1. Introduction 3 Understanding women’s economic and social rights 10
|
|  Yüklə 0.78 Mb.
|
3.1 Multiple and intersecting discrimination and inequalitiesBefore embarking upon those discussions, however, it must be said that while gender discrimination and inequality may affect all women to one degree or another, women are not a homogenous group. The CEDAW Committee has recognized that certain groups of women, in addition to suffering from discrimination directed against them as women, may also suffer from multiple forms of discrimination, including as a result of discrimination based on race, ethnic or religious identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, class, caste or other factors. The Committee highlights that such discrimination may affect these groups of women primarily, or to a different degree or in different ways than men, and that States should take specific temporary special measures to eliminate such multiple forms of discrimination against women and its compounded negative impact on them.129 For example, the CEDAW Committee has recommended that States conduct regular and comprehensive studies on discrimination against minority women in the field of education and provide information and data on the situation of minority women in education.130 The Montreal Principles on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights note that: Intersecting discrimination can determine the form or nature that discrimination takes, the circumstances in which it occurs, the consequences of the discrimination, and the availability of appropriate remedies. To ensure that all women enjoy the benefits of their economic, social and cultural rights, specific measures are needed to address the ways in which women are differently affected in their enjoyment of a right as a result of the intersection of discrimination based on sex with discrimination based on other characteristics.131 In the area of economic and social rights, it is easy to see the effects of multiple and intersecting inequalities in both Global North and Global South contexts. The disparities are evident in all areas, including education, income, health outcomes, access to services and benefits, etc. In Canada, for example, census data shows that racial minorities are far more likely to live in poverty, to face barriers to workplaces, and even when they get a job, they are more likely to earn less than the majority population. Controlling for age, immigration status, and education does not eliminate the gap.132 When gender is added to the mix, researchers found that income poverty increases: women belonging to minority racial groups were paid 53.4 cents for every dollar white men were paid in 2005, whereas men belonging to minority racial groups were paid 73.6 cents for every dollar. Women belonging to minority racial groups made 84.7 cents for every dollar that white women made.133 The OECD notes that empirical studies highlight that gender and race discrimination in the labor market are important factors behind the often high levels of earnings inequality in emerging economies.134 As the ILO has recognized: “… men and women clearly do not form homogeneous, diametrically opposed groups. Though gender inequality still exists on the labour market, we cannot treat it in broad strokes, but rather must recognize diversity and ask ourselves which women and which men are being affected?”135 With this understanding in mind, and in light of the previous discussion on State obligations and the use of temporary special measures, it can be said that States also have a duty to effectively combat multiple and intersectional discrimination and inequalities. To address these situations, States must adopt the necessary laws, policies and practices, and prioritize the needs to the most marginalized and excluded, including single women, households headed by single women or girls, women belonging to racial/ethnic/religious/linguistic minorities, immigrant and migrant women, lesbians, women living with HIV, ‘at risk’ women and girls, women with disabilities, elderly women, women with small children, and pregnant women. Because social inequalities may be exacerbated during times of economic crisis, States should remedy and repair multiple and intersecting discrimination and inequalities within the context of economic, financial and related policy-making. 3.2 Education
From an early age, girls face discrimination and inequality that impacts their ability to succeed and enjoy autonomy later in life. A girl’s inability to access quality education is a prime example of how discrimination and inequality can take root. UNESCO has stated that “Gender-based discrimination in education is both a cause and a consequence of deep-rooted disparities in society.”136 The OECD’s Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) similarly shows that “[w]omen’s low status in the family is linked to reduced educational attainment and economic outcomes for women and girls.”137 The gender gap in education is not as stark as it once was: today, female enrolment is rising at greater rate than among males, and data show that gender parity achieved in two-thirds of countries at primary and/or secondary levels.138 In some countries, disparities in favor of girls sometimes develop at the higher levels of education.139 While girls’ education has been at times seen as a game-changer for women’s equality and empowerment, the reality is that the relationship, at least in terms of earning potential, is not a direct one. The United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative140 (UNGEI) notes that while gender parity shows signs of improvement within schools, parallel changes in the labor market and society at large do not show similar gains.141 In the United States, for example, researchers have shown that while women are now more likely to complete four-year college degrees than men, it does not appear that their higher levels of education will close the gender wage gap.142 Nonetheless, it is important to stress that girls’ education is valuable for its own sake, even while it may not be a panacea for women’s economic equality.143 Despite the progress of recent years, it cannot be said that all of the doors to education have been opened for girls. Malala Yousafzai, the young Pakistani schoolgirl whose assassination attempt by Taliban gunmen in 2012 brought increased international attention to girls’ right to education, has been a vocal advocate and her