Women, economic empowerment, and nation building

The Prime Minister recently reminded Malaysians and the international community about the importance of women’s economic empowerment. Various initiatives and programmes are in place to facilitate this process.

One of the goals is to have women represent 30% of senior decision makers and corporate board members by 2015. The Prime Minister also made a point to emphasise that “companies with women on their boards are more likely to account for environmental risk when making investment decisions, more likely to invest in clean energy, and more likely to focus on energy efficiency”.

Economic empowerment is desirable and necessary for women’s self-determination, common good, and nation building. The Prime Minister’s vision, however, runs the risk of re-inscribing sex/gender roles and supporting an increasingly troubling global phenomena — top-down and corporate feminism — represented by the likes of Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook COO) and Marissa Mayer (Yahoo CEO).

This capitalist driven feminism does not actively challenge patriarchy and male dominance, and does not see justice, equality, and self-determination as tenets of feminism. Instead, it upholds and reinvigorates structures of power to maintain the status quo.

The Prime Minister identifies women as nurturers and pacifists, characteristics stereotypically associated with being “closer to nature”.

Such stereotypes are just that, stereotypes. By equating women’s presence on the board of directors with “caring” and “nurturing” and associating them with decisions for clean and efficient energy, the Prime Minister is reinforcing existing stereotypes at the highest level of government.

This type of logic also lends credibility to stereotypes that men inhabit the exact opposite characteristics (e.g., insensitive, aggressive, and strong), thus burdening men with unrealistic expectations of masculinity.

The Prime Minister’s declaration is an example of opportunistic rhetoric—calling on gender stereotypes to buttress his portfolio and make the case for the nation’s advancement.

The vision for more women in high-ranking positions reflects the corporate feminist trend in the United States that sidesteps the intersection of class, race, and sexuality privilege in women’s lives. This neoliberal feminism is neither rooted in a transformative paradigm nor anchored by the grounded struggles of ordinary women and men.

Who are the women assuming powerful decision-making roles and sitting on the boards of corporations? How do class, race, religion, and sexuality factor into this planning? Are Malay women to be privileged over their Chinese, Indian, Sikh, or mixed-race counterparts? What is the process of economically empowering urban vs. rural women? Where do differently abled bodies fall within this economic platform?

In many families women are still the primary caregivers. Drafting more women into the workforce will result in an increased demand for childcare assistance. Will there be a concerted effort to implement collaborative childcare centers with trained caregivers to fill the need?

Or, will it require channeling immigrant women to fill this work and if so, does the Prime Minister’s vision account for the protection of immigrant workers from further exploitation?

Where do we locate men in this economic agenda? How will men be encouraged to take on more responsibility in the home to support their upwardly mobile partners?

While there are men who take equal responsibility for household management and childcare, there are also many who shirk their duties. Until men’s societal and patriarchal privileges are re-examined and unless men are taken to task for their commitments to family and childcare, much will not change. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s vision must realistically account for men’s roles and responsibilities within the family unit.

Economic empowerment as the sole means to better women’s lives and increase the nation’s productivity is not sustainable. To advocate for economic empowerment without raising public consciousness and knowledge about gender stereotypes, sexism, and inequalities, does disservice on the individual, communal, and national levels.

Economic empowerment cannot and should not take place in a vacuum. It must go hand-in-hand with social, political, and legal transformations to address the rampant sexism and misogyny crippling gender relations and work productivity.

Without a holistic approach, patriarchal attitudes about gender roles and working women, such as women belong in the home and/or that working women should shoulder the double burden of domestic labour (dutiful wife/mother) and wage labor (modern career woman), will remain intact. For the most part, men are not subject to the double burden. Why is this the case?

Additionally, women are considered symbols of community and cultural continuity, and as such, are expected to maintain normative cultural and religious boundaries of womanhood when entering public spaces. In Muslim communities, patriarchal privilege couched in Islamic arguments is deployed to regulate women’s bodies and modes of behavior.

In Egypt, for instance, research has shown that one of the reasons women adopt Islamic dress in public is because doing so has become a societal marker of respectability and modesty, which in turn, allows women to pursue their education and career choices.

My research in Kuala Lumpur indicated a similar trend. My focus group with students at a local university included many women who wore tudung. When asked why it was their choice, they were not able to articulate what Islamic sources say about dress and modesty.

Instead, many argued that wearing tudung is an “Islamic requirement” based on knowledge imparted by religious teachers and that it is a small price to pay for mobility and freedom from male gaze in public. Why are men exempt from the burden of cultural signifiers when entering public spaces?

While the Prime Minister goes on the international stage to promote female equality as the basis for economic prosperity, his own nation is struggling over increasing attacks on women’s rights, freedom of expression, and divisive racial/religious politics tacitly sanctioned by the ruling coalition (Umno). 

Should the Prime Minister not practice what he so readily preaches and reign in right-wing Malay organizations insistent on keeping women in the home, promoting insular politics, curbing spaces for public debates, and rolling back the gains made by women’s organizations?

The Prime Minister stated that, “it is time to put women at the heart of our global growth story”. I beg to differ.

Women’s skills and knowledge have always been the nation’s heartbeat. In pre-colonial times, women worked the fields and subsistence economy. 

During anti-colonial struggles, they fought alongside male nationalists for the country’s independence. In various spheres of formal and informal politics, they have mobilized for social change and contested for public office. In the manufacturing boom in the 1980s, women worked the factories assembling electronics to support their immediate and extended families. Above all, from time immemorial, women have managed their households and provided care for families through unpaid labor. These acts and more are how women have been responsible, productive, and creative citizens. In many ways, women write stories of the nation.

It is time to acknowledge that women have always been at the centre of nation building and to support their participation through initiatives that account for ways that gender identity is formed at the intersection of race, class, religion, and sexuality, as well as for the renegotiation of men’s patriarchal privileges and familial responsibilities.

When envisioning a concrete and grounded economic empowerment of women, these are the paramount factors—not rhetorical politics and policymaking. - November 18, 2013.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.