Gender and the MDGs with reference to women as human

Gender and the MDGs with reference to women as human Smt. Sunita Pathak* and Dr. Surendra Pathak** It was 8th September 2000, when 156 Heads of States or Governments gathered for Millennium Summit as 55th UN General Assembly Known as the Millennium Assembly. The Millennium Assembly issued a *Millennium Declaration1 that was a *statement of values, principles and objectives for the international agenda for next Century.1 The Declaration lay down time-bound and measurable goals for combating poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation and discrimination against women. This Declaration was built on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. *The UN Secretariat issued an agenda for implementing these commitments,2 which focused on eight “Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)” to be achieved by the year 2015.3 The declaration lists the goals of using a gender analysis in all policies, programs, and institutions in order to assess differential impacts on men and women, and to end gender inequality. The practice of using an analysis explores the differential realities due to gender inequality. It is important to highlight the interconnectedness of women’s issues to all of the Millennium Development Goals. Rakesh Gupta said in his article “humanization of education Millennium agenda from jeevan vidya perspective” that this is undoubtedly the first time in human-history, when there is an attempt to think of goals of whole humankind for the next millennium. There is an underlying assumption here that entire human-population on Earth intends to achieve the same set of goals. Therefore, unless the commonality of intention is identified precisely – the disagreements will remain at the level of goals, programmes, procedures, and efforts. What is the commonality of intention across the entire humanpopulation? This is a very fundamental question. It gets down to asking – what does each and every human-being want, irrespective of the means it uses for realizing that want. The answer to this big question is actually very simple. It is “Happiness” that every human wants continuously and naturally. It’s the same situation with rich or poor, educated or uneducated, urban or rural, believer or non-believer, men or women – everyone’s basic-intention or natural-expectation is happiness. He further illustrate that Humankind’s happiness is a positive, natural, and universally-acceptable basis for setting the goals for new millennium. When we look at the UN defined Millennium goals – the approach there seems to be first by identification of problems, and then seeking measures to “attack” and “fix” those problems. This is a “problem-centric” approach. There’s an underlying assumption that if these problems are somehow defeated or destroyed, the world will automatically become a better place. This approach is without a definite vision for a harmonious and progressive world. It is perpetuating the same underlying ideologies – which are the very root-causes for the catastrophic situations it is trying to solve. An ideological shift is needed for resolution for this situation. However the approach adopted by various agencies in order to ensure to implement of MDGs, the world realizes its potential to make poverty history. Significant progress must be made to ensure gender equality. Women disproportionately suffer from hunger, disease, environmental degradation and impoverishment. In view of the criticisms, some of the annalists say that MDGs conveniently distorted the issue of poverty and ignored its causes and conditions. Limited resources of poor countries are being deflected to debt servicing. “MDGs systematically make semi-colonial and colonial countries more beholden to their imperialist patrons rather than promoting self-reliance through genuine national industrialization."4 The tendency of governments and the donors alike to “collapse gender-concerns within the wider category of poverty” tends to depoliticize the issue and masks the uneven distribution of power and resources within households. 5 The MDGs has outraged response of the feminist community, when the goal-3 of women’s sexual and reproductive rights was excluded from the MDGs. This is even more inexcusable given that women’s sexual and reproductive rights is not only a goal but a crucial target under goal-3 [women’s equality and empowerment], goal-4 [child mortality], goal-5 [maternal health] and goal-6 [combating HIV/AIDS]. The deliberate exclusion of women’s human rights and empowerment from the MDGs symbolizes that lies ahead for anyone who seriously seeks equality, equality and empowerment for women. “In fact, problem of the MDGs is their abstraction from the social, political and economic context in which they are to be implemented – the ‘political economy’ of the MDGs”. 