• No results found

Understanding the Power in Defining Gender: Analysis of GBV Discourse in Jordan

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Understanding the Power in Defining Gender: Analysis of GBV Discourse in Jordan"

Copied!
59
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

1

Understanding the Power in Defining Gender: Analysis of GBV

Discourse in Jordan

Rhya Ajam

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

NOHA Master Thesis

Prof. Caitlin M. Ryan

September 30, 2020

This thesis is submitted for obtaining the Master’s Degree in International

Humanitarian Action. By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from his/her hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the thesis has

(2)

2

Acknowledgments

The completion of this thesis would not be possible without the support of my academic supervisor, Prof. Caitlin M. Ryan, my internship supervisor, Pamela Dicamilo, as well as all professors and supporting classmates. I would also like to also thank my family for their support.

Abstract

This research examines the term gender, in gender-based violence (GBV) programming in Jordan. Current feminist debates regarding GBV are concerned with the common understanding of GBV, and how these understandings reiterate global hierarchies of neo-colonialism and gender essentialism. The research, produced through four expert interviews and examination of documents, analyses discourse for essentialist understandings of gender and its impact on GBV survivors. It finds that gender is understood in binary terms and discourse regarding GBV survivors reinforces essentialized gender perspectives. Additionally, hierarchies in relationships between GBV providers and

beneficiaries reproduce colonialist rhetoric.

UNDERSTANDING THE POWER IN DEFINING GENDER: ANALYSIS OF GBV PROGRAMMING IN

JORDAN ... 1 ... 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... 2 ABSTRACT ... 2 ACRONYMS ... 3 1 INTRODUCTION ... 4 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 6 MISUNDERSTANDING GENDER ... 7

NEOCOLONIAL UNDERPINNINGS:VICTIMS AND FAILURES ... 9

BUREAUCRATIC STANDARDS FOR GENDER ... 15

CONCLUSION... 19

3 RESEARCH METHODS ... 21

PARTICIPANTS ... 22

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ... 23

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION ... 24

QUESTIONS ABOUT GENDER UNDERSTANDING ... 24

DATA COLLECTION ... 25

(3)

3

4 EXAMINATION OF GBV DISCOURSE FOR GENDER STEREOTYPING ... 29

DEFINING GENDER IN GBV ... 29

ANALYZING INTERVIEWS ... 30

GENDER ESSENTIALISM REINFORCED BY NEOCOLONIALISM ... 38

FOCUS ON MALE PERPETRATORS ... 38

ESSENTIALIZING WOMEN AS DEPENDENT SURVIVORS ... 43

ESSENTIALISM REPRODUCING STEREOTYPES ... 48

6 CONCLUSION... 51

REFERENCES ... 54

ANNEX 1 ... 58

Acronyms

GBV - Gender-Based Violence

IASC- Inter-Agency Standing Committee

INGO - International Non-Government Organizations IPV - Intimate Partner Violence

IMS – Information Management System

LGBTQI- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersex + NGO - Non-Government Organizations

SV - Sexual Violence

SGBV- Sexual Gender Based-Violence

(4)

4

1 Introduction

Gender Based Violence (GBV) has increasingly taken a greater role in humanitarian programming (Kelly, 2006). GBV programming ensures risk mitigation and protection services to survivors (UNHCR, n.d.). It is also part of gender mainstreaming, which is a key aspect of humanitarian programs to improve gender equality and gendered considerations in all aspects of the humanitarian sector (Kelly, 2006). Jordan has been a home for many refugees, particularly Syrian refugees for the last ten years (GBV IMS, 2019). It is also home to Palestinian, Iraqi, Sudanese, Somali, and Yemeni refugees as well (ibid). The purpose of the research is to discern how gender-based violence (GBV) programs define ‘gender’ within their programming in Jordan and examine the potential for gender essentialism. This research is important to improve GBV Programming discourse to achieve gender equality globally. This is done by examining how gender is defined and used within four different organizations that focus on gender-based violence (GBV) in Jordan. The research looks at GBV discourse and investigates if they reproduce of gender essentialism and neocolonialism, as Jordan is a postcolonial state. The aims of this research are to bring to light gaps in the definition of gender understanding by humanitarian workers specifically in the context of Jordan. The research question interrogates how gender is defined in GBV programs. The sub questions of the thesis further examine: who is included/excluded within these definitions? Does the current definition of gender in GBV programming reinforce gender essentialist ideas and post-colonial hierarchies?

There is much research, debates, and controversies within academic circles regarding GBV and gender-mainstreaming in Humanitarian Aid. Current academic research regarding the definition of gender in GBV programs focuses less on the understanding of the term gender, but rather the inclusionary and exclusionary expectations of GBV programming (Carpenter, 2017; Dolan, 2014; Linos, 2009). Therefore, examining how gender is defined is an essential aspect of understanding how gender stereotypes might be reproduced and who is included within GBV programs. A common theme within the current academic research is the misunderstanding of gender by humanitarian aid programs and staff (Acosta et al., 2019; Carpenter, 2017; Hilhorst et al., 2017; Dolan, 2014; Caglar, 2013). In terms of this research what is particularly relevant is the overall agreement that the concept of gender is oversimplified and therefore misunderstood within humanitarian contexts. This suggests the

(5)

5 necessity in further examination of how gender is defined and used within programming. There is also evidence from previous scholars that gender-stereotyping and biases within GBV programming and gender mainstreaming occur in humanitarian contexts (Mertens and Myrttinen, 2019). Therefore, a gender analysis of the programming and discourse used within GBV programs is needed. Interrogating GBV discourse provides scholars and humanitarian actors the greater tools and information to provide better and more inclusive programming. The literature review provided the framework to analyze GBV programming in Jordan through a post-structural postcolonial feminist model. This examines the relative power of the subject, GBV survivors, and the discourse surrounding them. The method of research was structured interviews with four key informants, and discourse analysis regarding GBV documents. The limitation of the study was the lack of participation of governmental organizations to provide a whole account of the context and structure within Jordan.

(6)

6

2 Literature Review

This review looks at scholarly articles regarding humanitarian GBV interventions and gender mainstreaming. Gender mainstreaming is the process in which humanitarian programs, as well as policy, to ensure that gender is taken into consideration (Kelly, 2006.). Gender mainstreaming is an in important aspect of GBV intervention; its purpose is to mitigate risks and act as a preventative protection measure in all humanitarian programs (ibid). Therefore, it will be examined as an extension of GBV within the humanitarian field.

Current gender scholars define gender as,

a positioning of oneself or others as a ‘man,’ or ‘woman,’ or as ‘nonbinary’ without reference to sex/gender distinction and without commitment as to whether this positioning is biological or social. (Lennon and Aslop, 2020 p.325 )

This definition of gender is relevant as it is the most common understanding of the term. However, the term used in humanitarian policies and programs are rooted in the declaration of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (Kelly, 2006). GBV started off as Violence Against Women (VAW), a call from second wave feminists for women’s rights to be viewed as human rights (ibid).; the objective of CEDAW was to hold state’s accountable to Violence Against Women (VAW) (ibid). Shortly after the declaration the UN began to have more partnerships with NGOs, which paved the way for many NGOs and feminist activists to use a human rights perspective and hold their governments accountable (ibid). Following the CEDAW declaration the term gender-based violence was used to address VAW (ibid). The use of gender-based violence began a debate about the possible exclusion of other genders in GBV programming.

In this research it is asserted that this understanding of GBV, as explicitly VAW, is challenged. This assertion follows the trends of many debates in the current understanding of GBV intervention (Dolan, 2014; Carpenter, 2017; Linos, 2009). Additionally, the formation of standardized gender equality in GBV mainstreaming has opened debates regarding masculine/protective strategies that further essentialize gender and position beneficiaries as passive subjects incapable of asserting their own agency; therefore, reinforcing neocolonialist perspectives (Nicholas and Aguis, 2018; Olivius, 2016; Hilhorst et al., 2017). The general

(7)

7 findings within the scholarly literature reviews are that GBV interventions and gender mainstreaming throughout humanitarian programs and policies often have unclear understandings of the term gender and reproduce colonialist discourse regarding gender in its efforts to mainstream gender considerations in programming.

Misunderstanding Gender

The most common critique within gender mainstreaming listed in almost every explored article was the difficulty in defining and understanding the term gender. One of the most dividing issues within defining gender is the consideration of men in gender-based violence. In Carpenter’s (2017) article he argues that although GBV’s terminology is inclusive; however, men and boys are predominantly left out of programs and discussions. He claims that men are left out of GBV programs because the violence they experience is assumed as natural because of preconceived gender characteristics (ibid). He addresses that statistics on male GBV are hard to gauge because data rarely focuses on male GBV experiences, and men are more likely to be detained, and massacred in these contexts (ibid) Carpenter gives concrete examples and definitions of the different forms of GBV that occurs to men, boys, and those outside the gender-binary; this indicates a need for further exploration of the term gender within GBV. It also suggests a need for understanding the impact of exclusion for those who fall outside the current understanding of ‘gender.’

Additionally, Linos’ (2009) mirrors Carpenter’s argument. Linos states that gender stereotyping of masculinity and cultural expectations eradicates the perspectives of male’s experiences in GBV (ibid). Using the case study of Bosnia Herzegovina, she argues that while women were targets of rape as a form of ethnic cleansing, men were also targeted through mass assassination and genital mutilation (ibid). However, within conflicts these acts are normalized for men (ibid). She identifies three reasons that GBV should expand beyond the concept of women and girls’ violence: 1) GBV during war is often a form of ethnic cleansing regardless of sex. 2) The impact of the violence is different depending on the sex of the victim and different approaches are necessary. 3) Men face additional stigma in reporting and receiving aid, if even available (ibid). Furthermore, Linos links male GBV during wartime as a way to emasculate the opposition. In the case of Bosnia women were raped whereas men experienced extermination and genital mutilation (ibid). She suggests that the intent of the violence is necessary to examine when defining GBV (ibid). Linos’ argument follows the Inter

(8)

8 Agency Standing Committee’s (IASC) definition of GBV, in which men experience harm based on their ascribed social differences. Both Linos’ and Carpenter’s article assert that GBV exclusion of males is a form of gender stereotyping by assuming that violence against males is normal. Both these arguments reiterate the presence of gender stereotyping within the understanding of GBV. This is clear because although the term gender is inclusive men and boys are excluded because violence among men and boys is normalized.

Dolan (2014) reiterates Carpenter’s argument, that men are excluded from GBV; however, Dolan (2014) argues that this is a result of the focus on women as inferior in lieu of femininity. This focus excludes people who are outside of the category women who may face GBV, for example, effeminate men (Dolan, 2014). Furthermore, this perspective reiterates heteronormative positions by focusing on the gender differences (ibid). This argument is critical because it highlights the importance of the binary within GBV aid. Dolan’s argument states that when the attention is pointed towards femininity and masculinity a greater spectrum is created rather than focusing on gender (ibd). Focusing on social characteristics of femininity and masculinity also allows for the breakdown in vulnerabilities of each trait. The lack of examination in gender traits portrays how current perspectives in GBV aid advocates gender essentialism. Focusing on the gender binary reinforces gender norms because it silences the spectrum of identities and possibilities of gender. Furthermore, Dolan examines how the inferior status of women is assumed to be the only link to producing vulnerability and how for men, “privilege in peacetime can become the source of their vulnerability in conflict.” (ibid, p. 500). Additionally, the focus of women’s or femininity’s inferiority produces a credence that the power of gender relations moves and operates in a single direction (ibid). This reiterates previous arguments that highlight the limited understanding of who is affected by GBV, which limits lifesaving services to those in need. Another, defining point within Dolan’s argument is the acknowledgement that the IASC guideline’s, which focus on the of statistics that show women as most affected by GBV, is flawed because it is widely accepted that GBV data is often unreported and especially so for men and boys; therefore, the assertion that women are most affected should not be taken at face value (ibid). This insistence is in line with Carpenter’s argument that men are not made a priority in data but argues that the data collected is not assessed further. Therefore, barriers to reporting for men and boys are not examined. The recognition of this conduct asserts gender stereotyping is occurring within

(9)

9 GBV. The priority of women and girls should not be diminished, but there should be a accountability regarding the exclusion of men and boys based of societies assumptions that men and boys are less impacted by GBV.

It is important to note that gender misunderstanding goes beyond the dispute of male inclusion. Hilhorst et al. (2017) discusses how gender issues within humanitarian contexts are more often classified as women’s issues and their focus portrays women and girls as vulnerable and without power. This classification reinforces gender stereotypes which are commonly understood to portray women as: docile, weak, and dependent. Moreover, women are assumed to be the ideal beneficiaries to distribute nutritional and health information as well as food because of their assumed nurturing capacities (Hilhorst et al., 2017). Furthermore, she argues that this increases pressure on women as it takes advantage of the unpaid labor women do through their domestic responsibilities (ibid). Most interestingly, Hilhorst et al. (2017) addresses how women may “advance their status of victim to enable their access to aid- a kind of strategic essentialism,” (ibid, p. 58). This acknowledges not only how GBV aid positions women as victims, but how beneficiaries themselves may renounce their agency to comply with GBV expectations in order to receive aid (ibid). This assertion is evidence of how GBV not only reinforces gender stereotypes but impacts potential for organic feminist revolution within countries that accept aid. If beneficiaries must portray themselves within the expectations of a GBV survivor in order to receive aid, it suggests that GBV service providers underestimate the agency of survivors. This discussion on how gender mainstreaming reinforces the gender stereotype of women as powerless victims relates closely to colonial practices. This leads to the second categorization found within this literature analysis, that gender mainstreaming and GBV programs can lead to a post-colonial imperialism.

