Back to Index

Closing the gender gap among women
Susan Pietrzyk
October 20, 2008

Along with roughly 500 others, I attended the SAfAIDS/ZAN meeting at the Harare International Conference Centre (HICC). The regional meeting provided feedback form the International AIDS Conference held in Mexico in August 2008. In addition to 14 plenary speakers and a poster exhibition at HICC, there were six thematic breakaway sessions (children; women and gender; clinical research; PLHIV; youth; faith-based responses; workplace programmes). Across the breakaway sessions, 23 individual presentations were on the agenda, and as I understand it, each was a repeat performance of a presentation given in Mexico. I-m not sure what to make of the notion that at least 23 Zimbabweans were in Mexico - Is that excessive? Is that insufficient? I don-t know.

In any event, I attended the women and gender session and was intrigued by a comment regarding a non-Zimbabwean paper presented in Mexico which compared adult HIV prevalence data with gender gap data. Intrigued by what comparing the data reveals, and perhaps more intrigued by the way the comment seemed to encourage the audience to feel threatened by the comparison.

The Global Gender Gap Index is a new framework for measuring gender inequality. New in that the 2007 report by the World Economic Forum represents the second time the index has been calculated and published. The index aims to track gender inequality based on 1) economic; 2) political; 3) education; and 4) health based criteria by examining gaps between men and women in those four fundamental categories (sub-indices). The 2007 index covers 128 countries. Sweden, Norway, and Finland are at the top, each with a gender gap around 80%. In this index, a high score is good because it means the nation has only a small gap in terms of level of equality between men and women. At the bottom are Pakistan (55%), Chad (54%), and Yemen (45%). South Africa (20th), Lesotho (26th), and Namibia (29th) are the highest ranked African countries, each just above 70%. Below these three African countries is the United States at 31 (just barely at 70%). Zimbabwe ranks 88th overall at 65%. Among the 23 sub-Saharan African countries included, Zimbabwe ranks 11th. Ahead of Zimbabwe are: South Africa, Lesotho, Namibia, Tanzania, Mozambique, Uganda, Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi. Below Zimbabwe are: Madagascar, Gambia, Zambia, Nigeria, Angola, Mauritania, Mali, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Benin, and Chad.

Now to the comparison with HIV prevalence, three interesting clusters emerge. Before seeing the comparison, my thought was this: High gender gap = Low HIV prevalence. Low gender gap = High HIV prevalence. The reasons being: The AIDS Industry drills into our minds that HIV/AIDS is a gendered pandemic. Women are more vulnerable and inequalities between men and women fuel epidemics; thus, turning the tide requires more equity between men and women. I-m not ready to disagree with those arguments. But. Interestingly, comparing the data presents a more complex picture, which maps out as follows. First cluster is high gender gap (above 62%) and high HIV prevalence (above 12%). The countries are: Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Second cluster is low gender gap (below 62%) and low HIV prevalence (below 5%). The countries are: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria. Third cluster is something expected, high gender gap (above 64%) and low HIV prevalence (below 7%). The countries are: Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, Uganda. It helps to see this in a graphic.

The third cluster seems expected. The closer men and women are to equality fewer incidences of HIV. The first and second clusters each seem the reverse, thus raising questions. In the case of Zimbabwe falling in the first cluster, you might call it need to evaluate the gender gap among women. I don-t know the answer to this question. One which might unintentionally come across as offensive, and certainly not a question with a singular simplistic answer, but I think it-s worth pondering. A national gender gap figure is an average concerning all women, with some women-s realities above the figure and some below. Therefore, is it Zimbabwean women who tip the gender gap closer to equality who also tip HIV prevalence to be high? Or is it Zimbabwean women who tip the gender gap farther from equality who tip HIV prevalence to be high? We might like to think it-s Zimbabwean men who tip the gender gap and HIV prevalence (both in the wrong direction), but in reality, relatively equal numbers of Zimbabwean men and women are HIV-positive. Arguments can certainly be made that, more than men, women face complex challenges in avoiding HIV infection, yet it seems there is need to own up and not be afraid of unpacking the demographics and circumstances of Zimbabwe women who are HIV-positive.

All disclaimers aside, such as, prevalence data is not a perfect measure in that country-to-country population size varies and I-m not sold on the notion that gender equality can be boiled down to a statistic. Particularly a statistic which relies largely on positions women have achieved and less on factoring in what I increasingly hear referred to as toxic masculinities. Ways of thinking which resist and belittle female contributions and may be due to centuries of tradition, the twin evils of colonialism/missionaries, postcolonial reconstructions of tradition, or combinations of all of that. This is to say that the Gender Gap Index doesn-t adequately consider the past and present treatment of women. Still, the data is interesting. First, it captures well that women have made significant strides with respect to access to and achievements within economic, educational, political, and health arenas. This is a good thing. Highlighting this as such then, in a sense, indirectly hones in on where the most work is needed. Gender gap figures importantly quantify that women do, for example, become heads of state, members of parliament, and ministers, but tell us little about what women experience once in political positions. Not to mention that political empowerment and political contributions extend far beyond seats in government. In either case, experiences are often more emblematic of what-s at the core of inequalities between men and women. Second, when compared to HIV prevalence the questions become about whether or not (and how) 15% HIV prevalence in Zimbabwe might be concentrated across subsets of women. Do women who have excelled in terms of gender gap sub-indices along with those who have not equally understand what puts them at risk? How successfully, and do all women equally translate knowledge of risk into practicing a healthy and responsible sex life?

Perhaps more interesting than the comparison itself was the presenter-s reaction at the SAfAIDS/ZAN meeting, seemingly advocating the comparison as a threat to the women-s and/or gender rights movement. I see that because unfortunately, there are factions of men looking for ways to slow down advances women are making. Carefully worded text could further such a cause by refuting the argument that HIV prevalence is high because women don-t share the same rights, treatment, and access in comparison to men. With the logic being the comparison shows that the gender gap figure in Zimbabwe is high, yet HIV prevalence is also high and further, countries with low HIV prevalence tend to also have a low gender gap. Each of those do not add up; thus, concluding that women-s rights and HIV prevalence are not related. That-s a dangerous argument to spin. Even so, the comparison doesn-t have to represent a threat to the Zimbabwean women-s and/or gender rights movement. Rather, I see the comparison potentially as a defining moment. A moment to move beyond donor buzzwords like gendered pandemic. A moment to look deeper than boiler plate statements asserting HIV and gender inequities are linked. A moment to not be afraid to critically examine disparities yes, between men and women, but also economic, political, educational and health based disparities among Zimbabwean women. I mean that is the point of the movement—for ALL women to enjoy the same rights, treatment, and access.

My final thought is to note that the Global Gender Gap Index doesn-t directly include HIV/AIDS as a variable within the health sub-index; instead, the variable is life expectancy. There might be an argument to be made that HIV/AIDS ought be a variable, particularly in the case of sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, not making such an argument, I think, fits into my comment that comparing HIV prevalence and gender gap data is potentially a defining moment. There is need to be less quick to rely on, in a sense, AIDS Industry-generated use and (sometimes) manipulation of HIV/AIDS data to make what are somewhat different arguments about equity. This is not say HIV prevalence and gendered inequities are unrelated. Not at all. More it-s to say equity is broader, and sometimes speaking to that broadness is the way to go. I mean is the passion and advocacy only to lessen the risk of HIV? I think not. Commitment to equity is about shared position as human beings, and the whole lot of us wanting to live in a just and peaceful world. Why hide behind HIV/AIDS data to make that argument?

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP