Empowerment, gender, women’s rights, sexuality, sexual harassment are much talked about terms within NGOs in India. Some of it has come about as a reaction to years of patriarchal functioning of these organisations and some as dictated terminology of the 90s. Most or all these terms have also taken root within the NGO discourse because of its popularity with donor agencies. What does this jargon mean? Does it have the potential to be translated into everyday lives of women who are dealing with issues of existence or does it remain at the realm of theory?
Almost all NGOs have a programme for women and nowadays the focus has shifted to micro credit and livelihood strategies. The rationale for this has been the changing economic climate of India and the pressures it puts on women, most especially women headed households. These programmes are targetted towards the very poor in rural areas or urban slum dwellers and is meant to mobilise them to challenge existing norms of mobility, women’s role within the community and household, gain political power etc. The change makers are also inevitably women who work within these NGOs.
How well are these women equipped to deal with issues of social change? Quite a few of them have been attended gender workshops, a fortunate few have attended workshops on sexual violence and sexuality and almost all of them have attended trainings in organisational and skill development. Has any of it impacted on their own lives? Have they been able to assimilate what they have learnt to make changes within their own ife or has it been a “learning” only to “teach “ other people? This becomes a very pertinent question to ask when confronted with the reality that a lot of these women live away from home and family and are required to interact and work in close proximity with their male colleagues. Many of them would have male supervisors or bosses, who they would have to report to, but who are not necessarily sympathetic to or understand the issues involved.
A project in Rajasthan requires that its male and female workers spend days away from the project headquarters at one of the villages they work in. Although work areas maybe clearly defined, they form a support for each other so that they provide the best possible services to the area. Bonds are formed which go beyond the professional to encroach/include the personal. On return to the headquarters they return to their public life which does not allow any show of recognition other than that of colleagues.
Although the female colleagues may feel the need to bond on issues of family, husband, children, health etc. they do not seem to envisage the need for any structure that could address issues that go beyond familial relations to encompass self. provide any support in case of one of their colleagues having an affair with a male colleague.
(Instances of same sex relationships are almost always unrecorded because of shroud of silence that covers anything sexual and in this case is considered “abnormal”.)
Why is it that “legitimate” sex - sex between married partners - can be discussed in its entirety but not relationships outside the purview of marriage? Does the enforced secrecy increase the stress level of the woman and reduce efficiency at work? Why is it that organisations are able to discuss sexuality as a concept amongst their target groups - normally represented through discussions on birth control or reproductive tract infections - but are unable to provide a forum for their women workers? Why is that the women themselves are unable to share with each other? What happens to the sexuality of single, seperated or even married women living apart from their husbands in conditions where social contact as well as support is restricted to male and female colleagues? And most importantly what is the organisation’s position on relationships other than the socially sanctioned ones?
No comments:
Post a Comment