Neocolonial Underpinnings: Victims and Failures

Chandra Mohanty identifies colonialism and imperialism through the discourse of Western Feminist writings that focus on women in the ‘third world’ by looking at three principles (1984). This is an important to the context of Jordan, which was previously under British colonial rule. Mohanty defines Western feminist writings as not only writers from the West, but also ‘third world women’ who write and publish from the West (ibid). She defines it this way, because of the ‘global hegemony of Western scholarship” which can have “political

(10)

10 effects and implications beyond the immediate feminist or disciplinary audience.” (ibid, p. 336). GBV programming is an example of how feminist concerns and theories have impact beyond scholarly audiences. The first principle Mohanty establishes is the classification of women itself in writings about ‘third world women; she writes,

The assumption of women as an already constituted, coherent group, with identical interests and desires, regardless of class, ethnic or racial location or contradictions implies a notion of gender or sexual difference or even patriarchy (as male dominance – men as a correspondingly coherent group) which can be applied universally and cross-culturally (ibid, p. 336).

This first principle brings to light the question of the categorization of womanhood, and brings to question how its defined, and who defines it. In order to be critical of neocolonialism within Jordan, a post-colonial state, identifying where the power in defining people, especially categories of gender is important. The second principle Mohanty identifies is the lack of analysis in methodologies used to garner evidence of “universality and cross-cultural validity” (ibid, P. 337). Lastly, Mohanty describes how the third principle identifies the power relations between ‘third world women’ and Western feminists (ibid). In her third principle Mohanty explains how by defining ‘third world’ women as a coherent group it positions third world woman as, “subjects outside of social relations instead of looking at the way women are constituted as women through these very structures…. [the structures] are to be treated as phenomena to be judged by Western Standards.” (ibid, p. 351). This in turn positions Western women as “secular, liberated, and having control of their own lives.” (ibid, p.353). Mohanty asserts that the lack of self-reflection on their position, as Western writers discussing third world women, is what creates the inherent power dynamic between them and reproduces colonial and imperialistic discourse (ibid). Mohanty states that the discourse of Western feminists universalizing oppression of women and regulating world development based on their (the west’s) perceived advances must be recognized and critically examined (ibid). These three principles are useful to examine the ways in which colonialism and imperialism may be recreated in GBV programming discourse based on Jordan’s post-colonialist status. Mohanty’s focus remains with the presumptions of what the universal women experiences, and the lack of self-reflection in power dynamics between the subjects and the examiner of the subjects.

(11)

11 The principles Mohanty defined is a productive way to identify and examine the way colonialist and contemporary imperialism occur through discourse.

In relation to Mohanty, Mertens’ and Myrttinen explores how SGBV programming in the DRC reinforces “neo-liberal understandings of proper individuals and what family should look like,” (Mertens and Myrttinen, 2019 p.419). The article examines the ways that masculinity and femininity are advocated for within sexual and gender-based violence programs (ibid). Mertens and Myrttinen (2019) examine historical discourse that viewed Congolese women as victims of their culture (ibid). This not only underlines colonial, perspective of other cultures as being uncivilized, but perpetuates the stereotype of women as victims and in need of saving, which agrees with Hilhorst et al. (2017) and Mohanty’s (1984) perspective of universal classification of women. Mertens argues that colonialism and post-colonialism governing of gender, sexuality, and norms are tools used to control others (ibid). Mertens and Myrttinen (2019) make an important distinction that not only does defining gender attempt to ‘save’ women from their culture but creates a precedent for who is in power. Mertens and Myrttinen (2019) continues that current SGBV programs are not necessarily reproducing colonial narratives; rather, programs endorse certain gender and sexual norms similar to colonialism (ibid).

This assumption was also acknowledged in Hilhorst et al.’s (2017) argument that women’s assumed caretaking responsibilities would naturally disseminate humanitarian education, taking advantage of unpaid labor. This argument is therefore not only a perpetuation of gender essentialism, but also has roots in colonial thought. Mertens and Myrttinen (2019) concludes that SGBV programs in DRC empowers women who are viewed as victims of their own traditions (ibid). Regardless of the empowerment, this belief is a reproduction of colonial practices because it views the traditions as flawed and perpetuates the stereotype of women as helpless. Mertens and Myrttinen (2019) argues that SGBV programs often reassert “western notions of gender empowerment” which lacks insight to lived experiences of men and women and mimics colonial behavior (ibid, p. 431). This statement aligns with Mohanty’s first and third principle. Additionally, the article voices concern on how these campaigns address “structural gender inequality” (ibid, p. 432). This acknowledgement is essential because it highlights how GBV programs retain a shallow understanding of gendered power relations. Instead of examining structural inequalities, it focuses on advocating for

(12)

12 participation and certain gender norms rather than others. Additionally, the conclusion found that often interventions do not have enough insight in regard to humanitarian and development ties to colonialism (ibid). The lack of admission regarding humanitarian’s ties to colonial and imperialist roots is troubling. It is for this reason the relationship between how SGBV programs define gender and sexuality can easily be found to mimic colonialism.

The same argument is found in Olivius’ (2016) examination of the particular ways in which humanitarians hold power when promoting gender equality. She argues that the “promotion of gender equality is constructed as something done for refugees by humanitarians” which portrays humanitarians as the power holders over refugees (Oivius, 2016 p. 272). Olivius (2016) argues that the current discourse on gender equality and practice in humanitarian interventions reassert global power hierarchies and essentialize gender (ibid). The perception of gender equality relies on participation of women (ibid). This reiterates the themes of the research, and explicitly discusses how humanitarians themselves are positioned in a place of power based on the discourse of GBV guidelines. An additional feminist understanding of participation brings attention to how participation and challenging of societal gender norms fails to acknowledge the limitations of viewing gender-equality through participation (Parpart, 2010). Women’s empowerment and agency is linked to participation; however, the power in the silences and lack of participation is equally important (ibid). Silence is not only potential disempowerment, but also a tactic of survival or symbolic act (ibid). Providing services and mechanisms to report and discuss GBV without acknowledging the survival tactics of choosing silence can cause further harm. It also shows a gap in gender mainstreaming, it prioritizes participation and ignores subversives acts in silence.

Defining and controlling of gender and sexuality imitates colonial practices, an aspect of this is the emasculation of male beneficiaries as a show of power (Handrahan, 2004). Handrahan (2004) argues that, “ethnicity is created and maintained through the use of gender identities,” (ibid, p.436). The connection between ethnicity and gender is important in the context of colonialism because it examines how controlling gender definitions has potential to erase ethnicity. Handrahan (2004) refers to humanitarian workers as “decision makers” who arrive because “local males have ‘failed’ the model of civic virtues,” (ibid, p. 433). She introduces the sexual exploitation of UN peacekeepers against women and children and defines it as an international (ethnic) sexual dominance against local men (ibid). Her assertion relates to

(13)

13 colonialist practices of control and emasculation of the men in a show of power. This is an example of how GBV can be used to assert power and control. It is essential to acknowledge how colonial ideals are perpetuated knowingly and unknowingly by humanitarian workers. Additionally, she discusses that the international community is unwilling to address its own patriarchy and how it damages the possibility for creating new structures outside the patriarchy (ibid). In order to understand and reduce colonialist narratives they must first be acknowledged. Handrahan’s (2004) article agrees to Mertens and Myrtinnen’s (2019) argument that the structures created through humanitarian interventions reproduce systems that are themselves flawed.

Handrahan (2004) stipulates that gender and ethnicity implicate one another and are often used as “justifications” to continue violent practices before and after conflict. She specifically relates this to how the female body is the nexus for “male honor and national identity” and is therefore controlled for political objectives (ibid p. 437). This acknowledgment provides a new perspective in which humanitarian organizations focus on women and their bodies should be examined. For example, the ways in which humanitarian organizations, through their GBV programs, define and describe a women’s agency. Handrahan (2004) provides an example where she examines a pattern of women led protests that stem from their gender identity (apart from their ethnicity) and how it has greater impact in regard to separation from patriarchal hegemony and violence (ibid). This suggests that ethnicity itself may be creating limiting gender norms and the separation of that allows for an abolishment of said norms. That assumption would suggest that humanitarian and development aid’s roots in colonialism may have an impact that reduces GBV. However, Handrahan (2004) relates these together as she views humanitarian and developmental practices as shallow and participatory in reinforcing patriarchal structures (ibid). Handrahan (2004) recognizes the colonial lineage of humanitarian and development practices that uphold the patriarchy; citing how they often fall into the trap of focusing on cultural sensitivity and continuing to support the structures that oppress, violate, and produce gender inequality (ibid). Handrahan’s (2004) article provides further knowledge regarding the ways that humanitarian interventions construct gender systems that reinforce international understandings of gender equality, which is itself not yet equal.

(14)

14 Grabska’s (2011) furthers this argument by bringing light to the emasculation of men in SGBV programming. Grabska (2011) discusses how Sudanese refugees in Kenya “negotiated, (de)constructed, and were influenced and manipulated by humanitarian programming” (Grabska, 2011 p. 82). Grabska (2011) illustrates how humanitarian SGBV programs “emasculated men” by disrupting their role as breadwinner (ibid, p. 88). The emasculation of men by humanitarian and development programs is an indication of post-colonial practices. This is coupled by Grabsta’s (2011) acknowledgment that gender inequalities within GBV programming are often related to personal biases and values of the humanitarian workers themselves. This in particular, examining the understanding of ‘gender’ for advocates of GBV programming, is what the research seeks to understand. Additionally, Grabska (2011) notes the exclusion of older men in humanitarian meetings (because English knowledge was preferred) lead to an increase in GBV within the camp (ibid). Grabska (2011) follows in the assessment that GBV places the woman as victim in its programming (ibid). Furthermore, Grabska (2011) notes that women were often added to groups without full inclusion, to stay in line with gender-mainstreaming (ibid). This indicates that gender-equality is defined as female participation without further examination if that participation is itself equal. There are many obstacles to gender equality through women’s empowerment; specifically, that humanitarian programs do not consider “social and gender hierarchies” because attention to complexities of gender and “understanding relative power for women” within GBV programming still assumes women primarily as victims. (ibid, p. 91). Grabska (2011) focuses on how colonial biases in humanitarian aid reproduce the women as victims of their culture and emasculating men in the process, this ties into the ways colonialism itself uses gendered power relations to assert control over populations.

The exploration of post-colonial practices and its assertion that women are victims of traditions and the failure of men to protect women is repeated by many feminist scholars. For this thesis, Jordan is a post-colonial state and its imperative that the effects of colonialism and imperialism throughout humanitarian interventions be examined within GBV programming. It is important to the region of Jordan, an Arab and majority Muslim state, how colonialism and often gender mainstreaming programs views traditions as backwards.

(15)

15 Bureaucratic Standards for Gender

The final recurrent subject within gender mainstreaming and humanitarian programs is the bureaucratic feminism and standardization for gender equality that is produced within these interventions. Veit (2019) discusses how humanitarian SGBV interventions uses “government-inclined feminism” which reduces the original intent of feminist revolutions, to liberate people from gendered power relations of SGBV programs (Viet, 2019 p. 404). Viet (2019) criticizes programs in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that requires victims to participate in two programs before the can qualify for the third, which is socio-economic assistance (ibid). She states that victims must therefore perform in order to receive an essential component of the program (ibid). This argument aligns with Hilhorst et al. (2017), who also discussed the performativity a beneficiary may comply with in order to receive aid. Viet (2019) asserts that many of the programs reinforce heteronormativity and patriarchal structures which reinforces inequalities (ibid). This is in line with the Grabska’s (2011) article which acknowledges the biases in the system. Furthermore, Veit (2019) sates that the international organizations favor victim centered approaches instead of prevention programs (ibid). This realization provides insight as to why GBV fails to close the gender-equality gap. It also points to colonial sentiments of favoring victimization over violence prevention. Additionally, it addresses how the standardization of gender mainstreaming and advocacy with local government denies the population its own agency and power to navigate and change their culture. The insistence that survivors of SGBV participate in all the required programs before receiving cash assistance reiterates the bureaucratic standards for achieving gender equality and fulfilling a quota. This indicates a space where GBV programming continues to only skim the surface of gender-inequality and understanding gendered power relations.

Acosta et al. (2019) discusses how gender mainstreaming policies diffuses as it travels down through different government levels in Uganda (Acosta et al., 2019). They found that the GBV language currently used reiterated gender-stereotypes, especially in government and local contexts (ibid). This indicates two things. First, that community level government has difficulty addressing gender norms. Secondly, gender understanding is reserved for higher ups, creating a hierarchy of knowledge. This reinforces colonialist thought, where those closest to international governments retain the specialty and knowledge of gender relations. They

(16)

16 concluded that mainstreaming gender did not have the effect of improving gender equality (ibid). They summarized five reasons for this: 1. Lack of discussion of gender and climate change at local level policies. 2. Gender mainstreaming inclusion continued to perpetuate gender stereotypes. 3. Gender equality was not expanded upon “given as bullet points.” (ibid p. 14). 4. “A Compliance to bureaucratic requirement” (ibid p.16) 5. Budget allotment produced discussion but no substantial changes in policy (ibid). Overall, gender mainstreaming is not enough to impact “localized and context specific gender dynamics,” (ibid p.17). Acosta et. al’s (2019) article reaffirms two concerns in gender mainstreaming in humanitarian programming that relate to the thesis. Firstly, that gender is misunderstood and not examined critically in each context (ibid). Secondly, gender mainstreaming reinforces gender stereotypes and biases (ibid). Interestingly, Acosta et.al (2019) explicitly discusses the concept of bureaucracy, in which gender mainstreaming becomes a necessary act in order to receive funding. This is useful in comprehending how gender mainstreaming and GBV programs functions. As it suggests that prioritizing the saving of victims of GBV as the most conducive way to receive funding. This also insinuates that gender-mainstreaming loses the energy and momentum of its revolutionary roots and becomes part of the system without the analysis and understanding necessary to fully achieve gender-equality. This concept is important because it acknowledges the standardizing of gender according to western understandings of gendered power-relations; although, it is not specifically identified within Acosta et al (2019)’s article. It also reiterates the underlying imperialism and universalism within the foundations of gender mainstreaming and GBV program. Additionally, it is an example of simplifying gender-equality as something that can be measured quantifiably through minimum standards of participation.

