Tokenism in the Name of Girl’s Empowerment in School campus: Gender Equality

To most of the pupils attending Government Schools, School is a place of Social mobility and Economic mobility, but it is equally a place of- Cultural and linguistic preservation, Community engagement and empowerment, Friendship and social interaction, Social democracy, Access to education, Extracurricular activities such as sports, art, music, and drama, Exposure to new ideas, knowledge, and perspectives, Health and wellness education and resources, Mentoring and guidance, Access to technology and digital resources, Opportunities for leadership and civic engagement, Support for mental health and well-being, Advocacy and support for marginalized groups and communities, Exposure to diverse career paths and vocational training et al.

Above all, to them, the school is a place to ‘earn’ “Cultural Capital” (Bourdieu) and Status Attainment (Max Weber).

To achieve all this, the school must be a place of Social Democracy (Ambedkar) and Gender Equality necessarily.

In the name of Women Empowerment and Gender Equality, some of the schools are found to be doing such/similar things-

1)?Painting walls with posters of Kalpana Chawla, Mary Kom

2)?Writing the student’s name on the same side of the Register (instead of writing “Boys” and “Girls” names on different sides of the Register). That is, deviating from the past practice of writing on different sides to merging them.

3)?Celebrating International Women's Day or other women-centric holidays.

4)?Encouraging girls to participate in sports or other extracurricular activities traditionally dominated by boys.

5)?Providing separate toilets and hand washing stations for girls.

6)?Providing flexibility in the dress code.

?

With respect to Point No. 1- the schools feel that displaying posters or pictures of successful women in various fields, such as Kalpana Chawla or Mary Kom, will inspire girls and encourage them to pursue their dreams; what schools forget is that (1) the “Social & Cultural Capital” that these women might already be enjoying, and (2) the girls of that particular school might not see any connection to these women, or (3) the only worth of life is found in “success” (if I cannot find success, I must not pursue schooling).

With respect to Point No. 2- the schools feel that this change would be some small change, and this could be “felt” by the “women,” that is, the girl-child students of that school.

What Schools missed noting is that (1) the “attendance register” is not a place where the visible or the invisible “power struggle” takes place, being as into the status of “women” and “men,”; they also missed noting that (2) the “stereotypes,” “biases” and “prejudices” were absent from being in a “powerful” position in the “space” of the “attendance register.”

The “attendance register” was not a place of “power struggle” for girl-child students.

With respect to Point No. 3- such celebrations involve speeches, skits, and other performances that highlight the achievements of women or promote gender equality; what Schools miss noting is that (1) it creates the impression that women are inferior and need a special day to be recognized. It also (2) reinforces gender stereotypes by focusing solely on women's issues and neglecting other important aspects of gender equality, (3) it overlooks intersectionality. Especially in the Indian context, intersectionality is an essential way to examine gender equality. In India, the category “women” intersects with other social categories such as caste, race, class, sexuality, state, and nationality. Recognizing intersectionality is an important step toward gender equality and women’s empowerment.

With respect to Point No. 4- such promotions and persuasions can help break down gender stereotypes and promote gender equality, but the schools fail to note that even such ideas are coming from the typical “male” idea of looking at “sports,” which is mostly about- “competition,” “winning,” “Success,” and “violence.” These are the same ideas that bring gender inequality and subjugate women. Instead of promoting sports that are traditionally dominated by boys, encouraging girls to pursue careers and leadership roles in the fields where they are traditionally underrepresented could be a better alternative.

?

With respect to Point No. 5- This is being seen as something which would promote the health and safety of girls, as well as their participation in school, but the schools miss to note that the idea of separate toilets itself is rooted in gender norms and stereotypes, which can perpetuate gender discrimination and is in fact “potty politics” (Susan B. Boyd).

?

With respect to Point No. 6- Freedom to wear is a right enshrined in the Constitution of India. Righting the wrongs and then claiming it to be an idea to bring gender equality is saying something like this- ‘women are so weak that they cannot even claim their fundamental rights.’ Claiming such an idea as a step toward gender equality would be a step backward. While such a step is always needed and welcome because it is a right enshrined in the Constitution of India.

?

Carrying out things named in Points No. 1 to 6, in the name of Women’s Empowerment and Gender Equality, may seem like a ‘harmless’ good effort, but it is just lip service, a symbolic gesture, symbolic minimalism, and mere tokenism.

Focusing on such tokenism and giving ourselves a pat on the back for practicing Gender Equality and bringing in Women’s Empowerment would be a clear loss of opportunity and our myopic-ness towards the concept of “Gender.”

Gender equality requires a comprehensive and sustained effort that addresses the systemic barriers and inequalities that women and girls face in education, schools, family, society, playgrounds, assembly halls, classrooms, and expectations of teachers from the girl-child students (Krishna Kumar).

Some ‘losses’ arising from the tokenism/lip service of Points No. 1 to 6 are as follows-

1.?Tokenism: Such gestures are generally made without real intention of promoting gender equality; they come across as tokenistic or done only for show. This gives the impression that the school is not serious about promoting gender equality.

2.?Lack of follow-through: Symbolic gestures alone cannot bring about real change. If a school puts up posters of accomplished women but does not follow through with concrete actions to promote gender equality, such as hiring more female teachers and bringing them into leadership roles or addressing issues of gender-based violence, then the posters may be seen as empty gestures that do not lead to any meaningful change. This goes the same for initiatives from Points No. 2 to 6.

3.?Reinforcing stereotypes: Initiatives from Points No. 2 to 6 also reek of stereotypes. That means while doing ‘tokenism’ (of Point No. 1 to 6), we have ended up doing what we thought of removing.

4.?Ignoring deeper issues: While such gestures are positive, they are not addressing the deeper systemic issues that lead to gender inequality. Thus doing ‘tokenism’ (of Point No. 1 to 6) will eventually stress the idea that even when ‘gender equality’ is being perpetuated, it is not ‘coming in,’ and thus it stresses that “women are weak,” however much you help them, they stay there.

Tokenism, Lip service, Symbolic gestures, and Symbolic minimalism made in the name of gender equality or women's empowerment may backfire because these actions may maintain preconceptions and inequality while providing the appearance of effort and progress.