I'd suggest a publication by Zuzanna Szatanik -- it certainly sheds some interesting light upon the issue of gender equality in the context of shame, which -- as the author very successfully argues, has become a constant parameter of Western femininity. Clearly, definitions depend on who controls the language, but they do change when this language is challenged. Szatanik raises the issue of the feminist strategies of de-shaming, most of which rely upon the disempowerment of the dominant language. Here is the link -- enjoy your reading!

http://wydawnictwo.us.edu.pl/node/1629?language=en

The main problem is, I guess, that gender is necessarily plural - not a dichotomy between male and female, but rather a big range of different identities, roles, aspirations and so on. So, if you talk about equality, you are not only talking about women's emancipation, but also about the creation of equal position for minority identities (like the famous topos of the black, lesbian communist with a disability).

Concerning this complex, it results hard not to fall into gender mainstreaming -that is, an approach with a considerable theoretic development but that remains reduced to women's emancipation and participation and does not really address the issue of gender at all.

I agree strongly with Philipp Altmann: really, gender is plural. So, there's no conflicts between men and women, they fit one to other, are complementary - not dichotomic.

I also agree with Altmann that gender is plural. I would also add that sometimes it is fluid. Empowerment would have to be contextualized. As a Mi'kmaq woman what female empowerment looks like changes dramatically depending on whether I'm in a Whote settler context or in a First Nations context. And in LGBTQ community, where there are numerous gender expressions, and where both sex and gender are often seen as socially constructed, it looks more different still.

Hi Vinanti,

From my point of view the definition situation of gender equality and female empowerment is not so bad at all. My overall understanding of empowerment is to enable persons to act self determinated and participate equality in social negation and decision-making processes.

Gender equality in general means to me to have the same resources, the same representation and balanced reality (3R approach)

What me takes wonder a bit is that you “only” ask for the relation of gender equality and female empowerment.

Could you imagine that there are acting fields where male empowerment is necessary? Eq. Care work, social competence or emotional resources? At least some empowerments to overcome traditional masculinity which can read as a framework with life duration reducing impact?

Phillip, I strongly agree with you that gender is a plural issues. I also agree that gender mainstreaming is unfortunately mostly used in a reduced way which only focused on women's emancipation. But never less gender mainstreaming (GM) is a big progress, I guess. Even when GM has a top down approach with a bit hegemoniale character by its overall, everywhere and cross section claim and even if there is the broad feministic misuse of the therm.

The big chance I might to see on GM is that for the first time a male perspective is included. Men appears as an own discourse subject with own “concerns and experiences”. The focusing of GM on the relationship of women and men has a similar impact.

Roberto, I am not sure if I understand it right but ad hoc it seems to me that complementary - and dichotomic are very similar. From my point of view complementary content crucially an essential difference between men and women. The relationship might look a little more friendly and refers to the overall correctness and good sense of havening two sexes with different properties. But there are still two kinds of properties with an opposite relationship to each other. A simple bias example “active” vs. “passive” or more expressively ”aggressive” vs. “peaceful” shows: Even if these couples are complementary stetted, it is hard to avoid dichotomics because it would mean men can´t be peaceful and women can´t be aggressively. A mistake as common as big.

Margaret: thank you for my chance to learn the term Mi'kmaq. I do not understand in depth what you mean with the expression “ sex and gender are often seen as socially constructed”, but I would like to point out my strongly disagreement with the radical constructive concept of sex as a result of social constructions. I fear this concept content a high risk of an everything-goes-culturalismen. So I strongly recommend to accepting the existence of a pre-discursive sex body. This body might be malleable by body practice but in its biological-physical content only very, very slow.

Have a nice day

Volker