Furthermore, Foran and Burns’ specifically looks at gender markers and their effectiveness. This article was chosen because it provides further understanding of GBV standardization. The Gender Marker is produced by the IASC to standardize and advocate gender mainstreaming (Foran, and Burns, 2012). Gender markers are tools used to ensure humanitarian projects satisfy the needs of women, girls, boys, and men (ibid). Additionally, gender markers are an important tool with which donors can use to ensure funding towards projects that work towards gender equality (ibid). This suggests that not only are humanitarian organizations themselves perpetuating the idea that gender-equality is achieved primarily through

(17)

17 participation, but also donors. To add to this, Foran and Burns’ (2012) found that gender markers fail to understand the subtle context in each varying country. They conclude that although gender markers may support targeting women, it may miss an important cultural context; that targeting women alone will not achieve results (ibid). This brings to questions the effectiveness of the markers and whether those markers themselves reinforce stereotypes or perceptions of women’s work. Overall, it found that the gender markers provide further accountability measures to ensure that programs take GBV into account. However, it is mentioned that gender is misunderstood, which impacts gender markers effectiveness on enhancing women and girls’ opportunities (ibid, p. 243). This is evidence of the shallow impact of gender mainstreaming in achieving gender equality. Foran and Burns (2012) touch upon the ineffectiveness of the programming through its standardizing of gender equality. The standardization of gender-equality within humanitarian organizations is limited to the western understanding of gender-equality and relies solely on the inclusion of women and girl’s participation.

In addition to Acosta et al.’s (2019) article, Caglar examines the institutionalization of gender mainstreaming and its understanding (Caglar, 2013). Caglar (2013) asserts that there is much discussion among feminist scholars to understand why gender mainstreaming has ‘failed’ to improve the “structures of inequality” (ibid, p. 337). Caglar (2013) provides two ways of examining how gender mainstreaming is produced. First by definition and discussion, and secondly by the power of organizations and their programming practices (ibid). Caglar (2013) argues that gender mainstreaming is accepted by the majority because of its “lack of conceptual clarity” (ibid, p. 337). This lack of specification in defining gender equality as the motivator behind gender mainstreaming often allows institutions to “reproduce gendered subjects and gender biases,” (ibid, p. 338). The recognition of the slippery definition of gender and its potential for reinforcing stereotypes is what this research seeks to explore. Caglar (2013) continues by defining current gender mainstreaming as a process of inclusion of women’s issues in current policies and programs without actualizing change (ibid). Again, this points to the agreement that current GBV and gender-mainstreaming practices equate gender-equality primarily through participation, and its limited success. Caglar (2013) also argues that bureaucracies reinforce gender norms throughout their policies and programs (ibid). The categorization of bureaucracies is important because it differs from colonialism.

(18)

18 Bureaucracy produces a standard and expectation from each program. It is the biases of these standards towards western/Christian values which is mimics colonialism. Caglar’s (2013) article reinforces the same sentiments as other articles, that the term gender in humanitarian programs is not fully examined and that stereotyping, and biases is a recurrent theme. Caglar’s (2013) goes further than Acosta et. al’s (2019) to suggest that the bureaucracy of GBV programming itself reinforces gender biases; whereas, Acosta et al. (2019) assumes that the bureaucracy standardizes gender mainstreaming without further consideration. Caglar’s (2013) acknowledgement of western biases within humanitarian bureaucracies regarding gender are part of its limitations and not just the inherent sluggishness of bureaucracies to create change. Caglar’s (2013) argument is a nod to post-colonialist narratives, where western values through bureaucracy infiltrates humanitarian aid.

Olivius examines the neo-liberalization of humanitarian organizations and their attempts to promote gender inclusion and equality (Olivius, 2013). Olivius argues that the neoliberalist gender equality promotion limits a deeper understanding of gender because it is reduced to a quantitative and measurable achievement (ibid). This agrees with previous authors on the bureaucratic standardization of gender-equality. Additionally, Olivius (2013) argues that gender mainstreaming is used to focus on concerns, like sanitation and food distribution rather than gendered power relations because women are assumed to be most useful in disseminating information to their families (ibid). This is an argument that is often repeated, and the underlying issue is its root in gender norms where women are viewed as not only free labor to be taken advantage of but their position in the home (Hilhorst et. al, 2017; Mertens and Mertinnen, 2019). Olivius (2013) also argues that humanitarian organizations create further power discrepancies by positioning gender equality as an international specialty and therefore eliminating the agency of refugees’ challenging their own culture (ibid). Furthermore, Olivius (2013) argues that the positioning of gender mainstreaming within humanitarian actors reinforces the assumption that the refugee’s culture itself barrier to gender equality. This line of thought reiterates colonial sentiments regarding the uncivility of refugee traditions. Olivius (2013) and Acosta et al., (2019) agree that the international standardization of gender mainstreaming, as a means to ensure gender inclusion and equality, produces a shallow understanding of gender. Olivius (2013) and Viet (2019 align because they both view the gender mainstreaming as a standardization that produces

(19)

19 subjects that follow international guidelines and standards of gender equality rather than allowing refugees to organically challenge their culture’s gendered power relations. Olivius’s (2013) acknowledgment that the positioning of gender mainstreaming presumes the refugee’s culture as a barrier to gender equality as in agreement with Caglar (2013), who argues the reinforcing of gender biases through international standardization. Olivus’ (2013) recognition that gender mainstreaming positions beneficiaries’ culture as an obstacle to gender equity is related to post-colonial sentiments, which positions beneficiaries as victims of their own traditions.

Conclusion

Throughout this literature review three things remain clear. First gender as a term is often misunderstood or used at its most shallow understanding. Secondly, gender-based violence interventions through mainstreaming or programs can reproduce gender stereotypes and biases. This can be through the exclusion of men in GBV programming or by reinforcing women and girls as victims. This literature review brought to light the ways in which gender norms created by humanitarian interventions can be an extension of post-colonial imperialism; Lastly, the bureaucratic processes of humanitarian program development can duplicate these stereotypes through standardization. It easily becomes a cycle of confusing the definitions of gender, reinforcing western ideals of gender-equality, and pushing an unclear standard of gender-equality in humanitarian programming.

