Gender and Human Security.

How does Gender strengthen or undermine Human

security? To what extent does Human Security undermine or strengthen gender?
Introduction

Broadly defined, human security encompasses freedom from fear, freedom from want and
freedom to live in dignity. Together, these fundamental freedoms are rooted in the core
principles of the Charter of the United Nations (Human Security Report, 2010). This definition
was given more life in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly under resolution 66/290 that
defines human security as “an approach to assist Member States in identifying and addressing
widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of their people.”

According to UN Trust Fund for Human Security, Human security is achieved through
protection and empowerment strategies built on four principles; “people-centered,
comprehensive, context-specific and prevention-oriented responses that strengthen the protection
and empowerment of all people.” These principles bring a shift from state centered security to
individual centered security with particular focus on the welfare and safety of the human person.

The idea of human security first appeared in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech of 1941 to
US Congress in which he advocated for four freedoms: freedom of speech and expression;
freedom of every person to worship God in his own way; freedom from want and freedom from
fear (Roosevelt, 1941). Despite Roosevelt’s pronouncement, it took more than five decades for
the idea of human security to resurface. In 1994 Human Development Report, human security
was introduced as a new concept of security. The report quoting US secretary of state to his
government on the results of the San Francisco notes that to ensure enduring peace, the battle has
to be fought on two fronts: the first is the security front where victory spells freedom from fear;
and the second is the economic and social front where victory means freedom from want.
(UNDP Report, 1994:3).

The 1994 HDR neither made reference to Roosevelt’s speech nor included all the four freedoms
he advocated for but came out with more specific points, listing seven essential dimensions of
human security: Economic security; Food security; Health security; Environmental security;

1
Personal security; Community security; and Political security (Gómez O.A. & Gasper D., 2013).
As noted by Ramesh Thaku (1997), each of these seven categories contain a broad list of security
areas which are believed to form acceptable standards of safety for a human being.

Relationship between gender and human security

According to FAO, gender is ‘the relations between men and women, both perceptual and
material. Gender is not determined biologically, as a result of sexual characteristics of either
women or men, but is constructed socially. It is a central organizing principle of societies, and
often governs the processes of production and reproduction, consumption and distribution’
(FAO, 1997). Despite this definition, gender is often misunderstood as being the promotion of
women only. However, as we see from the FAO definition, gender issues focus on women and
on the relationship between men and women, their roles, access to and control over resources,
division of labor, interests and needs. Gender relations affect household security, family well-
being, planning, production and many other aspects of life (Bravo-Baumann, 2000 as cited by
FAO).

The assigning of roles to men and women varies from society to society. In some societies,
women build houses and men take care of the home. In others women do all the house chores
while men provide food and security. The assigning of these roles at times create an oppressive
culture mostly to women. This brought about women emancipation and subsequently the
adoption of women’s right and a fundamental right. In this essay we will try examine the extent
to which human security has incorporated gender in its tenets and whether or not human security
undermines or strengthens gender.

Human security advocates for empowerment of all individuals, including women. It also
recognizes the special needs to protect, rehabilitate and support women in times of threat. The
influential international Report on the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ evolved from human security
concerns, but it is contested among women’s groups with only some supporting it and others
rejecting it, claiming that it is designed to facilitate international intervention, based on ‘just war’
theories reconstituting the colonial project (Chenoy, 2009).

2
Unlike traditional security, human security focuses on the security of people and communities. It
focuses on serious gender concerns that the traditional security has always neglected. It is
understandable to think that women are people and therefore a people centered approach to
security focuses on both men and women. In fact, the seven essential dimensions of human
security apply to women as much as it does to men. This thinking however, has been rejected by
feminists’ advocates of human security (Chenoy, 2009).

Beth Woroniuk (as cited in McKay, 2004) drew attention to key gendered dimensions that have
been missing within human security discussions, notably; violence against women, gender
inequality in control over resources, gender inequality in power and decision making, women’s
human rights, and women (and men) as actors, not victims. Erin Baines questioned how central
an agenda gender-related violence should be within human security discourses and pointed to the
potential danger of privileging women over men, given the persistent lack of masculinist
analyses. Baines’ point that masculinist analyses of human security deserve far greater attention
is an important one. However, given women’s low status worldwide, the inequality of and the
profound influences of patriarchy on women’s ability to attain equality, the risk of privileging
girls’ and women’s human security over boys’ and men’s human security seems remote and,
even, implausible.

As Zeitlin & Mpoumou (2004), note, “people-centered human security does not necessarily
imply a gender-sensitive approach to human security. A people-centered human security
approach is in fact a gender-neutral approach. This approach is usually biased to women as it
assumes men’s experiences as the norm.” In the absence of a clear understanding of gender
inequalities, the assumption that a people-centered approach automatically includes a gender
perspective is misleading. Feminists for example argue that some policies that are supposedly for
‘all individuals’ end up favoring men over women. For example, democracy allows all
individuals to be part of power structures and representative bodies, but in reality, the process
and circumstances exclude women from leadership positions. In Uganda for example, the
composition of women in tenth parliament is 34.7 percent according to data obtained from

3
parliament’s website. This figure is much better than the world average which is less than 10
percent (Chenoy, 2009).

