In their article “Feminist research methodologies and development: overview and practical application” Gwendolyn Beetham and Justina Demetriades quote, on page 202, Jane Papart’s argument that “Emanciapatory development will only occur when development theorist and practitioners adopt a more inclusive approach to knowledge/expertise, a readiness and ability to “hear different voices/experiences . . .” (Jane Papart, 1995, 240). On pg 203 they quote Jayaratne and Stewart who have concluded that “research which only documents differences between the sexes offers no understanding of why those differences exist or how such differences may be attenuated ”(Jayaratne and Stewart 1991, 88). On page 207 they present the fact that “There is no clear consensus on what represents evidence of women’s empowerment or what it means”, and quoting Kabeer (2005) explain that “‘power’ is in terms of the ability of women to make choices about their lives” Beetham and Demetriades then continue to suggest “empowerment often begins from within, which makes it difficult to measure including sense of agency or self worth (Kabeer 2005).” On pg 208 they write “A study reviewing international approaches to measuring women’s empowerment suggests measuring along six dimensions: economic, socio-cultural, familial-interpersonal, legal political and psychological.”

I am wondering why the study reviewing international approaches has excluded measuring women’s religious identity, religious perception and depth of belief, and their interpretation or understanding of feminine symbols in their religion. Religion empowers, or disempowers, from within. While measuring “sense of agency or self worth” cannot easily be measured, religious symbols and religious moral imperatives can more easily be measured in so far as women’s empowerment, or lack thereof. I don’t see how “differences between the sexes can be attenuated” without taking religious mythology into account. Maybe so much has already been written about religion and gender that it is irrelevant? Or, maybe, it’s too sensitive a political issue?               

The other thing I found interesting was that the OECD/DAC Gender, Institutions and Development Data Base, has developed 60 gender sensitive indicators (p206), which due to “Changes in the conditions surrounding and influencing gender relations”(p206) show a “need for constantly evolving indicators.”(p206) No wonder that the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, (and many of the other UN resolution for gender equality) “have been insufficiently executed.” (P206).
.          
Lastly, Beetham and Demetriades state that “Qualitve measures are more gender sensitive than their quantitative counterparts.(p 203)” I was just contemplating if that is also because women researchers prefer qualitive measures. They are more personal and create a relationship between the researcher and the researched.


Here’s an excerpt from today’s NYTimes -
Rape Victims in Congo Raid Now More Than 240/by Josh Kron
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/world/africa/03congo.html?ref=world
Since the United Nations  first publicly reported the mass rapes on Aug. 22, questions have arisen over how much the United Nations knew about the attacks as they were under way.
    United Nations officials have said the peacekeepers did not know about the rapes until Aug. 12. But a leaked United Nations e-mail dated July 30 shows that officials there were aware that the rebels had taken over one of the villages and raped one woman within the first day of the attack. By Aug. 10, the United Nations was aware that at least 25 women had been raped, according to another United Nations bulletin, published online.