What is useful within this literature is the understanding of power between beneficiaries, in this case GBV survivor, and the NGOs that provide that service. Additionally, examining how the relationship of power interacts with essentialized understandings of gender is useful within the research. All of these concepts must be analyzed while also keeping in mind neocolonialist understandings of gender norms and power hierarchies. However, the debates regarding the standardization of gender equality is less useful in regard to looking at gender essentialism. Except in the way that it reinforces neocolonialist underpinnings.

This research reasserts the arguments’ that GBV should be inclusive of all genders. This is because GBV is understood as violence that occurs because of someone’s gender. A person’s gender is defined within this research as an identity that is defined by an individual and is often expressed as man, woman, or nonbinary. This definition asserts that excluding men in

(20)

20 GBV programming reinforces gender-stereotypes that assume violence is a normal aspect of a man’s life (Carpenter, 2017; Dolan, 2014; Linos, 2009). Additionally, this research seeks to interview GBV service providers in order to examine how gender is understood by humanitarians and how their comprehension may interact within programming as addressed by Grabska (2011). In order to focus this research on examining gender-stereotypes in GBV programming in Jordan, a post structuralist and post colonialist framework will be used. Post-Structuralist frameworks observe that each culture forms its own philosophies for understanding, and each has its own limitations and advantages (McKee, 2003). Post-structuralist frameworks were used in by Olivius (2016) and Caglar (2013) to examine the structural powers between humanitarian organizations and their beneficiaries as well as the discourse regarding the relationships. Post- Structural Feminist theories are founded within Foucault’s theories on subjectivity and power, which seeks to analyze how systems and discourse govern and subjugate people (Davies et. al, 2006). This is done by acknowledging the seemingly invisible dynamics and categories of essentialism produced by society (ibid). Post-Structural feminist theory focuses on the position of the subject and the discourse surrounding the subject (Jones, 1997). Post-Structuralist frameworks observe that each culture forms its own philosophies for understanding, and each has its own limitations and advantages (McKee, 2003). The post-structuralist framework was initially created to examine essentialist and universal structures created, especially linguistically, within a European context; however, postcolonialism stretched the theories of post-structuralism into colonial spaces (Gikandi, 2004). The importance of a post-structuralist framework within this thesis is the positioning of power. Of equal importance is expanding post-structuralist theories into post-colonialist theories. Not only examining the relations of power between the subject and the systems but looking at how colonial legacies are (re)produced within these structures. By examining the discourse of the term gender this thesis attempts to address how the power of that definition excludes and essentializes the very GBV survivors it attempts to empower.

(21)

21

3 Research Methods

The purpose of this thesis is to examine GBV programs in Jordan definition of gender and how it relates to GBV advocates and experts understanding of gender. Investigating how GBV program employees comprehend gender and the objectives of their GBV programming is crucial to linking how gender essentialism shows up in programming. Advocates for GBV survivors have the possibility to further reinforce gender stereotyping through policy making and program creation, as they are the experts in their field. Therefore, exploring the link between gender understanding through interviews and secondary sources in GBV programs will shed light on the connection between how gender is defined and essentialized.

The research focuses on four expert interviews with local and international organizations who are employed by GBV service providers in Jordan. The aim of the interviews focusses on examining the definition of gender within the organizations and the impact of the definition on programming, its inclusiveness, and effects on gender stereotypes. Because of the COVID19 pandemic all interviews were done online. The interviews were ideally to be conducted with two international organizations, one local and one governmental organization. This categorization is important because it provides a way to classify and examine how post-colonialist discourse may occur within international organizations. Moreover, two international organizations were chosen because out of the twenty-four organizations that provide GBV services most are international (Protection SGBV Sub Working Group – Jordan, 2020). The only available organizations for the interviews were two international organizations and two local organizations.

The lack of governmental organizational interview within this study is a limitation because it reduces the potential to examine governmental understandings of gender and how negotiations between governmental and international organizations are perceived. It may show a reluctance of governmental organizations to interview and discuss GBV within Jordan, especially as data regarding GBV prevalence is greatly protected; additionally, the understanding of GBV within governmental organizations differs from international organizations (UNDP, 2018). However, due to the sudden and profound impact of the COVID19 pandemic there are many other possibilities for their lack of participation. The ethical considerations on this research did not examine particular cases of GBV, but rather

(22)

22 the GBV service providers staff’s understanding of ‘gender.’ The questions within the research focused on the understandings of gender, and the impact of those definitions on programming. Specifically, the research seeks to understand how gender is defined and how the impact of the survivor’s agency by answering these questions: How is gender defined in GBV programs? Who is included/excluded within these definitions? Does the current definition of ‘gender’ in GBV programming reinforce stereotyping and post-colonial hierarchies?

In order to examine gender-based violence programming within Jordan for gender stereotyping, a post-structural and post-colonial feminist framework will be used. The theoretical approach acknowledges each culture creates its own philosophies of understanding, and each has its own limits and utility (McKee, 2003). It also acknowledges spaces that are often ignored and examines the dynamics and essentialist categories produced by systems and discourse that subjugates and govern people (Davies et al., 2006). With this in mind, GBV programs will be analyzed on their discourse regarding their program outputs, publications, and the language used by GBV program employees to describe their own programming. Discourse within this thesis goes beyond communication mediums and delves into the ways that knowledge is distributed and the power dynamics behind its distribution. This means examining how GBV survivors are positioned in terms of the definition of gender, who defines the term ‘gender,’ and essentialist classifications within the context. When analyzing the discourse of gender this research will focus on how gender is explained by GBV service providers and humanitarian GBV reports and guidelines. It will examine the limits of the definitions provided by interviewees and documents as well as the potential for essentialism.

Participants

The subjects are the experts and advocates of GBV programs in Jordan. Four GBV experts were selected for this study from organizations that are international, local, or governmental. The Key Informants are case managers, project managers, specialists, and coordinators of GBV programs in Jordan. These participants are required because of their unique position that allows them to give voice to survivors of GBV and create policy changes.

(23)

23 There are twenty-four organizations in Jordan, most of which are international organizations, that take part in Sexual Gender Based Violence (SGBV) programs (Protection SGBV Sub Working Group – Jordan, 2020). Participants will be chosen based on their involvement with the SGBV-Sub Working Group. (SGBV-SWG), which was created in 2014 to improve coordination between program providers and is chaired by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the United Nations High commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (ibid). In this study, two international non-government organizations (INGOs) and two national community-based organizations (CBOs) were chosen based on their participation in the SGBV-SWG. This categorization is essential because it provides a distinguishing class to examine potential post-colonial discourse that may occur between local and international organizations. This enables the research to better examine the link between gender understanding and how GBV programs reinforce gender stereotypes. Using this classification reiterates the focus on the power dynamics between international and local organizations as part of a post-colonial feminist framework.