6 Having outlined the gender critiques of the MDG three, to begin, let us first view the contents of Goal-3, its targets and indicators as shown in here. Indicators are Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education (9), Ratio of literate women to men, 15-24 years old (10), Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector (11), Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament (12) and the target to Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015. 7 Equality in education as a target for measuring progress towards gender equality and empowerment of women is justified but it is not sufficient to measure the achievement of this goal.8 It does not ensure that all girls are properly educated as well as the quality of that education can fully develop their capabilities. Even though education tends to provide women with an essential capability and has intrinsic value the goals of gender equality will not be attained if these women cannot have the opportunity to fully use that capability. As mentioned in indicator No. 9, ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education point out that enrolment and completion rates are more accurate indicators rather than ratio. Indicator No. 10 “Ratio of Literate Women to Men 15-24 years old” is a good for women’s advancement but the quality of the literacy data can be questioned. Different countries measure literacy differently. Some of the countries collect literacy data by using sophisticated and comprehensive techniques while others do not provide the most basic information. The definition that “A person is literate if she or he has completed five or more years of schooling” is also criticized. The indicator No. 11 has also received “several criticisms, according to UNIFEM 2000, women’s entry into waged and salary work in industry and services does not necessarily mean that they escape from subordination within their families. Moreover they are often subject to new forms of discrimination in the work place. At the same time as women’s share of paid employment in industry and services is rising, the rights associated with such employment are falling”. 9 It can be concluded that even if statistical data shows that the share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector is rising and therefore fulfils the indicator of MDG Number Three, in reality, it does not necessarily mean that there is an actual upliftment in the quality of life of these women and their well-being. The Critique of Indicator 12 “Proportion of Seats Held by Women in National Parliament”, Women members of parliament are expected to increase the voice of feminism in the national legislature. As the elected representatives of the people in their respective constituencies, they are expected to further the cause for womankind’s welfare and well-being. This may be the general expected pattern but is it necessarily the reality? Are most women parliamentarians sensitive to gender issues and can promote a gender equality legislative agenda? 10 Gender is used to refer to proposed social and cultural constructions of masculinities and femininities. Gender explicitly excludes reference to biological differences, to focus on cultural differences.11 Gender refers to the social differences and relations between men and women but gender does not replace the term sex (biological differences). Gender is used to analyze the roles, responsibilities, constraints, opportunities and needs of human. It learned behaviors in a society, community and social group. Their conditions, activities, tasks and responsibilities are perceived as male or female. Its roles are affected by age, class, race, ethnicity and religion, and by the geographical, economic and political environment. Gender difference is a disparity between male and female humans. Most of them are quantitative differences which are based on a gradient and involve different averages which clearly represent a binary male/female spilt, such as human reproduction. However, some differences are controversial and not to be confused with sexist stereotypes. It does not necessarily identify whether the differences are due to natural phenomenon. Although, some differences are innate such as reproductive organs, others obviously environmental and few others the relationship is either multi-cause. Evolutionary psychology claims that modern humans have inherited natural traits that were adaptive in a prehistoric environment. Gender role theory claims that boys and girls learn the appropriate behaviour and attitudes from the family and culture (environment) as the process of socialization. Some feminists claim that these differences as caused by patriarchy and discriminatory social stratification and argue for an acceptance of natural differences between men and women. Traditional religions claim gender differences are created by God. "Gender analysis is a tool to diagnose the differences between women and men regarding their specific activities, conditions, needs, access to control over resources, and access to development benefits and decision-making. It studies the linkages of these and other factors in the larger social, economic, political and environmental context. Gender analysis entails, first and foremost, collecting sex-disaggregated data and gendersensitive information about the population concerned. Gender analysis is the first step in gender-sensitive planning for promoting gender equality." 