The welfare approach or pre-WID was introduced in the early 1950s and 1960s designed to bring women into development as “better mothers” (Moser, 1993). The rationale was that women were passive recipients of development and emphasis should be on enhancing their motherhood and reproductive role. The “top-down” handouts tactic was implemented i.e. goods and services were provided without the participation of gender organizations in the planning process to achieve practical gender needs of women. These practical needs included family planning, family food provision, housing, and basic services.
Family Institute in Hyderabad, India recently released two posters promoting the “Dulhan Course” and “Dulha-Dulhan Course” i.e. “Bridal Course” and “Groom-Bridal Course" respectively. These training courses are based on ‘top-down” handout tactic designed by misguided male planners. They train brides to be a “better wife” and can be taken “pre/post-marriage”. The training comprises of budgeting, sewing, beauty tips among various other classes on “how to live a successful married life”. Womenfolk is promoted to learn only “women’s work” (Moser, 1993, p.59) i.e. home management, mehendi, cooking thereby creating more dependency on men rather than become independent. These classes foster the ideology of traditional gender roles in the 21st century where women are put down to the menial task of achieving practical gender needs. Thus, these courses reinforce the beliefs of women’s domestic role and men’s role as the head of the family and principal provider.
Both the courses and welfare approach do not challenge the subordinate role of women. The courses further stereotype gender roles, endorse patriarchy, and train 21st-century women to be more efficient housewives. The posters underpin the hegemonic view of women as “home-makers” where their job is to “win their husbands” and follow the “do’s and don’ts by husband”. Hence, it results not only in the oppression of women but also considers them as passive recipients in their marriage with the motto of only keeping their husbands happy.
Moreover, these courses are problematic because they assume gender as a binary where cis-gender men marry only cis-gender women. It fails to address non-binary genders and other structures of marriages. They lack the dialogue of strategic gender needs encompassing equal participation of men and women in domestic labor and childcare.
Such pieces of training prove to be more harmful than beneficial as they advocate for the traditional role of genders and do not provide women any agency and power. These “family-oriented” welfare programs should be barred because they identify women as the problem instead of teaching them how to stand for themselves with educational training that will help them live independently and scrutinize traditional societal structures.
Link for the Family Institute website: https://familyinstituteindia.com/
References:
Kabeer, Naila. 1994. Treating Cancer with BandAid?: The theoretical underpinnings of WID. Pp 11-39 in Reversed Realities. New York: Verso.
Moser, Caroline O. N. 1993. Third World Policy Approaches to Women in Development. Pp. 55-79 in Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training. New York: Routledge.
Family Institute Hyderabad India. (n.d.) Designed to rediscover the value and impact of family life. https://familyinstituteindia.com/
Thanks for this post. What an exciting reading! The ‘Bridal Course’ in India you mentioned reminds me of Fumilayo Ransome-Kuti of Nigeria, who trained women, especially young women, to become better Christian wives and mothers and trained to be self-dependent. It’s not incidental that the welfare approach was favored by many missionaries during the colonial period, promoting the well-being of poor women, mainly in the roles of wife and mother.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Fumilayo’s biography did not mention her connection with the missionary, she was a women rights activist and led a series of protests and marches in the 1940s and 50s. Despite that, motherhood and childrearing play an influential role for women in all aspects of development; the welfare approach could not address women’s development needs.
Thanks for posting this, Iman, interesting to see these posters and read about the connections you’re making. Also, to see the connection Fatou brought in to Nigeria. I’m trying to think through how to understand the role of colonialism here. Describing the Indian schools as exemplifying the welfare model makes sense, though it seems deeply linked with internal culture and history (if there’s a connection to be made between colonialism in India and the reification of gender roles in traditional families, I’d be interested to learn more!). Fatou’s example in Nigeria seems explicitly linked to colonialism, what with teaching Christianity (I am curious what it meant to train women to be “self-dependent” though; does it mean they learned to perform every aspect of domestic life without asking for anything at all?).
ReplyDeleteThis makes me wonder about how gender hierarchies intersect with colonialism, both existing without it and being perpetuated by it in different circumstances. Is the emancipatory alternative to either version to locate indigenous examples of resistance to these hierarchies and use them create alternative models to development? Maybe that would mean creating different revisiting Fumilayo Ransome-Kuti’s life and work in order to create very different schools in her name.
Great topic, thank you for addressing it. The welfare approach promotes the oppression of women, to be only passive in society, and to stay at home. Unfortunately, this is still implemented in some rural areas in Palestine. People in these rural areas ask: "why should we educate our daughters and pay for them? they will marry, and we will not benefit from their salary if they worked". So, it is better to teach them how to be good housewives, raise children, and obey their husbands, so we will have a good reputation when they marry.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested to know if these courses in India are taken until now? The courses in India focused only on women, and in my opinion, it is the biggest issue. In order to have to build a family, you need to engage females and males, such as in development. For example, back home the church gives courses to the engaged people before they get married, but to both of them not only to females.
For sure, women should stand for themselves and deny the idea of being only mothers and wives, although many agree to that. Traditional gender roles need to change, and men need to be part of this change.
I really appreciated your post Iman. It reminded me of my research which focuses on the betterment of women, similar to your example of Hyderabad, India. In Egypt, beliefs tied to colonialism and Western feminism promoted ideas, such as the ideology of cult of domesticity. Women were to follow institutional feminism, which Cathlyn Mariscotti defines in her book Gender and Class in the Egyptian Women's Movement, 1925-1939 Changing Perspectives. The belief that marriage will better your life and keep you out of trouble. Education was a means to, service the husband. Therefore, domesticity not only supported gender norms of men and women, but it also supported Egypt in bettering the nation by raising future citizens. Later, institutional feminism became a method for ruling class elite women to control lower and middle classes of women with their hegemonic form of European feminism. I am certain, if I continue my research, I will find evidence that would align with the notion of training courses, similar to India. In the case of Egypt, it would be the state who is gendering nationalism in order to control women, while maintaining a facade that it supports women’s rights.
ReplyDeleteBeth Baron in her work Egypt as a Woman: Nationalism, Gender, and Politics also illustrates this same notion of gendering the nation. In this case, it is not elite Egyptian women, but Egypt as Baron describes is perceived as a woman and encompasses the matrilineal system. Nationalism is a form of mothering the nation and the family is assimilated to state building. Women were to become better housewives in service of the nation. The state, therefore gendered nationalism as female in order to control women.