Interview Questions

There is no standardized instrument for measuring the variables of the study. Therefore, the author developed a questionnaire1. The questionnaire includes three sections with a total of

20 questions. The questions were translated from English to Arabic to ensure comprehension and inclusion. The questions remain open ended and simplified for phone and online interviews due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The questions interrogate GBV Program interactions with girls, women, boys, men, and those outside the binary. It examines the expected outcomes of different programs. Additionally, participants are questioned on their understanding of the term gender as defined by their organization and whether the employees consider it a useful understanding of the term.

The following shows the two sections of the interview questionnaire: Questions About the Organization

Questions About Gender Understanding

(24)

24 Questions About the Organization

The first section collects information about the classification of the organizations, whether it was international, local, or governmental. Anonymity was selected to encourage participants in participating and sharing their views without concern for employment repercussions. This section asks about existing frameworks or guides that the organization follows in regard to its programming and what are expected program outcomes. Additionally, it asks where program creation starts and how donors may create additional guidelines for programing. These questions investigate what guides the organizations programming decisions and definitions. These questions are important because they set up the understanding of gender and which frameworks or guidelines that help inform the definition of gender that each organization might have. Examining the guidelines and frameworks used by the organizations helps understand the driving factors that influence the definition of gender. These questions provide a foundational understanding of the who defines and upholds the definition of gender, INGOs, CBOs, Donors. Additionally, the questions focus on how the objectives of the different organizations to examine how the missions or interests of the orgs also influence how gender is defined. These aspects of an organization are relevant to the research, but also in understanding the relationships of power between the organization, donors, and international standards. The hints of neocolonialism being mimicked or reproduced within the literature review is evidence that questions regarding the objectives and classifications of each organization be examined within a post-colonialist lens.

Questions About Gender Understanding

The second section delves into understanding the definition of gender within the organization and its programming. It examines donor’s definitions of gender; as well as, the impact of its definition. In this section the questions begin to examine the expert’s opinions regarding the definition, and whether it is effective and inclusive. Additionally, it asks if experts believe current programming reinforces gender stereotypes. Lastly, the experts are asked what works well for the programming, and what improvements they would like to see within their programs. These questions will provide the foundation for comprehending how different organizations define and use gender. Extensive analysis on the discourse and perception regarding the term ‘gender’ during the interviews will follow within Chapter 3.

(25)

25 These questions lead to how each organization defines gender. Most importantly, it examines the interviewee’s consideration of inclusiveness, essentialism, and the pros and cons within their organization’s definition of gender and gender essentialism.

Data Collection

Each subject’s consent to the study was obtained prior to the interview. A sample questionnaire was then emailed to the participant prior to the interview. The interview process took one hour per participant.

The interview style was a semi-structured. This allowed for the researcher to delve further into questions when answers seemed too short. The interview was recorded, as consented by the participants, and transcribed into a table.2 The table was completed with the answers

of each interview participant. The rows of the table included the questions, the first four columns included the four organization’s answers, and the last row, an aggregation of the findings for each question, the research notes, comments, or observation.

Public documents will be selected by those published on the Protection SGBV – Sub Working Group Jordan page. As well as any promotional campaigns and messages disseminated by GBV program providers as it relates to gender mainstreaming. This distinction is necessary because gender-mainstreaming seeks to enhance gender-equality in humanitarian organizations by inserting perceived agency and inclusion to the benefit of beneficiaries (Olivius, 2013). Therefore, any gender-mainstreaming discourse within Jordan is within the reach of this thesis as it is used to prevent and mitigate risk of GBV will be evaluated in the ways it is used to reinforce categories of power.

Data Analysis

In alignment with post-structural and post-colonialist feminist theory, the use of language, imagery, and the positioning of GBV survivors within the definition of gender will be examined within the interviews and secondary resources. This is done through a discourse analysis, which allows the research to examine the language, imagery, and actions to understand how the subjects, GBV survivors, are positioned (Jones, 1997). Using a discourse analysis within the lens of post-structural feminist theory allows for a greater understanding of how subjects

(26)

26 are positioned while also examining who or what is defining or producing the discourse. This allows for a greater understanding of potential hierarchies of power. Power, within this research, is understood from Foucault’s perspective, which views power as constantly changing and its relationship within all positions (Shepherd, 2008). When examining the relationship between power and discourse within this research an important distinction is made between international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs). This distinction allows for a better examination of the production of power between INGOs and CBOs, especially in a post-colonialist context like Jordan. This allows the research to examine how power and discourse affect GBV survivors and examine essentialist understandings that may be produced while looking at the relationship between INGOs and CBOs. The research does not address the actual impact of how the definition effects GBV survivors, but rather makes necessary analysis of the potential essentialism reproduced within GBV discourse and how that effects inclusion at the level of GBV service delivery. Additionally, the key informants that were able to participate within the research did not include governmental organizations. Often non-participation, especially from “gatekeepers of the patriarchy,” are silent actions of power that prevent further investigation into gender perspectives/understandings (Gill and Ryan-flood, 2009). The lack of participation from government officials may be due to secrecy and protection of cultural and religious beliefs regarding gender; however, during this interview process there were also government mandated curfews and lockdowns which may have also greatly influenced participation. This limits the research’s ability to address all structural and neocolonialist systems within the region because there was little context to address the interactions between INGOs, CBOs, and governmental GBV service providers. Within the research there was some acknowledgement from both INGOs and CBOs about the interactions between them and governmental service providers; however, the perspective from both does not provide a whole account of the systems.

Additionally, the key informants that did participate also had different positions within their organizations. Informants from INGOs where in higher positions organizationally, managing and coordinating major programs and funds for GBV service provision. Whereas the informants from CBOs tended to be very experienced, yet in positions of case managing and program management. The tendency to reserve GBV specialization for international

(27)

27 humanitarian organizations is a well acknowledged aspect within gender mainstreaming (Kelly, 2006; Olivius 2016). This impacts the research in multiple ways. First the key informants’ positions are either closely related to beneficiaries or distant. Informants from INGOs have much less direct interaction with GBV survivors, they work in a bigger context. Whereas, key informants from CBOs work directly, if not much more closely with GBV survivors. There is potential for that to affect their understanding of how gender is defined because INGOs work within a human rights framework that specifically focuses on women’s inclusion and participation (Kelly, 2006); whereas CBOs also use a human rights approach, yet focus more on provision of services to those in need. Most importantly is that informants from INGOs were foreigners and CBOs are nationals. This distinction is reiterating neocolonialist power hierarchies within GBV service provision and may also influence discourse and understandings of what constitutes a GBV survivor. The importance of this research is not just in defining gender, but also examining the power between who defines, it and how it influences the understandings of who is considered a GBV survivor.

