Gendering Neutrality

In recent years, discussions of gender equality have become integral to humanitarian discourse. Heavily influenced by established thought in �gender and development� studies, gender is now included as a priority cross-cutting issue in the policy and practice of most major (western) international humanitarian assistance (IHA) providers. The concentration of women and children in displaced populations and a growing belief amongst donors and the international humanitarian community that women are among the most vulnerable groups during times of emergency has effected an �international consensus on the need to consider gender issues in emergencies and humanitarian assistance.� (Byrne and Baden 1995: i) This paper will investigate this �international consensus� and problematise the suggestion that gender issues have recently and helpfully been introduced to IHA. It will do so by illustrating that IHA has always been a gendered practice and argue that the current push for gender awareness builds upon pre-existing gendered hierarchies and constructions within its policy and practice � a policy and practice which, historically, has been discursively represented as being both impartial and neutral, including gender-neutral, despite evidence to the contrary. Further, it will suggest that moves to prioritise gender do not fundamentally challenge IHA�s extant gendered construction. Thus, these moves will remain insufficient to remake the existing humanitarian frameworks that have allowed gendered injustices to take place. The paper will make these arguments by investigating, first, how gendered constructions worked in IHA before gender was an explicit priority area in IHA, and second, how gender has worked similarly during the contemporary era of gender mainstreaming. Finally, the paper will look to a possible post-gender era for IHA, suggesting that a move away from the gender concept may hold the most potential for security for all gendered identities.