case demonstrates that more gains must be made.144 Indeed, persistent gender barriers remain in the area of access to education, and some of the apparent successes can be misleading. In many countries girls take on domestic responsibilities, including the care of younger siblings and the gathering of fuel and water, which may limit their ability to go to school or to do well in school. Many girls also work for pay instead of going to school: an estimated 67.1 per cent of all child domestic workers (17.2 million children worldwide) are girls.145 Depending on the country and the culture, boys may also receive preferences when it comes to education.146 Girls also may experience pressure for early marriage, as well as sexual harassment and violence in and out of educational settings, which may force them to drop out of school.147 Early marriage of course also sets girls up for early pregnancy, a significant contributor to maternal mortality, particularly in developing countries.148 Even in situations of early pregnancy, however, the CEDAW Committee has been very clear that girls are entitled to continue with their schooling. For example, on Indonesia, the Committee has urged the State party to “[e]nsure equal access of girls and young women, including those in domestic services, to all levels of education and take measures to retain girls in schools including by providing public scholarships for girls and incentives for parents and employers to send their daughters and domestic workers to school and enabling young women to return to school after pregnancy.”149 Plan International notes while most countries still only track enrolment, enrolment is an inherently flawed measure of girls’ access to education.150 Attendance is a much better measure of access, and for girls attendance is routinely cut short due to domestic responsibilities such as cooking, fetching water and firewood, and childcare;151 lack of adequate water and sanitation in schools to meet the needs of menstruating girls;152 and gender-based violence and sexual harassment in schools.153 Intersectional discrimination also greatly impacts upon girls’ schooling. For example, researchers have reported Romani girls being given less attention at school because authorities expect them not to complete their education due to ethnic stereotypes about either early marriage or early pregnancy.154 The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to education (V. Muñoz Villalobos) has noted that “[r]hetoric in favour of girls’ rights has not prevented education from continuing to be one of the lowest budget priorities and one of the least favoured areas in public policy.”155 The Special Rapporteur has also said that stereotyping at school and within educational curriculum is a major problem, reporting inter alia that: both men and women teachers have low expectations of girls’ intellectual skills, that teachers often give girls less feedback and frequently report that they enjoy teaching boys more than girls; that girls have lower and fewer expectations of themselves in and out of school and think that their future consists primarily of being wives and mothers; that low expectations are reinforced by textbooks, curricula and assessment material, in which no female figures appear; that prizes won by girls and girls’ achievements are not as widely reported or publicized as boys’; and that there is a clear tendency to use sexist language within schools and within curricula.156 In terms of helping to develop the content of the right to education from a gender equality perspective, the Special Rapporteur made a range of specific recommendations aimed at increasing the availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability of education for girls.157 In terms of good practice, UNESCO has noted that examples of interventions for promoting gender equality in education can be thought of as ‘targeted’ (ensuring mostly access to education), ‘systemic’ (with a focus on universal access and quality), or ‘enabling’ (with a focus mostly on access but also on long term change).158 Targeting strategies are reportedly the most common approach followed by Governments to yield speedy results in expanding girls’ educational access.159 Examples of targeted measures which have been used include cutting the costs of school fees (China, Kenya, Malawi, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka and the United Republic of Tanzania) and also supplementing household access by covering indirect costs, providing cash transfers that compensate for the opportunity costs of children’s income such as scholarships and stipends (Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua and Pakistan).160 While targeting is important, gains made in girls’ education can also be quickly reversed without further systemic and enabling strategies in place. Systemic measures focus on universal access as well as quality, which UNESCO defines as follows: Universal access reforms include those that focus on expanding provision of schooling infrastructure and strengthening the environment in which schooling takes place. Quality reforms include those that address the content or mode of provision of particular educational inputs, such as revising curricula and textbooks, or improving teachers’ skills in gender-aware teaching and learning methods.161 On quality, good practices include the removal of gender stereotypes from teaching materials, the inclusion of women’s human rights in standard school curriculums and the diversification of girls’ education into math, science and technology. It is also good practice to ensure that school career guidance counseling encourages girls to choose studies which will improve their earning capacity and career development. The CEDAW Committee has also recommended to States parties that they ensure that technical and vocational training enables girls to acquire income generating skills by also orienting them towards traditionally male dominated careers.162 Other examples of systemic measures to promote girls’ education include providing female teachers (Bangladesh) and encouraging teachers to engage with communities to overcome inhibitions about girls’ schooling (Kenya, Uganda).163 Since 1976, Iceland has a core syllabus on education. The Centre for Gender Equality has worked with the Ministry for Education and the Ministry for Welfare to increase these Ministries’ focus on young people and gender equality issues. To this extent, the Ministry