[Stoves] Women's empowerment

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott crispinpigott at outlook.com
Fri Oct 6 04:55:46 CDT 2017


The Indonesian CSI Pilot 2011-2016 about which much has already been said had two 'sides' in terms of its administration: a financial component (an award-winning Results Based Finance model) and a social science one. The social side was managed by the SE Asia regional head of 'Gender' Helen Rex-Carlson (I won't try to guess her exact title). The multiple reports and produced from that perspective and lend support for various options on how to study a community before making an intervention and how it impacted the market, the users and women in particular.

‎Regards
Crispin


There are a few adoption or impact studies online. See the July 2017 GACC webinar on adoption. It is not clear from earlier impact evaluations if the results were fed back to the stove promoting organizations and if any adjustments were made to improve performance and adoption.

Single mothers in Central America using improved stoves to cook food for sale to support their family should be considered empowerment. This has been going on for many years.

Tom

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Samer Abdelnour
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 3:42 PM
To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Women's empowerment

Hi Ron,
Thanks for the links. Perhaps you can elaborate more thoroughly on why you like the message of Radha you forwarded, and what idea or evidence of empowerment or equity you feel it demonstrates?

Best,
SA


On 6 Oct 2017, at 02:38, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
Samer and list, cc Nikhil:

               Thanks for the response. I believe you have opened an important topic for discussion.   I confess I have not yet figured out your own perspective on this stove-gender topic.

               I suggest that the NY Times piece is not the right place to focus our discussion on this tope.  The reason - I see no mention of stoves.  There are more than 250 comments to the Times on this (today’s) article - and most quite strongly both pro and con.  Therefore probably something that is not too helpful for this list.

               The new one from Samer in the Atlantic also barely mentions cooking, as it concentrates on electricity availability.  I think there are so many differences between PV for developing countries and stoves that I don’t believe we can have much helpful dialog there.  Or not?

               Nikhil’s mention in his last paragraph of “contextual design and promotion of clean biomass stoves”, probably refers to a UN Bank effort in Indonesia - with that title.  See  https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25129 .  I may be agreeing with Nikhil here - but I have not read that study yet..

               But there is a wealth of gender-based stove discussion at the GACC site.    I liked what I saw from Rudha Muthiah at  http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-06-2015-adoption-of-clean-cookstoves-and-fuels-boosts-gender-equality.html

               Others from GACC are at:   http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/223.html  and https://energypedia.info/images/6/69/Jennifer_Tweddell_%28GACC%29_-_Gender_and_Improved_Cookstoves.pdf<https://energypedia.info/images/6/69/Jennifer_Tweddell_(GACC)_-_Gender_and_Improved_Cookstoves.pdf> .  And there are more.

               Is there agreement or disagreement that GACC is on the right track on this stove/gender topic?

Ron


On Oct 5, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com<mailto:samer.abdelnour at gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks Ron and Nikhil,
Indeed, the piece cautions generic claims of empowerment based on the dissemination of some form of techno-solution -- be it chickens or cookstoves -- and as I read the piece I drew so many parallels with the generic rhetoric spewed by cookstove-gender enthusiasts. Hence, I am a bit surprised the link to how cookstoves are promoted as an empowerment tool is not more evident.

I think the piece challenges us take into critical consideration the aspirational messages that hold cookstoves to be a universal solution to issues poor women face. Even if they are effective in one context or intervention, benefits are rarely universal. Here I don't speak about tangible health impacts such as reduced burns and exposure to smoke when stoves fit the contexts of their use, or money saved by enabling households to use less fuel, but the more generic apolitical rhetoric of empowerment. As Nikhil reminds us, the origins of the empowerment discourse is indeed more complicated and perhaps impacts may be conceived of in more basic terms, of which cooks should decide for themselves, and not by advocates or NGOs passing around free stoves.

Here is another piece that you may or may not see a link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/deloitte-shifts/women-energy-and-economic-empowerment/261/

It more appropriately look as the structural issue of energy access, but still, fails to get away from the 'aspirational' rhetoric associated with technology/entrepreneurship that in my opinion distracts us from looking at real impacts. Like the work I have done deconstructing the rape-stove myth, these aspirational memes can become so powerful they are taken as 'fact' and uncritically reproduced even without supporting evidence.

Best to you,
SA






On 5 October 2017 at 20:40, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
Dr.  Samer and list;  cc Nikhil

Since you have highly recommended this article and Nikhil has panned it,  I hope you can add a few words on why you liked it.   I have read (really skimmed)  both the shorter and longer versions - but not seen much that related to stoves.  The exception is on the word “rape”, which you have written a lot on - as relates to stoves.

Clearly gender issues should be foremost on this list.  Can you explain more on why you strongly recommended this article?

Ron

On Oct 5, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com<mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>> wrote:

Sorry, Samer.  These "feminists from the Global South" did not care about the drudgery of cooking in women's lives. The Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 - where Mrs. Clinton led the US delegation if I remember correctly - had nothing to say about cooking.

Nor for that matter the World Development Report on Gender, circa 2007/8. I am glad that even with Julia Roberts and Oprah Winfrey, GACC got the feminists to talk about cookstoves.

Those women who understand "“empowerment” as the task of “transforming gender subordination” and the breakdown of “other oppressive structures” and collective “political mobilization.”" usually do not cook and have no experience collecting, transporting and stacking wood.

Like "clean", women's empowerment is contextual. Take a survey of 15-year old school-going girls among the "households using solid fuels" and ask how many of them want to cook and how many still on open fires.

If the objective of "contextual design and promotion of clean biomass stoves" is defined in terms of cook-friendly service standard - i.e, as "pleasing the cook" - I assure you a pleased woman feels less powerless.

That is empowerment.

Nikhil


On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com<mailto:samer.abdelnour at gmail.com>> wrote:
A great piece for those interested in cookstoves + social impact.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/the-myth-of-womens-empowerment.html


_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171006/18c8482f/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list