Ministry of Gender Equality and Family’s Regressive Policy
By
Narang
Published:
December 2, 2015
Translated
by Marilyn Hook
As
of July 1st of the year, the “Framework Act on Women’s Development” was revised
to become the “Framework Act
on Both Sexes’ Equality*.” But the concept of “both sexes’ equality”
here is strange. It being realized in a distorted fashion, whether by
instructing women’s rights events to avoid using the word “women” because men
and women must be equal, or by discounting LGBTI people because the term “both
sexes” does not apply to them.
Ignore threats to any kind of
equality besides that between men and women?
Before
the change was put into effect, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family
(MOGEF) released a statement saying that, “While the ‘Framework Act on Women's
Development’ had focused on the increase of women's position and development of
women... the policy direction based on new Framework Act is to materialize
gender equal society in cooperation with women and men to secure equal rights,
responsibilities and participation opportunities for women and men in all areas
of society.” (Source)
In
accordance with this, the Women Week that has been held July 1st-7th every year
has been changed to “Both Sexes’ Equality Week.” This caused a discomforting
incident in South Gyeongsang Province. The Gyeongnam Women’s Association
United, which had been overseeing the event there, suddenly received word from
the provincial government that “a event for both sexes’ equality can’t be
entrusted solely to women’s organizations” and so their funding would be
reduced to half that of the previous year’s.
The
provincial government also responded to the event’s goal of promoting agendas
important to women and expanding their political participation by pointing out
that “mentioning women isn’t in keeping with the goal of both sexes’ equality,”
and also requested that “women” be taken out of the phrase “women’s political
empowerment.” It appears that interpreting “both sexes’ equality” as
superficial equality between men and women leads to women’s rights actually
being reduced.
The
problem becomes worse when you realize that this isn’t a chance occurrence at a
local government office. An outrageous line of reasoning holds that because
“both sexes’ equality” means equality between the two genders, male and female,
other types of equality may go ignored.
 |
| On Oct. 10, a rally titled “Ain’t I a Woman?”, for female sexual minorities who oppose MOGEF’s discrimination against LGBTI people , was held in front of Daehanmun © SOGI Legal Policy Research Society |
Last
June, Daejeon Metropolitan City enacted a gender equality ordinance that
included a clause related to rights protection and support for LGBTI people. In
August, MOGEF asked the city to remove this clause, saying that it was not in
keeping with the purpose of the Framework Act on Both Sexes’ Equality. Citizens
held one-person demonstrations in front of Daejeon City Hall in protest against
this action, but the city assembly enacted a version of the ordinance that did
not include the clause in September.
Seeing
the situation get to this point after the enactment of the Framework Act on
Both Sexes’ Equality, organizations and citizens calling for LGBTI rights
gathered in front of Daehanmun in Seoul to hold a rally, entitled “Ain’t I a
Woman?”, on October 10th. Even within the women’s movement, concern and protest
regarding MOGEF’s actions and the direction that policy for women is taking are
rising.
Fate of the “Act on Women’s
Development” amid charges of reverse discrimination
On
November 27, a forum entitled “Gender Equality Policy, Theory, and the
Direction and Future of the Movement,” which over 100 people attended, was held
at Chung-Ang University’s Law School Building. The event was held jointly by
SOGI Legal Policy Research Society, Korean Women’s Association United, the
Minority Rights Council/Women’s Council of MINBYUN Lawyers for a Democratic
Society, and others, and its atmosphere was passionate from start to finish as
questions and discussion were flew.
Professor
Bae Eun-Kyeong of Seoul National University introduced the history of women’s
policy in Korea and explained the background against which the Framework Act on
Women’s Development, which had been enacted in 1995, came to be changed to the
Framework Act on Both sexes’ Equality.
“Despite
the fact that several rounds of amendments to the Framework Act on Women’s
Development meant that it functioned as a framework act for gender equality and
gender-mainstreaming, there was the problem that it had ‘women’s development’
in the name and so gave the feeling that gender equality would be achieved by
developing women. Also, it gave the feeling that only women benefitted from it,
even though the biologically female aren’t the only beneficiaries. As we
entered the 2000s, there began to be calls to change the name of the Framework
Act on Women’s Development.”
Preparations
to amend the Framework Act on Women’s Development began in earnest during the
17th National Assembly (May 30, 2004—May 29, 2008). At that time, the name
“Framework Act on Gender Equality” was suggested. However, during the 18th
National Assembly (May 30, 2008—May 29, 2012), when Assemblywoman Sin
Nak-kyun of the Democratic Party proposed the “Framework Act on Gender
Equality,” MOGEF suggested that its name be changed to “Framework Act on Women’s
Policy.”
