status. One such participant said, `How can wom en be subordinate, when we m en worship them as goddesses?’ . Another asked, `W hat is wrong with the division of labour? W om en and m en com plem ent each other and it is based on com parative advantage’ . Another comm on response is to generalize from personal experience: Ìn my extended family, we give equal amounts of food, healthcare and education to girls and boys. Things have changed in society’ . Others accept wom en’ s subordinate status but see it as arising out of fem ale biology or lack of interest am ongst wom en in taking advantage of èqual’ opportunities in society. A few adm it that individual men m ay oppress individual wom en, but do not accept the existence of patriarchal structures. In fact, they argue, it is more comm on for wom en to oppress other wom en than for men to oppress wom en. The ultimate form of resistance is to deny the insights of the resource-persons, by labelling them as urban, `western’ , and middle-class fem inists with no belief in religion. W om en trainers who are unm arried have even m ore serious charges levelled against them. The concern here is that if gender training cannot lead to (insensitive) m en giving up their power to control different aspects of wom en’ s lives within various institutions, what other strategies can be adopted? Where an individual is not the head of the NGO, and the head is sensitive, the problem s are less severe. It m ay be possible to challenge gender hierarchies within the organization and biases within program mes, by enforcing a hierarchy based on authority. (This tactic m ay not work so effectively in challenging gender hierarchies within the family.) Some NGOs have tried to enforce a gender-sensitive code of conduct for staffÐ for exam ple, prohibiting staff to give or take dowry, beat their wives, or sanction child m arriages. W here the head of the NGO is himself


209

Ranjani K. M urthy


insensitive to gender issues, funding agencies have at tim es intervened, both in the program mes and in the NGO’ s internal functioning. W om en’ s groups have played an im portant role in taking action against sexual harassment within NGOs. They have brought such instances to the attention of Board Members, and where the Board has not taken action, they have put pressure through the donors and the m edia. Thus, when gender training fails to challenge gender-based power, power based on authority and wom en’ s collective strength may need to be used.

Gender training and institutional bending Inter-NGO gender-training programm es which seek to provoke institutional change often assum e that if you change the thinking, beliefs, and skills of a few staff through intensive periods of re¯ ection on experiences, institutions will automatically change. This is seldom so, even where the individual participants are open-minded. As noted by participants in the `Gender Training for W om en and Men in NGOs: Issues and Strategies’ workshop organized by IW ID, when participants go back to their old set-up, the institutional culture and ethos m ay not be conducive for critical re¯ ection on objectives, policies, program mes, structures, and resource distribution from a gender perspective. This `translation’ gap is m ore acute when leaders do not themselves attend gender-training programm es, but send staff from middle and ® eld level. This often happens when the pressure to attend com es from donors rather than out of perceived needs. Intra-NGO gender-training programm es have had a better impact on changing institutions. But conventional gender training per se is inadequate to bring about institutional change. Other inputs are needed. In one case, gender training was followed by a process of re¯ ection on what work participants were doing with wom en, and why? 210

This helped gain clarity on the objectives of the NGO’ s overall work. It resulted in a shift in its underlying objective from working with wom en to `prom ote fam ily welfare and com munal harmony’ to working with wom en so that they have `greater awareness and control over resources and their lives’ through which the secondary objectives of developm ent of fam ilies and comm unity would also be achieved. The programm e policies were also critically reviewed and action plans were form ulated to shift from gender-speci® c to gender-transformatory policies. A follow-up workshop reviewed the action plans, and another is planned to review the internal functioning (structure, organizational culture, division of labour, etc.) from a gender perspective. W om en staff also dem anded training in writing proposals, budgeting, project planning, monitoring, and evaluation so that they would be better equipped to assum e leadership positions.

Conclusions This paper has sought to examine the strengths and weaknesses of gender training in em powering wom en within NGOs, m otivating m en to m ove to a higher order of power as `power within’ , and bringing about gender-sensitive institutional change. It is suggested that the extent to which gendertraining programmes succeed in achieving these objectives depends, ® rstly, on their underlying perspective. An emphasis on gender relations (as relations of power), rather than gender roles is more likely to be effective. However, even such training programmes m ay not, by them selves, be enough to em power wom en staff, especially those who have struck bargains with patriarchal structures to ensure their day-to-day survival. W om en’ s fora within and am ong NGOs, and other measures to provide alternative form s of security, may be essential. Further, a gender-training programm e can strengthen the efforts of men who are open or partially



Economic crisis helps

converted to m ove towards a more egalitarian distribution of power. How ever, it is likely to be ineffectual in altering the consciousness of those who do not want to give up the m aterial gains of exercising power that is based on gender hierarchies (`power to’ and `power over’ ) in different institutional contexts. To counter this, power based on authority, ® nancial resources, and collective strength may need to be used. To change the gendered and gendering nature of NGOs as institutions, it is not enoug h to sensitize a few staff, especially if they are not in decision-making roles. IntraNGO gender training followed up by gender-aware institutional development, m ay be m ore appropriate. To assum e leadership, wom en also require training to strengthen their managem ent skills.

Acknowledgement I would like to acknowledge the contribution of participants in different gendertraining programm es, experience gained with IW ID, and interactions with Naila Kabeer, in shaping my though ts. However, they bear no responsibility for the argum ents presented here. An earlier version of this paper appeared in the Indian NGO journal M adhyam , Volume X, Num ber 1, 1995 .

K ab eer, N. (1994a) Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Though t, London : Verso. K ab eer, N. (1994b ) Gender Planning: Some Key Issues, Brighton: Institute of Developm ent Studies. K an diyoti, D. (1988 ) `Bargaining with patriarchy’ , Gender and Society 2/3. K an nabiran, V. an d K . Bhasin (1992) À dialogue on fem inism : a workshop with men in NGOs on wom en’ s issues’ , in Link, Madras: Achan, Vol. 11. M urthy, R. K . (1993) Issues and Strategies in Gender Training of M en and W om en in NGOs, M adras: IW IS. Stacey, M . and M . Price (undated) W om en, Power and Politics, London : Tavistock Publications. Su brahm anian, R. (1992) `Report on the W orkshop on Gender Training for M en and W om en in NGOs: Issues and Strategies’ , IW ID.

The author Ranjani K. Murthy is a consultant on gender and developm ent, focusing on poverty, environm ent, and hum an rights concerns. Her professional interest is to m ainstream gender within developm ent organizations; and her personal struggle is to put this into practice in her own life. Contact details: 16 Srinivasam urthi Avenue, Adyar, Chennai600 020, India. Fax 1 91 44 491 5429 .

References Departm ent of W om en and Ch ild Developm ent (1988) `W orkshop on Gender Analysis in Project Planning for Policy M akers and Project Managers’ , National Institute of Public Co-operation and Child Development, New Delhi. G oetz, A. M . (1992) `Gender and administration’ , IDS Bulletin 23/4. Initiatives: W om en in Developm ent (1991 ) `Tamil Nadu Inter NGO Workshop on W om en and Development’ , IWID, M adras.

Economic crisis helps to `demarginalize’ women Catherine Lema Forje

Introduction There are many ways of dem arginalizing wom en, whether through constant education


211