of Education recently added “gender equality” to the main curriculum, and, in 2010 published a textbook (Kynungabók) which offers guidance to teacher on gender equality issues and which has to be mandatorily used in their teaching. The objectives of the textbook, designed for students in middle and secondary school, are: to provide a realistic picture of the status of women and men in Icelandic society; to demonstrate that gender stereotypes hurt everyone; to help children critically analyse cultural gender constructs; and, more importantly, to create awareness about women’s rights. Enabling measures have been defined as “intervening in the community through debates and discussions on gender issues, mobilizing mothers to participate in community forums or user committees, creating awareness of the importance of education of girls through folk media, media campaigns and wider mobilization,”164 and include, for example, the formations of mothers’ clubs fostering mother-to-mother interactions and intense mobilization campaigns for girls’ education (the Gambia).165 The global trend when it comes to women and higher education is promising on many fronts. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), there has been “unprecedented growth in women’s enrolment over the past four decades” with the number of female students in tertiary institutions growing almost at twice the rate of men since 1970.166 In fact, tertiary education is the level at which female enrolments have seen the greatest increase in almost all regions, and UNESCO reports that “these changing patterns of participation in tertiary education shifted gender disparity from a male to a female advantage.”167 In the United States, for example, the 2008-2009 academic year represented the first time ever that women received more doctoral degrees than men.168 However, there continue to be significant gender gaps in higher education, and women are for example still under-represented in science, engineering and technology.169 These gender gaps in higher education can also translate later in life into gendered career paths and less well paying and less prestigious jobs for women. Here too the CEDAW Committee has made important recommendations, for example as with its Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom, which encouraged the State party to “[s]tep up career guidance activities to encourage girls to pursue non traditional paths and improve the gender awareness of teaching personnel at all levels of the education system… [and] take coordinated measures to encourage increased participation by girls in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and in apprenticeships.170 Similarly, on Norway the CEDAW Committee urged the State party to adopt temporary special measures to accelerate advancement of women in academia, through women specific grants and other affirmative action measures.171 Women’s and girls’ right to education with a focus on economic crisis In situations of economic crisis, and as households cope with declining household income, girls in poor countries with pre-existing low female schooling rates are highly vulnerable to being pulled out of school.172 As the ILO has found, “because mothers have to increase their hours of remunerated work, female children are likely to face a high risk of being withdrawn from schools, in order to take care of younger siblings and sick family members, undertaking unpaid work – replacing the mother’s role in the household.”173 Plan International confirms this finding and reports that “it is frequently adolescent girls who leave school to look after families when their mothers work longer hours and travel further in search of work. Primary school completion rates often decline during periods of economic contraction with girls experiencing 29 per cent decrease versus 22 per cent for boys.”174 Girls also frequently need to find paid work themselves in order to boost family income during periods of economic crisis.175 Plan International goes on to report: In Cambodia, the lack of a social safety net meant that many girls left school and migrated from their villages to urban centres to become domestic workers. In Bangladesh, there were widespread reports of school dropouts, affecting girls more than boys, and children from femaleheaded households. … Given their increased vulnerability, the vast majority of female-headed households in rural areas reported that their children and more often their daughters had to quit school as a result of the food price hikes. … A quantitative analysis conducted as part of research in Nigeria found that a girl in Lagos was 2 per cent more likely to drop out of school than a boy in 2007, whereas a year later, she was 10 per cent more likely to drop out.176 Protecting girls’ education in many cases means protecting their families against economic shocks and incentivizing parents to keep their girls in school. Brazil’s Bolsa Familia program – reportedly the largest Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program in the world, assisting 12.6 million Brazilian families in 2010 – has successfully decreased girls’ dropout rates. Reportedly, 94 per cent of the recipients of the Bolsa Familia transfers are women.177 According to the World Bank, poor families with children receive an average of R$70.00 (about US$35) in direct transfers. In return, parents commit to keeping their girls and boys in school and taking them for regular health checks.178 For girls ages 15 - 17, who are at greatest risk of dropping out of school, Bolsa Familia increased their likelihood of remaining in school by 19 percentage points.179 Similarly, Bangladesh launched the Female Secondary School Assistance Project (FSSAP) in 199 3. Within ten years the project covered one quarter of rural Bangladesh and now benefits almost one million girls across the country in more than 6,000 schools.180 The project provides a stipend to girls who agree to delay marriage until they complete secondary education, and has proven highly successful in improving girls’ school attendance rates.181 In addition, in Punjab, Pakistan, girls are eligible for a school stipend under the broader Punjab Education Sector Reform Programme (PESRP). The female school stipend program provides girls in targeted districts defined by their low literacy rate with a stipend conditional on class attendance. An early study of the impacts of this stipend found significant impact on girls’ attendance of schools.182 |