12 The "gender and development" paradigm, proposed in the process leading to the Beijing Conference, is perceived as an evolution from the hitherto dominant "women in Development" (WID) approach. As explained in the 1995 Commonwealth Plan of Action, "the WID Approach focused on how women could be better integrated into the existing 'men/male made world' and corresponding development initiatives. Targeting women's productive work to the exclusion of their reproductive work, this approach was characterized by income-generating projects for women that failed to address the systemic causes of gender inequality".13 Before discussing the woman as a human it is useful to discuss first the question of being woman which is perhaps originally appeared "as a social category, but also as a felt sense of self, a culturally conditioned or constructed subjective identity.” 51 The term "woman" has been used as a reference to and for the female body. However, women have always been creators of culture although this history is often invisible. No one can ignore women’s multi-dimensional contributions to culture –past, present and future. Gender annalists are ignoring the qualitative analysis that explores and presents the representations of gender; what feminists challenge is the dominant ideologies concerning gender roles and sex. However, contemporary discussions about gender make it clear that gender roles are changeable and are currently in the process of transformation. Domination model and the partnership model draw the cultural evolution of Western societies from prehistory to the present in terms of the underlying tension between man and woman. "The domination model is a configuration based on top-down rankings of control, while the partnership model is a configuration that can support a more equitable, peaceful, and sustainable way of life. In partnership-oriented societies, whether in the family, the workplace, or society at large, so-called feminine qualities and behaviours, whether they reside in women or men, are not only held in high esteem, but also incorporated into the operational values system"14. Democratic and egalitarian social structure, equal partnership between women and men, and less built-in violence, as it is not needed to maintain rigid rankings of domination. However, moving to partnership structures does not mean a completely flat organization or a mandatory consensus. In the views of A. Nagraj (Amarkantak), which is illustrated in ‘Vyavharvadi Samajshastra’ that there is a co-existence prevail (exist) among all human relationship in a family (including husband-wife, brother-sister and mother/father-sons/daughter etc.). This is a process of mutual fulfillment, mutual respect and mutual prosperity. In the humanistic views ''Cultural transformation theory proposes that shifts from one model to the other are possible in times of extreme social and technological disequilibrium; that there is strong evidence of such a shift during our prehistory; and that in our time of massive technological and social dislocation another fundamental shift is possible — to a world orienting more to partnership rather than domination.'' This theory is the "centrality of the social construction of the roles and relations of the female and male halves of humanity to the construction of every social institution. It proposes that the underlying struggle for our future is not between the conventional polarities of right and left, religion and secularism, capitalism and communism, East and West, and North and South". 15 Social identity refers to the common identification with a collectivity or social category which creates a common culture among participants concerned.16 Social Identity Theory17 was originally developed to understand the psychological basis of inter-group discrimination and attempted to identify the minimal conditions that would lead members of one group to discriminate in favor of the in-group to whom they belonged and against another out-group. An important component of the self-concept is derived from memberships in social groups and categories and it postulates that group processes and inter-group relationships impact significantly on individuals' self perception and behaviors. The groups to which people belong will therefore provide their members with the definition of who they are and how they should behave 18 in the social sphere. The problem with categorizing is that it creates binaries, in which an individual has to be on one end of a linear spectrum, one must be male or female, thus implying that they have to identify themselves as man or woman. Globally, communities interpret biological differences between women and men to create a set of social expectations that define the behaviors that are appropriate for women and men and that determine women’s and men’s differential access to rights, resources, and power in society. Although the specific nature and degree of these differences vary from one society to the next, they typically favor men, creating an imbalance in power and gender inequalities in all countries. 