On Sunday last, the American Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Sciences, better known as the Academy Awards or the Oscars, held its 92nd ceremony to recognise excellence in those fields. Long accused of its lack of diversity and dearth of parity in an industry which is open to all and where variety abounds, the Academy was called out for its latest faux pas, its inability to nominate a single woman director. And even though it voted Parasite, a Korean film, best picture, that was not enough to quell the perturbed voices insisting that there were at least 5 women who deserved to be nominated for the work they have done over the past year.
The Academy’s uneven view of what constitutes excellence in this art form, led to The Guardian conducting a study of the ceremony over the years of its existence. The analysis revealed that in the categories not conditioned by gender (Best Actress would be an example of a category conditioned by gender), from the first ceremony in 1929 to today, only 14 percent of the over 10,000 nominees have been women. Furthermore, in the Best Director category, only 5 women have ever been nominated in more than 90 years, and only one has ever won, Kathryn Bigelow for war drama The Hurt Locker in 2010.
Unfortunately, even with its sordid side, revealed during 2017’s bombshell disclosures of rampant sexism, harassment and rapes that reignited the MeToo Movement and created ‘Times Up’, Hollywood does not have a lock on gender disparity.
Inequality has long been women’s burden in the economic sphere as well as in politics, education and health among other sectors. The Global Gender Gap Report, published annually by the World Economic Forum (WEF) over the past 14 years, has sought to track progress, and the lack of it, to gender parity. Its 2020 report, which looks at developments in 2019, laments that at the current slothful rate, it will take some 99 years for there to be true gender equality. This does not bode well for the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the fifth of which is “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls,” given that these goals have a 2030 timeline.
Nowhere was this more pointedly obvious than at the WEF 50th annual meeting in Davos last month. Of the close to 3,000 members of the political, philanthropic and corporate elite who gathered for four days in the Swiss Alps and discussed mainly gender parity, less than 700 were women. Not that this was altogether a bad thing, since gender equality should not be just a women’s issue. But the facts would show that men talking about women’s lack of representation and lower pay is a conversation that usually goes nowhere.
However, it is not all gloom and doom. A few days ago, a Delhi-based institution, the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES) declared 2020 the year of women empowerment and launched a programme called ‘Shakti’. Women account for 48% of India’s population.
According to the Chopra Center, “Shakti [is] one of the most important goddesses in the Hindu pantheon [and] is really a divine cosmic energy that represents feminine energy and the dynamic forces that move through the universe. Shakti, who is responsible for creation and can also be an agent of change, is often manifested… to restore balance.” The UPES’s Shakti programme offers women training, development and financial aid through scholarships. It should be noted here that petroleum and energy studies were not traditionally seen as women’s domain and India is a country steeped in tradition. Although it is just one university, it is a shining example of action speaking louder than words.
Action is just what the WEF is advocating. The Global Gender Gap Report found that the largest gender disparity exists in the political sector, although it is the sub-index that showed the greatest improvement. But this is an area that needs more careful assessment. The problem with global political empowerment is that it is not enough if it simply seems to exist. Women’s participation in cabinets and parliaments is not a numbers game and they should not be placed there just to meet percentage requirements. They must have a voice and real power to effect change, particularly on issues that affect women. This is not always the case, sometimes not even when the woman is head of state or government. However, recent notable exceptions are Finland’s Sanna Marin and Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand.
Politics aside, there are also gaps in the economic participation and opportunity; the educational attainment and the health and survival sub-indexes, though the last two appear not to be as wide. There is no complexity to gender equality. What is holding the process back is partly cultural leanings and mostly institutionalised and learned chauvinism, which manifests in discrimination. Things learned can be unlearned. It is past time to get started.
