such as Crewe & Harrison (1999) that suggest that challenges from gender mainstreaming are shallow since they do not critically consider the ideologies and material conditions of power relations, thus dismissing political and economic roots of gender practices and meanings. They also reflect upon the inertia of gender research and the power of institutions by using the following assertion, “Ideas are selectively used by ‘developers’ to make post hoc rationalizations of the practices in development that create and recreate gender inequalities… At the same time, they can be used as effective rationalization only because the ideas have a powerful affinity with existing structures of gender relations” (Crewe & Harrison 1999, 50). Crewe and Harrison (1999:55) argue that gender analysis only rarely becomes a gender-sensitive practice. In opposition to critiques such as the one of Crewe and Harrison that suggest gender mainstreaming as an obsolete process, Elgstrom (2000) argues that ”new gender norms have to ‘flight their way in to institutional thinking’ in competition with traditional norms” (Elgstrom 2000 in Walby 2005, 322). The lack of consistency in the conceptualization and practice of gender studies made evident the need to reform frameworks like the GAD. The re-conceptualization of this framework was suggested by some feminist scholars who considered starting a more sophisticated theorization of diversity and the integration of masculinities (Parpart 2002, 371). However, these adjustments in gender analysis are also criticized and not easy to put into practice. Operational challenges and difficulties to addressing issues of poverty and immediate material exigencies are critiqued in their adjustments. These critiques triggered further arguments between scholars and institutions. A very complex arrangement of variables is necessary for the development of gender conscious studies and it is a challenge for development practitioners to deal with such complexities (Crewe and Harrison 1999, 67).
such as Crewe & Harrison (1999) that suggest that challenges from gender mainstreaming are shallow since they do not critically consider the ideologies and material conditions of power relations, thus dismissing political and economic roots of gender practices and meanings. They also reflect upon the inertia of gender research and the power of institutions by using the following assertion, “Ideas are selectively used by ‘developers’ to make post hoc rationalizations of the practices in development that create and recreate gender inequalities… At the same time, they can be used as effective rationalization only because the ideas have a powerful affinity with existing structures of gender relations” (Crewe & Harrison 1999, 50). Crewe and Harrison (1999:55) argue that gender analysis only rarely becomes a gender-sensitive practice. In opposition to critiques such as the one of Crewe and Harrison that suggest gender mainstreaming as an obsolete process, Elgstrom (2000) argues that ”new gender norms have to ‘flight their way in to institutional thinking’ in competition with traditional norms” (Elgstrom 2000 in Walby 2005, 322). The lack of consistency in the conceptualization and practice of gender studies made evident the need to reform frameworks like the GAD. The re-conceptualization of this framework was suggested by some feminist scholars who considered starting a more sophisticated theorization of diversity and the integration of masculinities (Parpart 2002, 371). However, these adjustments in gender analysis are also criticized and not easy to put into practice. Operational challenges and difficulties to addressing issues of poverty and immediate material exigencies are critiqued in their adjustments. These critiques triggered further arguments between scholars and institutions. A very complex arrangement of variables is necessary for the development of gender conscious studies and it is a challenge for development practitioners to deal with such complexities (Crewe and Harrison 1999, 67).
1974265.docx