19 Western philosopher Michel Foucault claimed that as sexual subjects, we are the object of power, which is not a institution or structure, rather it is signifier or name we attribute to “complex strategic situation.” 20 Thus, because “power” is what determines our attributes, behaviors, etc. we are a part of an ontologically and epistemologically constructed set of names and labels. Such as, being female characterizes one as a woman, and that this “women” is weak, emotional, and irrational, thus she is incapable of actions attributed to a “man.” Gender and sex, said Judith Butler, are more like verbs than nouns. But my actions are limited. I am not permitted to construct my gender and sex willy-nilly, according to Butler; this is so because gender is politically and therefore socially controlled. Rather than woman being something one is, it is something one does. 21 Simone de Beauvoir applied existentialism to women's experience of life: "One is not born a woman, one becomes one."22 This is a philosophical statement but it is true biologically. Within feminist theory, terminology for gender issues developed over the 1970s. In the 1974 edition of Masculine/Feminine or Human, the author uses "innate gender" and "learned sex roles",23 but in the 1978 edition, the use of sex and gender is reversed.24 By 1980, most feminist writings had agreed on using gender only for socioculturally adapted traits. Hurst states that some people think sex will “automatically determine one’s gender demeanor and role (social) as well as one’s sexual orientation (sexual attractions and behavior).”25 We have cultural origins and habits for dealing with gender. Michael Schwalbe believes that humans must be taught how to act appropriately in their designated gender in order to properly fill the role. The way we behave as masculine or feminine interacts with social expectations. Schwalbe comments that we “are the results of many people embracing and acting on similar ideas.” 26 Recent critiques of feminist theory by Warren Farrell 27 have given broader consideration to findings from a ten-year study of courtship by Buss28 Both perspectives on gendering are integrated in Attraction Theory, a theoretical framework developed by Dr Rory Ridley-Duff illustrating how courtship and parenting obligations (rather than male dominance) act as a generative mechanism that produces and reproduces a range of gender identities.29 Questions of equality of men and women comprise an enduring humanistic inquiry – from Plato's gender roles in his ideal society, to Marx and Engels' the origin of sexual inequality, to the increasingly debates among feminists. Despite all, gender equality has been relatively weak in ideologies, social institutions, and gender roles. Mainstream academic voices and popular opinion alike still tend either to deny, or are ambiguous about, the existence of gender-egalitarian societies i.e. political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. 30 Despite their scarcity, societies do exist that are documented to have achieved remarkable levels of gender equality and slowly gender-egalitarian societies have increased. Shanshan Du 31 indicates some parameters for gender-egalitarian societies which are "maternal centrality," "gender complementarity," "gender triviality," and "gender unity." Her research indicates that "while rooted in different gender ideologies and expressing sexual equality in diverse ways, these frameworks all promote harmony and interdependence between men and women and they discourage the development of gender-based competition and hierarchy. In other words, gender-egalitarian societies are also societies in balance". 31 It would be the humanistic views of gender discourse. “Gender mainstreaming is at critical cross-roads right now. Many early supporters are disillusioned with the way it has worked so far and are beginning to feel that it has failed.” 32 The argument is that the perspective of MDGs and development agency, the most critical element of mainstreaming, its operations has not yet been seriously attempted and has focused solely on internal organizational dimensions. This paper asserts that although mainstreaming gender in operations requires some of more elements. They may be beyond the traditional concept of mainstreaming of gender equity and equality. This paper evolves and evaluates the concept of gender equity and equality, which recognizes that to evaluate woman by the elements of Physique, Position, Money and Muscularpower is not sufficient. In fact women are also a human and they are not the only biological entities but beyond that some thing more. Gender Equality cannot be achieved against seeking same-ness in Physique (roop), Position (pad), Muscular-power (bal) and Money (dhan). It is only at the level of Intellect/knowledge (buddhi) that gender equality can be achieved. It means Gender equality cannot be achieved by seeking conformance in outward appearances. Gender-equality can't be achieved by dressing women like men. Women achieving