Too much focus on gender will impede G7 goals

On June 8 and 9, five themes will dominate Canada’s G7 presidency in Charlevoix, Que.: investing in growth; jobs of the future; advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment; climate change, oceans and clean energy; and a more peaceful and secure world.

Gender equality anchors them all. So much so, that a G7 Gender Advisory Council, whose mandate is “ensuring that gender equality and gender-based analysis are integrated across all themes, activities and outcomes of Canada’s G7 Presidency,” was created. It stars global heavyweights like Christine Lagarde, Melinda Gates and Malala Yousafzai. Just to emphasize how serious the G7 is about gender equality. (It could be, however, that Donald Trump’s tariffs will overshadow the discussion.)

And serious the G7 should be. But the advisory council’s mandate is more like preaching to the choir — but in monotone. Several of its briefs make vague, sweeping statements like this: “when women are actively involved in the peace process, parties are more likely to reach an agreement — and those agreements also tend to last longer.”

Or: “supporting the full participation of women and girls in the economy and in all aspects of society by addressing the barriers to their participation in the workforce and in their communities.”

In fact, this year’s G7 asks more questions than it gives answers, such as: “What concrete steps can the G7 take to advance gender equality and women’s empowerment across its entire agenda?” Questions that lack the originality the gender equality movement so desperately needs. If the G7 even has to ask, we have a serious problem: If seven of the world’s richest and most progressive Western nations don’t have an answer, who would?

Granted, this is an area with much nuance and fragmentation. But if the G7 is asking how it can “best direct international assistance in order to advance gender equality and the empowerment of women in developing countries” after decades of investment it is admitting either limited success or outright failure.

Which means the advisory council needs to go back to the proverbial drawing board. If so, there are certain things that it should consider.

If the G7 recognizes “not all women experience oppression and discrimination in the same way,” it means there is a gap between how men and women think across cultures and continents. Just because some women choose to wear the hijab does not mean they have suddenly been freed from patriarchal control and given freedom of choice. Generations of patriarchal conditioning are a factor behind this choice.

To tackle this issue, you have to tackle certain religious beliefs — a key social norm — head-on.

Women’s empowerment is not a panacea to everything. As one example, a study I coconducted in South Asia unflinchingly hypothesized that if women were more economically active in the household, there would be less of a chance of young men being radicalized.

There was virtually no evidence to support this. And Western ways of doing business, including providing international assistance, may actually be impeding change. Creating a checklist like gender-based analysis will never be able to capture whether decision-making practices have truly included women.

In my own country of origin, I found that widows managing their late husbands’ businesses, while seemingly empowered, were not necessarily doing so of their own accord, but because family members wanted to retain inheritance rights for themselves.

Closer to home, systemic racism, misogyny and inequality all exist within G7 countries themselves. Canada has been unable to identify, let alone rectify, the various abuses towards women in Indigenous communities. Three of the G7 countries, including Canada, have some of the highest gender wage gaps among OECD countries.

Instead of assuming that poor countries need the help of the rich, looking inward may provide greater clarity in answering the questions the advisory council poses.

Making sweeping statements about women’s empowerment will not suffice. Particularly after decades of “lessons learned.” It is time the G7 better understood its priorities.