Can “Gender Lens” be applied in Asia without addressing gender and other biases?
“Gender Lens” investing in Asia is catching on. Can this do more harm than good? Today is International Women’s Day (8th March) and I felt this would be a good moment to reflect on this.
Without the right context of where this term comes from, hyped terms can be confusing investors about the “right way” to make a gender impact or they just choose to pick and choose what works for them to be able to tick the “gender lens” box. This can do more harm than good if not applied well.
Understanding “Gender Lens” Investing in Asia
“Gender lens” has its own context in the US and “gender lens” has been evolving by different practitioners as they work in different sectors. What works in public companies would be different from private companies and very different from social enterprise space. All these dynamics, when matched with my experience in Asia, has me wondering, is “gender lens” alone appropriate to support women in Asia?
Gender lens investing in the developed world is said to include: 1) women’s access to capital or 2) women’s presence in the supply chain or human resource practices or 3) products and services that benefit women. It is not necessary to have all three components simultaneously since they operate in environments where gender equality is more advanced. Here is where I feel it may not fit. Given how behind Asia is on gender equality, more than one component would be better, especially criteria 1). Women leadership is the key to having an effective change in Asia.
What else is needed for gender lens investing to be successful in Asia?
In the USA, the underlying reason to coin the term “Gender Lens” investing was apparently to “mainstream” gender to Wall Sreet. Much had already been done with a focus on women and girls as a separate bucket. “Gender lens” was an attempt to bring together the “gender” from the philanthropic world and to mainstream gender into the world of finance. Having a lens to examine closely the impact of any investment on women and girls with all types of investments not just impact investing or philanthropy.
Commendable as that is, I feel in Asia, simply using a gender lens without addressing clear gender bias, could hurt not help women in Asia. Not enough has been done with proven gender centered empowerment approaches. Asia has ingrained cultures of explicit and implicit bias. This could lead to actions that keep women as passive-recipients or beneficiaries as opposed to change agents. This will hurt not help women in Asia in the long run.
For example, I have witnessed some male investors take the approach that not all three criteria need to be fulfilled, to now mean it is ok to fund only male entrepreneurs as long as they somehow indirectly impact women are beneficiaries. I have also witnessed male investors claim there is no pipeline of women entrepreneurs or leaders rather than admit that their own gender bias that makes women invisible to them. Very frustrating conversations. We still need a gender focus in Asia, together with a gender lens approach. The two have to go hand in hand and we need to address gender bias head-on.
The term “ gender lens” transposed from the USA with its own contextual background may do more harm than good transposed to Asia. It does not effectively address the complexity facing of gender equity amongst other “isms” facing Asians. It needs to be used against the specificities encountered by the culture, country, region, and patriarchy.
Patriarchy Dominates these conversations
Asia is still a very patriarchal and hierarchical environment. Even highly educated and privileged women, hide in shame from abuse, sexual molestation, feel unsafe to leave their homes at night, etc. Meanwhile, women-led organizations still face funding gaps and are often invisible to funds dedicated for women in Asia such as the “investing in women funds” as most impact investors are men with their own gender biases.
My previous blog on this issue highlighted how even in gender lens workshops, I got interrupted or dismissed by men in the room supposedly wanting to benefit women. At the same workshop where I was cut off by a fellow male participant promoting gender lens investing, another key diplomat that hosted us said in his opening speech that his goal was to see ”how to fit women in” the work they do. We really have to stop talking about “fitting women in”. Until we acknowledge that we are talking about gender lens in a man’s world- we won’t be able to change the system!
More than a gender lens, we need gender integration (the Acumen approach).
Yes, I do agree, we need to take gender out of the “feel good, do good bucket” and put real dollars behind it, but I also think that jumping the gun to mainstream gender without addressing gender bias, can do more harm than good. Gender lens has to go hand in hand with addressing gender and other biases head-on.
Much still needs to be done to assist women. There are still women who don’t get access to microfinance or SME funding. And educated women are still often dismissed in key policy discussions and are often undervalued. Not surprisingly, conversations about “gender lens” in Asia are often led by men or women from developed countries, who are not usually clued into these dynamics. Quite frustrating indeed.
“No pipeline” of women leaders can no longer be an excuse
Investing in women funds, still, complain that “there is no pipeline” rather than recognize that gender biases lead to SME women being invisible to male and women financiers who see them as “small players’ or better still don’t see them at all.
The finance world in Asia is indeed male-dominated. There does require a gender focus not just gender lens to systems change. Prof Yunus talked started microfinance focused on women to change the conversation that women are good investments. However, the success of micro-finance sometimes leads to men seeing women only capable of receiving micro-finance. We need the same effort of funding for SME and large business run by women-a gender focus together with a gender lens.
Through my work at Angels of Impact, we have a healthy pipeline of women-led social enterprises so we know for a fact “no pipeline” is not an excuse. Apart from the 10–15, that we work closely with over the last 3 years (some of their photos in the cover image above), we just completed a research study with funding from Sasakawa Peace Foundation, where we interviewed 43 women-led social enterprises in Indonesia, Thailand, and Myanmar on their funding needs (beyond micro-finance). This 43 came from a pipeline from about 100. (Stay tuned, our report will be out soon).
Time for Asian women to step up and join in the “gender lens” conversation
So is gender lens investing approach right for Asia? I think not if it is not done hand in hand with addressing gender bias and gender integration. One without the other doesn’t work in entrenched patriarchy. We need to take the bull by the horns (addressing how gender bias and inequity hasn’t leveled the playing field), otherwise, we will never reach the desired gender impact.
This is exactly the same transformation that happened in the design thinking world. They moved from a pure design thinking to a more human-centered design thinking. Likewise, I feel we need to move from pure “gender lens” to “gender-integrated gender lens” — -it is still all about women and it is all about including women for the greater good. To value investing in women and create a more inclusive system of finance.
“It’s a man’s world out there” I was taught ever since I was a little girl — -even when I went to work at the UN as one of my first jobs, I had to deal with sexual harassment (lots of “me too” stories of my own). I also struggled with being invisible to not just men but women from developed countries or privileged women (toxic masculinity and toxic feminity). Isn’t it time we started creating balance in this world, and also create a world that enables all women to thrive?
It’s time we Asian women work to include everyone, even those not from privileged communities and from minorities communities, and stand up together and take charge of this conversation for ourselves on how gender lens applies in Asia.
We need to tackle gender and other biases by the horns and to say “it is about investing in women leadership, and about women entrepreneurs, and about women in supply chain and about products/services that benefit women and much more. That we should aim for all two or three criteria of gender lens, with women-led criteria as the key requirement”.
Are ready to join the gender lens conversation in Asia? Reach out to me if you are keen to join forces to add a new dimension to these gender lens conversations in Asia.