same economic status can’t achieve gender equality. Gender equality can't be achieved by ensuring equal representation of women in positions of (in) power. Gender equality can't be achieved by making women physically capable of defending themselves. Gender equality is a conscious phenomenon. It is only at the level of buddhi - or in knowledge or comprehension that gender-equality can be realized. This is true that Men have oppressed women since ages. But it is not going to make women equal if women repeat the same mistakes that men did. A mistake can't be corrected by another mistake. Mistake can only be corrected with resolution. Resolution of genderequality is in realization of harmony in a family. It is only in a family that mutualcomplementariness of man and woman can be realized. Madhyasth-Darshan (Jeevan Vidya) by A. Nagraj is an essential proposal for equality in humankind is – Jeevan (Inner self). It proclaims that Jeevan is self. Jeevan is same in a man and woman despite bodily differences. Jeevan's natural-expectation for happiness, resolution, justice, and truth is same in a man and a woman. Jeevan's fulfillment is in knowledge of coexistence. Catharine MacKinnon asks: “Are women human yet? If women were regarded as human, would they be sold into sexual slavery worldwide; veiled, silenced, and imprisoned in homes; bred, and worked as menials for little or no pay; stoned for sex outside marriage or burned within it; mutilated genitally, impoverished economically, and mired in illiteracy--all as a matter of course and without effective recourse?” 33 Gender equality, equality between men and women, entails the concept that all human beings, both men and women, are free to develop their personal abilities and make choices without the limitations set by stereotypes, rigid gender roles and prejudices. Gender equality means that the different behaviour, aspirations and needs of women and men are considered, valued and favoured equally. It does not mean that women and men have to become the same, but that their rights, responsibilities and opportunities will not depend on whether they are born male or female. Gender equality means fairness of treatment for women and men, according to their respective needs. This may include equal treatment or treatment that is different but which is considered equivalent in terms of rights, benefits, obligations and opportunities. 34 The Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995) proposed gender mainstreaming as a key strategy to reduce inequalities between women and men. Gender mainstreaming, known also as mainstreaming a gender perspective, is "the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action including legislation, policies, and programmes, in any area and at all levels".35 Governments and organizations have to promote an active and visible policy of mainstreaming a gender perspective in all policies and programs, so that before decisions are being taken, an analysis is made of the effects on women and men, respectively and to place human relations, as manifested in their "male" and "female" roles, at the centre of all programming, action, and evaluation, instead of treating these as marginal, or even "ghettoized" phenomena. “Gender mainstreaming thus underscores the principle that there can be no sustainable development as long as discrimination of one of the two sexes/genders exists. The injustice created by inequalities based on gender/sex discrimination threatens in the long run not only the discriminated gender but the entire society’’. 36 Kay E. Wilde of New York Law Journal Magazine says that Ms. MacKinnon provides numerous vivid and intensely disturbing examples of governments, through overt action or callous indifference, treating women as less than human and, thus, denying women their human rights. She is seeking to effect legal change on a global scale. We have to discuss the humanistic identity of the woman on humanitarian views and prospective. If we try to assess present human-condition – we seem to be having problem with each and every relationship that we have, at all levels. Shri A. Nagraj (Amarkantak) 37 pointed out that Present human-condition is characterized by the following three deadlock situations. 1. Climate-Change – due to being unresolved about relationship with Nature, 2. Communal-Divisiveness – due to being unresolved about relationship with other humans, 3. Criminal-Mentality – due to being unresolved about ‘self’. The root-cause of these deadlock situations is humankind’s being unresolved. The mainstream – the State, Education, Judiciary, Business – are not built around truthful understanding of purpose and design of existence. The mainstream has gone berserk – and is heading for a disaster characterised by the above three situations. The underlying understanding or assumptions on which the mainstream is built – all over the world – is inconsistent, purposeless, and inhumane. This mainstream’s understanding in literature is mapped to three theses. First of these three is, Freudian Theses of Psychology – which manifested in the mainstream’s maniacal