National Development – Instead Of The Gender Agenda, Inclusive Approach

The Gender Agenda: 
Is Mexico another (developing) story?

My country PH is a matriarchal society; the voice of the eldest matriarch is especially heard. But not in agriculture, because this one is more science than spirit or soul. The above photograph, from Mariana Gallardo’s article “Rural Development Must Be Feminist Or It Cannot Be ” (04 October 2020, PRiME Training), displaying Mexican women harvesting rice, with someone backpacking a baby – I say shows only paid labor, not inequality.

Miss Mariana says, “To ensure sustainable rural development, it is essential that all rural development policies and programs (be) based on a gender approach.” I say, “Gender is a much limited view.” Following PH Secretary William Dar’s “The New Thinking for Agriculture,” it must be an inclusive approach. I say, “To ensure inclusive development, it is essential that all policies and programs be technically feasible, economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially acceptable.” Gender notwithstanding. (development image  from ecdpm.org)

Note that Miss Mariana is talking only of rural development, that is, artificially separating it from urban development – these are yours and these are ours. Mr Dar’s thinking is on inclusive development, where the poor are also actual actors for and accumulators of prosperity as society goes up the rungs fulfilling Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. 

Miss Mariana argues that Mexican women are responsible for almost half of rural production – this only means that many more women than men are employed in production. It is not sex that development is concerned with; I say it is the family, the smallest unit of society. That women contribute much to social progress needs only to be acknowledged, not rewarded in political power over or equal to men.

Miss Mariana says, “This (gender approach) would have a significant impact not only on the rights and quality of life of women but also on the fight against poverty and the reduction of hunger.”

I say, “The dichotomy between urban and rural is artificial, man-made.” Urban society is connected with, indeed, depends upon rural society – the urbanites get their food from the ruralites. Personally, I emphasize family rights, not men’s or women’s rights. The so-called Gender Gap is woman-made! – what is equal is not the same as equitable.

“In addition, 97% of rural women formally employed in agricultural and fishing activities carry out unpaid activities, mainly domestic chores, care work and community work.” Miss Mariana wants household activities, nursing and child care, even volunteer community work paid for one way or the other. But family responsibility cannot be measured – you do it for love of family, not money!

Miss Mariana says:

An equally alarming fact is that according to data from CONEVAL and INMUJERES approximately 90% of women living in rural localities suffer from some form of poverty or are vulnerable due to social deficiencies.

That's the problem with “sociologically” separating women from families – you do say “90% of women… suffer from poverty” but not say “90% of rural families suffer from poverty.” Yours is the imperfect picture of society: Discrimination for females and against families!@517