Integritus Prime

I attended the Pacific Update at the Laucala Campus, University of the South Pacific this week. It was eye-opening, with dynamic speakers and interesting topics. I attended the two gender panels on Day 1, and learned a lot about intimate partner violence (IPV) in Samoa, gender financing in the Pacific, digital financial products available to women in the Pacific via UNCDF, the Pacific Girl program, Toksave (a wonderful gender research portal), and how Pacific Women Lead operates. I learned that “gender transformative practices’ is another way of saying “feminist work”, which is interesting. There was talk of the divide between academics and practitioners, and the need to build stronger bridges so language and ideas can be more easily shared, and collaboration can be smoother.

As it turned out, in each panel, I asked a question that came to mind while listening to the panelist’s presentations. Both my questions revealed gaps that are interesting to me. Let me explain:

1. LGBTQIA+ focus and funding is missing: When the first panel ended, I asked for the mic and asked this question: “Is there research being done to track financing, IPV, and provision of financial products during times of disaster to people in the LGBTQIA+ communities in the Pacific? Could you describe any work you are doing or know of?” The answer from all panelists was that they are not focused on this. They are looking at gender and people with disabilities, or families (in the case of IPV in Samoa). From the responses of panelists, it didn’t sound like they were going to add this area to their work. It is a glaring gap, and this makes me wonder why…why aren’t we focusing on this very vulnerable community? There are amazing NGOs in Fiji that work with these communities, including Women’s Fund Fiji and DIVA. So, why isn’t this community being included in the Pacific regional discussions on gender financing, disaster insurance, and other gender-sensitive areas of study and implementation?
2. Trauma is not explicitly or comprehensively addressed: The second panel was really interesting. I asked something like: “Adolescent girls encounter trauma in their families, for example when they witness or experience abuse, and when they are bullied at school. Is there a trauma component in all the work you’ve been discussing” I wanted to know if there was a focus on trauma as part of the 170 million-dollar investment on gender that is being implemented through SPC and other NGOs. The answers were that while trauma isn’t talked about, it is the fundamental reason the gender movement exists. While there are some initiatives on cyber bullying within the Pacific Girl program, there isn’t any major focus on trauma. Neither is there a specific trauma focus in the Toksave portal, which is a cutting edge database of gender research. I am curious about why trauma is not explicitly addressed – it is indeed a huge topic that requires a lot of capacity to handle well. It would be interesting to see what a focus on trauma would look like, in the context of patriarchy and colonialism – historical and current, and beyond that too.

I find it interesting that both these gaps exist. They both seem like large gaps to me. As a practitioner who integrates across several fields, including gender, climate change, leadership, and design, I am always thinking about inclusion and root causes. Including LGBTQIA+ communities, in my mind, is an essential step to gain a more complete picture of what is happening through a gender lens, and likewise, addressing trauma at a root level is critical to healing patriarchal and colonial wounds, and addressing domestic, gender-based, and intimate partner violence. I hope to see more attention to these two gaps in the future for the Pacific, which is known for its high rates of homophobia and violence against women and girls.