pursuit for sex. Second is Theses of Economics – built around Adam Smith’s propositions - which manifested as maniacal pursuit for profit. And finally, Thesis of Sociology – built around Darwin’s hypotheses – which got manifested as maniacal pursuit for luxuries and comforts. These theses don’t cognate human-being’s natural-expectation to be happiness, and its natural-goal as resolution. These propound struggle and competition as the way for human-success. These three together define the mainstream since last 300 years or so – and are at the root of present disastrous situation. Mainstream needs alternative to these. An Alternative – that is based on truthful understanding of purpose and design of existence. Shri Rakesh Gupta 38 suggested that When we begin millennium goal-setting around Happiness – we need its universally acceptable definition. Happiness – though a seemingly simple sounding word – doesn’t imply one thing to everyone at every time. Volumes of books have been written about it – both from materialism and from idealism followers - without nailing down its universally-acceptable definition. This is the rootcause of prevalent ideological divides and segmentation of humankind. Some believe happiness to be a sensation in body – and keeping the senses satisfied as the way for ensuring perpetual-happiness (materialism). Some believe happiness is not in the purview of senses – therefore they sermonize and prescribe practices for denial of senses and material world (idealism). Both these approaches have failed in realizing continuity of happiness for any one person. Millennium goal-setting can’t be done based on these ideologies. Madhyasth-Darshan (A. Nagraj) proposes – “Resolution itself is Happiness.” A humanbeing’s having definitive answers for every how and why – spiritually, intellectually, and materially - alone can assure its living with continuously with harmony or happiness. It can also be understood that unless a person is resolved spiritually, intellectually, and materially – there’s no way for him to be truly happy. Going a step further – spiritual, intellectual, and material together cover the entire existence (all that is). From a humancentric view – Existence is self and relationships with all human-beings and nature at large saturated in the limitless Space. Therefore a human-being needs to be resolved about existence (all that is) in order to be happy. However big, difficult, or impossible this may sound – there is no other way happiness of a human-being could be envisaged. Resolution naturally becomes the natural-goal or purpose of every human-being. Living with resolution alone can be purposeful-living therefore. The need for truthful understanding of existence – which is universal, practicable, humane, logical, consistent, and purposeful – has remained unfulfilled. ‘MadhyasthDarshan sahastitvvad’ is a proposal for fulfilling this need. It has alternative proposals for prevalent economics, psychology, and sociology. It is termed “alternative” – because it is linked neither with materialism (propagated by prevalent science) nor with idealism (propagated by established religions). It is study-able proposal for bringing about a change in human-consciousness. This philosophy provides ideas and programmes for humanization of all types education through to changes the approaches of designing the content of education such as - 1. Behavioural Sociology, 2. Cyclical Economics, 3. Human-Consciousness Oriented Psychology. At their root these theses have clarity of existence expressing itself as coexistence at all its levels. This is a proposal for study of human-being, consciousness, and human-ness. Madhyasth-Darshan gives the basis for Value-Education through Consciousness-Development. Evidence of this knowledge is human-being realizing its resolution in all aspects of living with harmony. At the larger level its evidence would be humane-society and orderliness. Humanization of Education is a definite way forward for next millennium. United Nations is an appropriate institution with its charter and resources to address this universal and natural human-need. Equality is possible in the 21st century and Humanistic Politics has a central role to play in creating balanced societies based on justice and equal rights. Our aim is to work for a more equitable future for both women and men. The world of humanity is possessed of two wings: the male and the female. So long as these two wings are not equivalent in strength, the bird will not fly. Until womankind reaches the same degree as man, until she enjoys the same arena of activity, amazing attainment for humanity will not be realized; humanity cannot wing its way to heights of real attainment then the flight of human being will be exceedingly lofty and extraordinary. Men have an inescapable duty to promote the equality of women. The presumption of superiority by men thwarts the ambition of women and inhibits the creation of an environment in which equality may reign. The destructive effects of inequality prevent men from maturing and developing the qualities necessary to meet the challenges of the new millennium. References: 1. UN General Assembly Resolution A/Res/55/2, 18 September, 2000 and UN Press Release, GA/9752, 8 September 2000. General, 6 September 2001; UN Document A/56/32. The eight Millennium Development Goals, which emerged from the UN Millennium Declaration (2000) are listed on pages 44-45. Goals as scheme to aggravate imperialist plunder and poverty, Asia Pacific Research Network (2005) 2. Roadmap towards the implementation of the UN Millennium Declaration, Report of the Secretary 3. 