As part of the research is a discourse analysis beyond the interviews there were several documents that were examined within this research. The first document is the GBV Information Management System (IMS) Report (2019). The use of this document provides context of how the GBV task force (a group of GBV service providing organizations) understands and reports GBV data within Jordan (GBV IMS Report, 2019). This document represents the not just the statistics of GBV in the region, but also the exact discourse of GBV service provision within the region. It provides, context from the Task Force’s understanding of GBV in the region. In addition to the GBV IMS Report (2019) a publication by the Coalition of Feminists for Social Change (COFEM) was examined. This document was analyzed as it was mentioned by a key informant as a document that many SGBV service providers can use to argue why GBV’s focus is intended to support women and girls most exclusively (Key Informant 1, INGO, June 2020, Amman). The COFEM Tip Sheet #7, Violence Against Men & Boys: Feminist Pocket Book, provided important understandings of how GBV is understood as exclusively a women and girls issue. This provided understanding of how broader understandings of GBV universally excludes men and boys, but also how INGOs that provide GBV service in Jordan reassert the same understanding. Finally, a publication from UNFPA Jordan’s When Caged Birds Sing (2019) was examined for gender essentialist positions on the

(28)

28 framing of GBV survivor’s voices. The document is important because it is used to showcase the experiences and uplift the voices of GBV survivors in Jordan, specifically women and girls. This document is also shared specifically with donors to provide examples of the work done and also reiterate the need for further funding. Examining this document for its definition of gender and its essentialized gender expectations gives insights into how the discourse surrounding GBV is also used to ensure greater funding.

When examining these documents for their understanding of gender the focus of this research examines the definitions provided through key informant interviews, but also the discourse in documentation regarding GBV survivors. When examining discourse, the rhetoric and positioning of each subject is investigated. The investigation consists of analyzing, where the subject, GBV survivors, are positioned and what that positioning says about them. The position of the subject within this research is defined by GBV service providers and the IASC GBV guidelines. The position of the subject is not the only relationship that is examined, but also the relationships between the CBOs and INGOs, the differences or similarities that occur within their definitions.

(29)

29

4 Examination of GBV Discourse for Gender Stereotyping

Defining Gender in GBV

In order to begin analyzing how gender is defined and understood within GBV programs in Jordan the first focus should be to understand how the Jordanian Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Sub Working Group (SGBV-SWG) defines gender. The SGBV-SWG is chaired by United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); they coordinate and assist in providing comprehensive SGBV response in Jordan with all SGBV providers (UNHCR, 2014). Their definition of gender is defined as, “An umbrella term for any harmful act that is perpetrated against a person based on socially ascribed differences between males and females” (SGBV-SWG, 2019 p.1). This definition is the exact definition as described in the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) GBV Guidelines (IASC, 2015 p.5). The way it is defined focuses on the binary between male and female sex. Additionally, this definition excludes people who are intersex and gender-nonbinary. Instead of examining socially ascribed differences between femininity and masculinity, which are theoretical, the SGBV-SWG in Jordan fixates on binary categories of sex. GBV defined this way focuses on the differences between the binary genders attributed to men and women. The focus of SGBV becomes ‘the socially ascribed differences’ differences between men and women. This detracts from GBV that impacts those outside the binary. By virtue of the patriarchy, which is prominent in Jordan, “socially ascribed differences” include the relationships of power ascribed to men and women (ibid). The concentration on power dynamics of men over women reinforces discourse and programming within GBV organizations to solely respond to reforming male privileges and mitigating risks of GBV for females.

It is important to recognize that overwhelmingly, males have many more advantages in Jordan than women, this is true socially and legally (UNDP, 2018; Jordan GBV IMS Taskforce, 2019). However, this power is not one directional, and should not be used to deny forms of violence that impact men solely because of their gender, especially when there are many examples of how conflict and refugee crises can shift societal gender dynamics (Dolan, 2014; Hilhorst et al., 2017). This research defends that, regardless of perceived and real privileges, males (especially refugees) can be victims of GBV and should be included in current programming, not as a separate issue.

(30)

30 Analyzing Interviews

When analyzing the interviews there are four main questions that dealt with the understanding of gender within the participants organization:

1. How does your organization define gender?

2. Do you feel that your organization is clear about the concept of gender, why? 3. How does your organizations definition of gender impact GBV programming?

4. Do you think the way your organization defines gender in terms of GBV programming objectives is effective, why?

When examining the interviews for the first question all interviewees had similar definitions for gender. Each interviewee stated that gender is defined by the socially constructed norms between men and women. Key Informant 1 defined gender as “the socially constructed roles of being a woman and being a man…that are determined by the culture in a certain time and a certain place… the [social] construct evolves over time”(Key Informant Interview 1, INGO, June 2020, Amman). This is in line with the SGBV-SWG’s definition. The importance of the mention of time was to indicate that changes do occur, and that cultures, however similar, may have differences in gender roles based on their location. This acknowledges that gender understanding cannot be used universally. They stated that their organization “Not only [focuses on] the binary definition to be a woman and a man…Maybe it has more conservative binary perspective, but our general approach in our policy looks at the social construct beyond the binary” (Key Informant Interview 1, INGO, June 2020, Amman). However, acknowledging those outside the binary in policy does not translate to actions that increase services. According to the Key Informant 1’s most recent program goals, one of the expected outcomes is enhancing gender equality and women's empowerment. The output of this goal deals directly with GBV services. The outputs only specifically mention distinct numbers for women and girls accessing GBV services and no target for any other genders. The focus on women and girls does not inherently indicate exclusion of other genders. Yet, the lack of discourse surrounding other genders experiencing GBV indicates priority for women and girls.

Key Informant 2 explained that their organization defines gender as such, “Gender refers to the roles, behaviors, activities, attributes and opportunities that any society considers appropriate for girls and boys, and women and men. Gender interacts with, but is different from, the binary categories of biological sex” (Key Informant 2, INGO, June 2020, Amman).

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

More specifically, we present participants with one of three gender- related policies (a de-gendering policy, a multi-gendering policy, or a control policy) and investigate the role

Cochrane has strong ethical principles, so it was thought likely this group may have awareness of best practice with authorship, plagiarism, redundant publication and conflicts

Models 1 until 6 provide the results of the regression estimation of winsorized (at the 5% level) Return on Equity (W_ROE), winsorized (at the 5% level) Return on

Resultate verkry tydens hierdie studie vergelyk dus baie goed met bogenoemde as ons in ag neem dat geen stikstofbyvoeging tydens hierdie studie gedoen is nie Volgens Ben-Hassan

about it. Not to create autonomous moral agents, but rather to produce reliable means to distinctly human ends extend- ing to war, indeed making war better and easier with

The geophysical inversion results plus reconstructions of fault movement from InSAR data are all compatible with normal movement and reactivation of a previous thrust fault.. An

Auch hier kann als optionales Argument eine Konjunktion übergeben werden: \ersie[hKonjunktioni]{} Für diese Makros ist es unerheblich, ob sie als \ersie{} oder \sieer{}

The second hypothesis stated that power, gender and gender stereotype activation interact to influence impostor feelings, such that power is associated with increased