Professor
Bae said, “[MOGEF] explained that when the name was changed to ‘Framework Act
on Gender Equality,’ the controversy over reverse discrimination was deepening,
and [the ministry] was worried that the beneficiaries and base of women’s policy
would be shaken [if they didn’t take “women” out of the name].” Although gender
equality policy does not only benefit women, the ministry in charge of enacting
such policy did not explain this and instead showed a passive attitude toward
public opinion about “reverse discrimination” against men.
 |
| “Gender Equality Policy, Theory, and the Direction and Future of the Movement” forum held at Chung-Ang University’s Law School Building on Nov. 27. © Ilda |
During
the [current] 19th National Assembly, when serious discussion of the amendment
of the act began, controversy erupted over its name. The controversy was over
whether to call it “Framework Act on Both Sexes’ Equality” or “Framework Act on
Gender Equality.”
Na
Yeong-jeong, a permanent researcher at the SOGI Legal Policy Research Society,
said, “During this process, ‘gender equality’ came to be understood as a term
inclusive of gay, lesbian, and intersex people, and that is why it was
rejected.”
The real reason for the
controversy over “gender equality” or “both sexes’ equality”
Transcripts
from the Gender Equality and Family Committee of the 19th National Assembly
allow us to see how the terms “gender equality” and “both sexes’ equality” were
interpreted in the process of revising the Framework Act on Women’s
Development. Let’s look at expert testimony from the “Public Hearing on the
Revision of the Framework Act on Women’s Development” that the committee held
in 2014.
“From
a legal standpoint, it is my opinion that in accordance with Articles 11 and 36
of the Constitution, which is the final standard, the term ‘both sexes’
equality’ is more fitting. I think that one can infer the idea of ‘both sexes’
equality’ from the Constitution, but it is overreaching to infer the idea of
‘gender equality.’ In several areas, such as intersex or sexual orientation,
our constitution is actually not that compassionate.” (Kim Yong-hwa, professor
at Sookmyung Women’s University College of Law)
“I
think that it may be too early for ‘gender equality.’ I believe that, in our
country, it is still more necessary to emphasize discussion of men and women, a
clearly definable two sexes. Because, as in Article 36 (1) of our constitution,
the importance of family and marriage is still alive, it is claimed that both
sexes’ equality and the dignity of the individual must be preserved as
foundations, and it is because our nation and society are firmly established
with these as foundations that...” (Kim Jeong-suk, President of the Korean
National Council of Women)
To
summarize: ‘both sexes’ equality’ refers only to equality between men and
women, while ‘gender equality’ includes intersex and LGBT people. Also, there
is the opinion that the idea of both sexes’ equality can be inferred from the
Constitution, but the idea of gender equality cannot, and so, while it is still
too early for gender equality, ‘both sexes’ equality’ is acceptable. The name
‘both sexes’ equality’ was thus proposed with the intention of excluding LGBTI people.
Ironically,
both “gender equality” and “both sexes’ equality” [yang-seong-pyeong-deung] are
translated as “gender equality” in English. Na Yeong-jeong, the permanent
researcher at SOGI Legal Policy Research Council, explained that there is no
basis for the claim that “[yang-seong-pyeong-deung]” assumes a distinction
between two biological sexes, male and female. She added that the idea that
“gender equality” includes intersex or different sexual orientations also
differs depending on one’s viewpoint and interpretation. “The problem is that
they made that kind of interpretation and argument, without any basis, in order
to reject the term ‘gender equality’,” Ms. Na pointed out.
 |
| The Oct. 10th rally condemning MOGEF (“Ain’t I a Woman?”) © Provided by SOGI Legal Policy Research Council |
The Constitution doesn’t
guarantee “gender equality”?
There
has been criticism of those who testified at the public hearing that “both
sexes’ equality” can be inferred from the Constitution while “gender equality”
cannot.
Article
11 of the Constitution states, “All citizens shall be equal before the law, and
there shall be no discrimination in political, economic, social or cultural
life on account of sex, religion or social status.” Article 36(1) declares, “Marriage
and family life shall be entered into and sustained on the basis of individual
dignity and equality of [both] sexes, and the State shall do everything in its
power to achieve that goal.”
At
the public hearing, participants pointed out that though our constitution
guarantees “gender equality,” the Constitution was being distorted in order to
stubbornly exclude LGBTI people, in the process of revising the Framework Act
on Women’s Development.
Ms.