Zeitlin & Mpoumou (2004), further criticize human security for not considering physical
integrity that women have identified as central to their intimate security. These include especially
issues of violence against women in the family and women’s reproductive rights. This gap is a
clear indication that gender mainstreaming cannot be prioritized over women specific work or
vice versa, as both approaches are complementary. Feminists and women’s movements are
especially concerned with structural violence since it impacts women directly in their daily lives
and holds them back from participating fully in institutions, even when there are opportunities
for participation (Chenoy, 2009).

Both feminists and human security approaches seek societal transformation by linking security
with the human rights approach. Feminists are committed to fundamental human rights in
general as well as to gender-specific human rights issues, such as violence against women,
reproductive rights and women’s poverty. Feminists have argued that linking up with human
rights is a useful strategy because it is more difficult to oppose a human rights issue than a
feminist one (Reilly 1997 as cited in Chenoy, 2009). Putting this into perspective, human
security should at the very least encompass women’s right if it is to ensure security of every
person.

In Africa and in south and west Asia where some cultural values have been oppressive to women
for example in terms of ownership of property, the right to divorce and the right to select a
partner (especially in India) have been infringed, Asian feminists, contend that the claim of
cultural specificity had been used to curb women’s rights (Chenoy, 2009).

Whereas human security purports to include all individuals, it has been argued that girls and
women are often denied education in favor of boys in case of scarce resources. This is true in
countries like India and Nigeria. In Uganda for examples the rate of drop out of school is higher
among girls than boys (Kamugisha, 2017). This is attributed to structural/cultural injustices that
pervades the society even when human security claims to integrate gender-based inequality.

4
These inequalities include early marriages for girls, discrimination on the pregnant school going
girls, and poverty among others. Girls in poor families or those affected by HIV/AIDS end up
dropping out of school as they take up the responsibilities at home (McKay, 2004).

In the employment sector, there are jobs that are likely to be offered to men than women. This
includes technical services, works and mechanics. In Uganda for example, riding boda-boda,
driving passengers service vehicles, masons, among others were reserved for men. In fact,
women doing these works would be seriously despised. The general perception in was that these
vocations were a preserve of men. One of the core tenets of human security is economic security
which is achievable through gainful employment. Denying women certain employment certain
forms of employment because of their gender is in fact stripping them of human security.

Boys (men) and girls (women) experience different insecurities during conflict and therefore the
social support required for them differ. As McKay (2004) notes, the generalization of women
and men under people’s security disadvantages women because men/boys are presumed to be
combatants in fighting forces, which ignores the widespread presence of girls and women in
these forces and their disproportionate neglect during Demobilization, Disarmament and
Reintegration (DDR) processes. A comprehensive approach to human security should tackle the
particularities of women and men in situations of armed conflict.

As noted in the discussions above incorporating gender into human security makes human
security complete. If human security is about security of people, it should realize how men and
women differ in roles in different societies. In societies where women’s rights are a luxury,
human security should come in to ensure gender equality and gender equity.

References

Chenoy A.M., (2009). “The Gender and Human Security Debate” IDS Bulletin Volume 40
Number 2 March 2009. Journal compilation, Institute of Development Studies Published by
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK

5
United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, “What is Human Security?” Available at
https://www.un.org/humansecurity/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/What-is-Human-Security.pdf

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 66/290 (October, 2012). Available at
https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/290

The United Nations General Assembly Report No. 64/701 (March, 2010). “Human Security
Report of the Secretary-General”

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1941) ‘Four Freedoms Speech.’ Available at

http://web.utk.edu/~mfitzge1/docs/374/FFS1941.pdf

GDRC Online. “Definitions of human security”. Available at

http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/husec/Definitions.pdf

Gómez O.A. & Gasper D., (2013). Human Security: A Thematic Guidance Note for Regional
and National Human Development Report Teams. United Nations Development Programme.
Human Development Report Office. New York.

United Nations General Assembly 64th session (8 March, 2010) Human Security: Report of
secretary General

UNDP (1994) “Human Development Report.” the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) New York Oxford Oxford University Press 1994

Kamugisha S. (2017). “Over 5 million pupils drop out of primary school.” The observer weekly
newspaper. Published on 27, February 2017. Available online at
https://observer.ug/education/51488-over-5-million-pupils-drop-out-of-primary-school.html

6
McKay S. (2004). “Women, Human Security, and Peace-building: A Feminist Analysis” IPSHU
English Research Report Series No.19 Conflict and Human Security: A Search for New
Approaches of Peace-building (2004) pp152-175

Ramesh Thakur (1997). “From National to Human Security.” Asia-Pacific Security: The
Economics-Politics Nexus. Eds. Stuart Harris, and Andrew Mack. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, p.
53-54.

Zeitlin J., & Mpoumou D., (2004), “No human security without gender equality” Women’s
Environment & Development Organization (WEDO). Available at
http://www.socialwatch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/en/genderequality2004_eng.pdf

Bravo-Baumann, H. (2000). “Capitalisation of experiences on the contribution of livestock

projects to gender issues.” Working Document. Bern, Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation.

FAO. (1997). Gender: the key to sustainability and food security. SD Dimensions, May 1997
(available at www.fao.org/sd).