4. Prof. Jose Maria Sison, Chairperson, ICC, ILPS, ILPS denounces UN Millennium Development 5. Jackson, C., Rescuing gender from the poverty trap, in C. Jackson, and R. Pearson (eds) Feminist 6. Visions of Development: Gender Analysis and Policy, London: Routledge, 1998. Peggy Antrobus, MDGs—The Most Distracting Gimmick, 2003, Development Alternatives for Women in the New Era. www.dawn.org.fj/global/mdgs.html). 7. Millennium Project (2006) http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/gti.htm 8. For details, please refer to Kristen Timothy “The Millennium Development Goals: Gendered Pathways/Dimensions Background Paper prepared for the World Bank Workshop on Poverty and Gender : New Perspectives, May 7, 2002 9. UNIFEM 2000 : Progress of the World’s Women 2000, New York. 10. Prof. Jamilah Ariffin, Gender Critiques of the Millennium Development Goals: An Overview and an Assessment, (Paper) International Council on Social Welfare (2004) 11. Stephanie Garrett, Gender, (1992), p. 7. 12. ABC Of Women Worker's Rights And Gender Equality, ILO, Geneva, 2000, pp.47-48 13. Common wealth Plan of action on Gender and Development, 1995. 14. Eisler, Riane; Corral, Thais, "From Domination to Partnership: Meeting the UN Millennium Goals", Convergence, v38 n3, abstract, (2005) National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, UK 15. Dr. Riane Eisler, J.D. “The Battle over Human Possibilities: Women, Men, and Cultural Transformation” 16. Snow, D.A. and Oliver, P.E. (1995). "Social Movements and Collective Behavior: Social Psychological Dimensions and Considerations." In Karen Cook, Gary A.Fine, and James S.House (eds) Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, pp.571-600. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 17. Taifel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity of intergroup relations. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (eds), The psychology of intergroup relations, pp.7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 18. Terry, D.J., Hogg, M.A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behaviour relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776-793. 19. Winnie Byanyima's sabbatical period at the African Gender Institute, University of Cape Town : narrative report. http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/handle/123456789/27243,2005 20. Tong, Rosemarie.Feminist thought : a more comprehensive introduction / Rosemarie Tong.Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press, 2009. 21. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Thinking Gender. New York & London: Routledge, 1990 22. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949, as translated and reprinted 1989." 23. Chafetz, JS. Masculine/Feminine or Human? An Overview of the Sociology of Sex Roles. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock, 1974. 24. Chafetz, JS. Masculine/Feminine or Human? An Overview of the Sociology of Sex Roles. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock, 1978. 25. Stephanie Garrett, Gender, (1992), p. vii. 26. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, (1999), p. 9. 27. Farrell, W. (1988) Why Men Are The Way They Are, New York: Berkley Books Farrell, W. & Sterba, J (2008) Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? A Debate, Oxford University Press 28. Buss, D.M. (2002) Human mating strategies. Samdunfsokonemen, 4: 48-58. 29. Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2008) "Gendering, Courtship and Pay Equality: Developing Attraction Theory to Understand Work-Life Balance and Entrepreneurial Behaviour", paper to the 31st ISBE Conference, 5th-7th November, Belfast. 30. The American Heritage (2003). 31. Shanshan Du, Frameworks for Societies in Balance: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Gender Equality, World Congress on Matriarchal Studies Luxemburg, 2003 32. Peggy Antrobus, MDGs-The Most Distracting Gimmick, dawn.org.fj/global/ mdgs.html (2003), 33. Catharine A. MacKinno, Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues, Harvard University Press. 34. ABC Of Women Worker's Rights And Gender Equality, ILO, Geneva, 2000, p.48. 35. ECOSOC Agreed Conclusions (E/1997/100). 36. (E/CN.6/1999/CRP.3, Executive summary of the World Survey on the Role of Women in Development). 37. A. Nagraj, Vikalp, Jeevan Vidya Prakashan, 2006 38. Rakesh Gupta, Humanization of Education Millennium Agenda from Jeevan Vidya Perspective, http://madhyasth-darshan.blogspot.com/ * Research Officer and **Director, Jeevan Vidya Study Centre, Somaiya Vidyavihar, Vidyavihar (E) Mumbai-77