Na said, “If you’re going to talk about gender equality in the Constitution,
you should focus on Article 11, which prohibits sex-based discrimination and
specifies equal rights.” In reference to Article 36, which guarantees both
sexes’ equality in marriage and family life, she argued, “It is overreaching to
interpret this as a claim that marriage must only be possible between those of
the opposite sex.”
Attorney
Ryu Min-hui (of Lawyers for a Democratic Society’s Women’s Rights Council) also
expressed concern: “Article 36(1) of the Constitution, which contributed to
gender equality by providing the basis for eliminating common laws that had
many discriminatory aspects, such as the household head system [ho-ju-je],
adultery, etc., is being interpreted as limiting the basic rights of LGBTI
people.”
In
the end, the law proposed to replace the Framework Act on Women’s Development
was given the name “Framework Act on Both Sexes’ Equality.”
Ms.
Na said, “In a situation in which LGBTI problems are taking their place as part
of human rights policies, it is regrettable that LBGTQI people are being
stigmatized as inadequate citizens when the direction and goals of women’s
policy are decided.” She asked, “Is it right for the state, which must
guarantee the basic rights of all citizens, to stigmatize like that or justify
such discrimination and exclusion, all in the name of women’s policy?”
Regressive women’s policy that
ignores difference and diversity
People
who participated in the “Gender Equality Policy, Theory, and the Direction and
Future of the Movement” forum agreed that the Framework Act on Both Sexes’
Equality, far from overcoming the limits of existing women’s policy, turns the
clock back and will drag women’s policy backwards.
MOGEF’s
name in English is the “Ministry of Gender Equality and Family” [while its
Korean name more correctly translates to “Ministry of Women and Family”]. Its
name already includes the word “gender,” which means “social sex.” However, as
“gender equality” became “both sexes’ equality” in the process of revising the
law, its meaning has shrunk to refer only equality between biological men and
women.
“In the question of whether to translate
‘gender’ as ‘gender’ or as ‘both sexes’ equality’, ‘both sexes’ equality’ won
in the end. This means that the equality that women’s policy has to seek is
only that between the sexes. In women’s policy, this kind of regression, of
abolishing ‘gender’ (social sex) and bringing in ‘sex’ (biological sex), means
turning the clock back decades.” (Professor Bae Eun-kyeong)
Professor
Bae expressed concern, saying, “If this happens, the variety of differences
that exist among women and the diverse problems that arise because of the
intersection of gender and other social categories will go ignored.”
People
live in a reality where biological sex intersects complexly with a variety of
other identities, such as age, ability, sexual orientation, race, class,
nationality, generation, or religion. In order to reveal these complex
identities, American women of color feminists have proposed the concept of
intersectionality. The UN and many countries around the world are applying this
concept in their women’s policy.
In
a document from 2000 entitled “Gender Mainstreaming: An Overview,” the UN
explained, “Women and men are not homogenous groups. It is important not to
generalize across diverse populations, but rather to consider the ways that
needs and perspectives of individuals are influenced by a range of factors.” UN
Women’s 2014 “Tips for formulating HR and GE indicators,” which provided guidelines
for how to implement gender mainstreaming in national policy, entreated, “Do
not treat stakeholders as a uniform group,” and recommended creating indices
sensitive to gender, ethnicity, age, disabilities, health, income, sexual
orientation, gender identity, HIV status, political affiliation, and other
factors.
Ms.
Ryu, the attorney, revealed, “That certain intersections (sexual orientation,
gender identity) were actively excluded during the process of making the
Framework Act on Both Sexes’ Equality is extremely unjust by international
standards or UN Women’s point of view.” She continued, “UN Women makes clear in
its guidelines that considering the intersections of sexual orientation and
gender identity is ‘good practice.’ South Korea’s MOGEF is obstructing that
kind of good practice.”
Ms.
Ryu said, “The international systems for protecting women’s rights are
currently focusing on the violence and discrimination that LBTI women and girls
suffer,” and explained that twelve specialized agencies of the UN, including
the International Labour Organization and the World Health Organization, have
released a joint statement entitled, “Ending violence and discrimination
against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.”
*Translator’s note:
The official English name of this law is “Framework Act on Gender Equality.”
However, as will become clear, there is supposedly a difference between yang-seong-pyeong-deung (the term chosen for
the law) and seong-pyeong-deung,
which is the term usually translated as “gender equality.” I have attempted to
preserve this distinction by translating the former as “both sexes’ equality”
and the latter as “gender equality.”
*Original article:
No comments:
Post a Comment