I was standing in line at passport control. After a long flight, I was tired. I wished for someone to take my passport, stamp it, and teleport me to a bed so I could sleep. It was a simple thought, but it felt heavy because my brain and body were ready for a nap. It was nothing special, just moving from the line to a bed to rest. But who would undergo the biometric checks so that immigration could register me? I should be there anyway.
If you’ve ever taken a flight longer than eight hours, I suspect you’ve had this thought, too. It’s the most ordinary yet impossible wish. There was no one at the front of the line with open palms, ready to receive what I couldn’t hold. That’s the part the fantasy leaves out. If someone took it, then someone else would have to hold it. But not all weight should be carried alone. Nor should the gender equality achievement.
When Gender Work Becomes Someone Else’s Job
I have carried that same wish into rooms far from any airport. During meetings and workshops, and in the long, quiet moments after a report is filed, I have wished that someone would take the burden of gender equality off my shoulders and carry it out the door. Gender advisors and other passionate practitioners may want to lead the process, but they should not have to bear the entire burden alone. One reason for this is that we misunderstand what gender equality is. It is not the mission of any single entity. Rather, it is a lens through which we examine systems and how they affect us all. It is about our choices, our living conditions, and who gets left behind. It is exhausting when practitioners must set expectations, conduct endless training, and advocate for women, girls, and marginalized groups. Gender advisors and other advocates may grow weary when they must provide both solutions and the energy for change. Should it be that way?
Let’s use the decision to hire a gender advisor as an example. Where does this decision come from? In my experience, it is made based on requirements from donors or leaders who believe that gender equality requires a dedicated person and adequate resources. In some other cases, this decision is made because we don’t want the responsibility, so we leave it to someone else. “I am the one they hired to do gender work,” says the practitioner. “They do the gender work now,” says the program manager. Now, the gender focal point becomes the name on the deliverable that lets everyone else relax. Let’s pause here.
When gender inequality became the responsibility of the gender focal point, we stopped seeing the bigger picture because the problem now had an owner. Having one owner makes things easy for everyone else because, once someone is named, no one else feels they have to take responsibility. However, ease is not the same as progress. One pair of hands cannot hold what a whole system created. So, instead of one owner, why not many hands, each holding a clear, named piece?
Where the promise starts to fade
Reflections on gender equality and responsibility are needed, as well as a consideration of what has been done in the past. Great commitments have been made at the top, in the donors’ pledges and the national strategy. However, the further down the institutional hierarchy you go, the more questionable the change becomes. In many gender analyses I have led or conducted in different countries, a key finding across them is that policies exist, but implementation is weak. I have seen this pattern in different regions of Africa and the Caribbean, particularly in Haiti. So, what is the real problem? Implementation issues. How can a mandate be carried out by one person or a small department with few resources? For example, in one country, there is a gender focal point who said, “I am here because they just nominated me, but that’s it.” There are no resources to move from one place to another. It can’t be a one-person job; it needs to be a proper system.
While building the system, we must consider many factors. At the institutional level, researchers found that, although managers were “committed to gender equality,” they lacked a “deeper understanding” of how to implement policies, resulting in an “unwillingness or inability” to do so. This is a significant finding because it shows that the gap is not always due to resistance. Sometimes, those in charge believe in the work. They want gender equality. They simply do not know how to turn that belief into a budget line item, work plan, or different decision on Tuesday. Commitment without capability evaporates on its own. The will is there, but the way is missing. The focal point is left to supply both.
There are tools to support the team, such as the gender marker, results framework, and mainstreaming checklist. All these tools were designed to ensure that responsibility would not slip away unnoticed. Yet, in practice, they often become the place where responsibility slips away, reverting to the initial phase where gender integration is not prioritized. While reports may contain paragraphs stating that gender was considered, these targets and assessments can create a disconnect between what an organization says and does. The concept of gender becomes “emptied and narrowed down” as it passes through the administrative machine. The instrument meant to prevent evaporation becomes part of it. Ultimately, we end up measuring whether the form was filled out rather than whether anything changed.
