African Gender Regimes

Based on my last few weeks of work, I’ve realized that gender plays a crucial role in the overall South African refugee experience. I previously mentioned that men and women are eligible for different forms of aid, but based on the current rubric they are also eligible for different quantitative amounts of aid. Consider food vouchers, for instance. Men are first and foremost more critically assessed for acquisition of food aid than are women. If accepted, men are then eligible to receive up to 200 Rand. Single women, if qualified for aid, receive 250 Rand and possibly 300 Rand upwards should they also be taking care of children. In this context, men are automatically considered to be less vulnerable than are women. The idea is that men can supposedly fend for themselves out in public better than women. When there are children involved, women are also tied down to take care of them. Child rearing is traditionally a female task in Western society, but in many African societies it is an almost 100% female responsibility.

It has also appeared from my own empirical experience that refugee women hailing from Central African nations are often less educated than their male counterparts. One of the most tangible manifestations of this educational gap is the inability of many female refugees to communicate in English as easily as their husbands, brothers, and male friends. Even those refugees that have been here 3+ years struggle profusely. Often the men go out during the day searching for work opportunities, which naturally puts them into contact with English-speaking South Africans and allows them to develop their new language skills. Wives, sisters, and mothers are frequently left at home to take care of domestic work, all the while conversing with one another in Lingala, Kinyarwanda, or Somali.

A 2003 United Nations publication on Refugees and Forced Displacement claims that almost 80% of refugees are women and children (N.B: I can cite this source retroactively if anyone questions this figure). From a practical standpoint alone, then, refugee reintegration development does need to be enacted via gender sensitive policies. Female refugees do face challenges that males / male refugees do not. I have spoken with several refugee women who have cited the threat of rape as one of the principal reasons for fleeing their former countries. Militant groups invaded their home regions, burnt and pillaged homes, and then strategically raped mass amounts of women. They are at risk sexually in a way that most men simply are not.

The viewpoint that women are more susceptible in the societies of asylum countries also reflects theoretical backing. Critical gender theorist R.W. Connell utilizes the term “hegemonic masculinity” to describe the patriarchal, male-biased nature of the public domain. Most major businesses, government structures, and law enforcement are run by men, thus making society far from a gender-neutral place. One practical application of this is the lack of action among South African law enforcement officials when women come forth complaining of gender-based violence (especially in the township settings). Others might include inaccessibility to serious business ventures and the threat of sexual violence when traveling alone at night.

On one level, it is clear that women warrant special needs attention in refugee development schemes. I couldn’t help but wonder, however, how this particular development formula pairs with contemporary feminist inquiries. If feminism is truly about gender equality (as it so often claims to be) how do we account for single male refugees who feel the same hunger pangs, suffer from the same displacement, and lack the same work as their sisters? Does singling out women as more aid dependant than men work counter to the global strive for increased gender equality? To what extent is it development-based NGOs’ responsibility to implement, educate, and advocate for more equitable gender regimes?

A fellow intern working in the self-reliant small business ventures program reviews business plans from dozens and dozens of refugees, yet she must find a balance between vulnerability and viability as her approval criteria. What kind of gender dynamic would be created if all approved business plans were for women and no men? Following the approval rubric strictly would likely yield this sort of a result. Perhaps the support of female businesses could be considered a type of gender affirmative action programme, but work is scarce in South Africa and men are often just as vulnerable. I’ve frequently heard Annell tell female clients, “In South Africa, women must work, too. You must be a strong, African woman.” There have also been instances of men squandering food vouchers on beers, cigarettes, and personal desires instead of providing for their families. Because of this the CTRC often feels uncomfortable giving food vouchers straight to filial father figures. To generalize a policy based on the presumption that men are biologically more prone to this sort of behavior seems backwards and barbaric, but how do you account for the statistical reality driving such a policy? A gender-sensitive lens is needed to promote effective refugee development programmes, yet what this gender-sensitive lens ought to look like reveals a much greater ongoing struggle.