Scholars call this phenomenon “policy evaporation,” which occurs when commitments are lost, reinterpreted, or diluted as they move through the bureaucracy. This phenomenon has been studied in water ministries, energy departments, agricultural programs, and donor portfolios in country after country. The term “policy evaporation” comes from Zambian feminist Sara Longwe, who, in 1997, described the development agency as a “patriarchal cooking pot.” A gender policy is placed in the pot, stirred, and then disappears. The policy still officially exists, but the promised change does not.
Yes..shared responsibility must be named
Achieving gender equality requires dedicated practitioners like us to start conversations and provide support where needed. However, we are all accountable because inequality affects us all in one way or another. Gender advisors, practitioners, and anyone committed to gender equality cannot do it alone, nor should they have to. This is where the controversy lies, and I feel it, too, because the moment we say it belongs to all of us, it can slowly start to belong to no one.
When equality belongs to everyone in a general way, it mostly becomes a line item in reports with no budget, no key personnel, and no accountability. At the same time, instead of making false promises to ourselves that gender equality belongs to a small group, we should acknowledge our level of responsibility. Each level must name the issues it owns, the solutions it will implement, and how it will measure change.
Together, we can all carry the commitment to gender equality. It requires advocates to raise awareness, leaders to set the direction and protect the budget, managers to translate intentions into daily decisions, and advisors and focal points to provide expertise. It also requires donors to provide proper funding and communities to hold everyone accountable. Each role plays a part, and no one role is expected to carry the entire burden. This is how we transition from a single owner to an ecosystem where responsibility is shared, acknowledged, and funded, so gender equality is no longer one person’s burden, but rather the responsibility of us all.
This is why I asked earlier, “Instead of an owner, why not stakeholders?” One owner may neglect the room. Stakeholders cannot because each one has claimed and agreed to complete a task. A real system makes responsibility visible, provides the necessary resources, and holds people accountable so that responsibility cannot be displaced onto one tired person holding the form. Clear mandates. Real budgets. Leadership that shares the load instead of delegating it downward. The focal point becomes one of many, which is the only way any of this gets done.
I often think about that moment at passport control. There’s always something that only I can do, a part that only I can carry, and I have to be the one standing there for it. But when I look further, I see the whole ecosystem behind that moment, all the people who made it possible for me to move from the line to my nap. I was never carrying it alone. None of us are.
So, look at me. I will look at you. This time don’t let it be like a room where nothing is decided. Let this be the moment we each pick up a piece and commit to gender equality.
No one is responsible. At the end of the day, we all are.
Further reading
Longwe, Sara Hlupekile (1997). “The Evaporation of Gender Policies in the Patriarchal Cooking Pot.” Development in Practice 7(2): 148–156. The essay that named “evaporation.” Short, sharp, and still the clearest description of how gender policy disappears inside an agency. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614529754611 (open access: https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/the-evaporation-of-gender-policies-in-the-patriarchal-cooking-pot-130258/)
Standing, Hilary (2004). “Gender, Myth and Fable: The Perils of Mainstreaming in Sector Bureaucracies.” IDS Bulletin35(4): 82–88. Where the line about commitments getting lost or reinterpreted as they move through the bureaucracy comes from. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2004.tb00159.x (open access: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/articles/journal_contribution/Gender_Myth_and_Fable_The_Perils_of_Mainstreaming_in_Sector_Bureaucracies/26464393)
van Eerdewijk, Anouka and Tine Davids (2014). “The Micropolitics of Evaporation: Gender Mainstreaming Instruments in Practice.” Journal of International Development 26(3): 345–355. The argument that the tools meant to prevent evaporation, the markers and assessments, can become where gender gets emptied and narrowed down. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.2951
Colley, Linda, Sue Williamson and Meraiah Foley (2020). “Understanding, ownership, or resistance: Explaining persistent gender inequality in public services.” Gender, Work and Organization 27(6). The finding that managers can be committed and still unable to operationalize the policy. Commitment without capability. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12553