Gender and Development

Gender equality is considered a critical element in achieving Decent Work for All Women and Men, in order to effect
social and institutional change that leads to sustainable development with equity and growth. Gender equality refers to
equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities that all persons should enjoy, regardless of whether one is born male or
female.

In the context of the world of work, equality between women and men includes the following elements:

1. Equality of opportunity and treatment in employment

2. Equal remuneration for work of equal value
3. Equal access to safe and healthy working environments and to social security
4. Equality in association and collective bargaining
5. Equality in obtaining meaningful career development
6. A balance between work and home life that is fair to both women and men
7. Equal participation in decision-making at all levels

Given that women are usually in a disadvantaged position in the workplace compared to men, promotion of gender
equality implies explicit attention to women’s needs and perspectives. At the same time, there are also significant negative
effects of unequal power relations and expectations on men and boys due to stereotyping about what it means to be a
male. Instead, both women and men, and boys and girls, should be free to develop their abilities and make choices –
without limitations set by rigid gender roles and prejudices – based on personal interests and capacities.

Gender is not the same as sex. Sex refers to the biological characteristics of men and women. In contrast, gender refers
to socially defined roles and behaviors for men and women. When we expect men and women to act in a certain way, just
because they are male and female, then we follow gender norms. Different cultures can have different gender norms or
different ways they expect men and women to behave. For example, some cultures expect women to stay at home and do
household chores, while men should go out to work. These norms are also called gender roles, which are specific roles
men and women are expected to perform within society or even within the family.
Gender stereotypes refer to clichés which a man or woman is supposed to do or be like:

Women are nurses, not doctors

Men are doctors, not nurses
Women are supposed to cook and do house work
Men are supposed to have a job
Women are caring and friendly
Men are though and messy
Women are followers
Men are leaders
Women should look pretty
Men should be good in sports
Gender roles are not natural to men or women, rather, they are learned and imposed by social values! But everything that
a man can do, a woman can do too, and vice versa!
People can also identify with different genders. Some people might be biologically born a man (=sex, biological), but feel
more like a woman (=gender). People from all religions, countries, communities, families can identify themselves in a lot
of different ways:
 Cisgender: People who identify themselves as the sex they were born with
 Transgender: People who identify themselves with a gender other than the sex they were born with
 Transsexual: People identify themselves with a gender other than the sex they were born with and have undergone
a sex change (transsexual should not be mistaken with transvestite, a person who sometimes wears clothes
traditionally worn by and associated with the other sex).
Gender equality is a basic human right and described as; “all human beings are born equal”. It means that everyone,
whether born as male, female or intersex, should be able to develop their full potential and live in freedom and dignity.
Examples of gender equality are;
 Equal access to education
 Equal access to mobility
 Equal job opportunities and salaries
 Freedom of marrying who you want
 Equal divorce rights
 GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT (GAD) PROGRAM
Structuring development projects and programs based on analysis of gender relationships

I. INTRODUCTION

Gender and Development (GAD) is concerned with women and her specific roles, responsibilities and expectations in
the society. It also analyzes the nature of women's contribution within the context of work done both inside and outside
the household and reflects the public/private dichotomy that undervalues the work done by women in the home.
GAD focuses on the principle that development is for all. Everyone in society, female or male, has the right to equal
opportunities to achieve a full and satisfying life.
Gender refers to the specific set of characteristics that identifies the social behavior of women and men and the
relationship between them. Gender alludes not simply to women or men but the relationship between them and the way it
is socially constructed. Since gender biases exist and these biases prevent people from attaining their full potentials,
development is impeded.
 Not a war of the sexes
 Not anti-Male
 Both women and men are victims although women more than men.
 Both have a stake in the struggle for gender equality
II. BACKGROUND / LAWS IN GOVERNMENT
To ensure that explicit, implicit, actual and potential gender biases are removed, the government has embarked on gender
and development (GAD) as one of its priority program. It is a development perspective that recognizes the unequal status
and situation of women and men in society, and as an approach, GAD seeks to equalize the status and condition of and
relations between them.
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 633, dated January 7, 1975, established the National Commission on the Role of Filipino
Women (NCRFW) now called the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW). The said PD serves as an advisory body
to the President and his Cabinet on policies and programs for the advancement of women. It is mandated  "to review,
evaluate and recommend measures, including priorities to ensure the full integration of women for economic, social and
cultural development at national, regional and international levels, and to ensure further equality between women and
men."
Executive Order (EO) 273, issued on September 9, 1995 and signed by President Fidel V. Ramos, adopted the  Philippine
Plan for Gender-Responsive Development (PPGD) 1995-2025. The PPGD 1995-2015 is a 30-year perspective plan that
outlines the policies, strategies, programs and projects that the government must adopt to enable women to participate in
and benefit from national development, while EO 273 directs all government agencies, departments, bureaus, offices and
instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations, at the national level, sub-national and local
levels to:
 1.1 To take appropriate steps to ensure the full implementation of the policies/strategies and
programs/projects outlined in the Plan;
 1.2 To institutionalize Gender and Development (GAD) efforts in government by incorporating GAD
concerns, as spelled out in the Plan; in their planning, programming and budgeting processes, but specifically to:
1.2.1 Include/incorporate GAD concerns in the:
formulation, assessment and updating of their annual agency plans;
formulation, assessment and updating of their inputs to the medium/long-term,
development plans; and
preparation of their inputs to sectoral performance assessment reports, public investment
plans and other similar documents.
1.2.2 Incorporate and reflect GAD concerns in their:
agency performance commitments contracts indicating key results areas for GAD as well
as in their annual performance report to the President; and
annual agency budget proposals and work and financial plans.
General Appropriations ACT (GAA) On Programs/Projects Related to Gender and Development (GAD)
"All concerned government entities shall submit their GAD plan to the National Commission on Women for review. They
shall likewise submit annual reports to Congress, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), NCW, indicating
the accomplishments and amounts utilized to implement programs/projects/activities addressing gender issues and
women empowerment. The evaluation of agencies utilization of the GAD budget shall be performance-base"
 Section 27:
Programs/Projects Related to Gender and Development (GAD)." In consultation with the National Commission on
Women, all departments including their attached agencies ,offices, bureaus, agencies, state universities and
colleges, government-owned and controlled corporations and other instrumentalities, shall formulate a GAD Plan,
designed to empower women and address gender issues, in accordance with R.A. 7192 and the Philippine Plan for Gender
Responsive Development (PPGD), 1995-2025.
DEDUCTIVE, INDUCTIVE, AND ABDUCTIVE REASONING
Reasoning is the process of using existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, or construct
explanations. Three methods of reasoning are the deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches.
Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed
Deductive reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and proceeds from there to a
guaranteed specific conclusion. Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific
application: In deductive reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be
true. For example, math is deductive:
If x = 4
And if y = 1
Then 2x + y = 9
In this example, it is a logical necessity that 2x + y equals 9; 2x + y must equal 9. As a matter of fact,
formal, symbolic logic uses a language that looks rather like the math equality above, complete with its
own operators and syntax. But a deductive syllogism (think of it as a plain-English version of a math
equality) can be expressed in ordinary language:
If entropy (disorder) in a system will increase unless energy is expended,
And if my living room is a system,
Then disorder will increase in my living room unless I clean it.
In the syllogism above, the first two statements, the propositions or premises, lead logically to the third
statement, the conclusion. Here is another example:
A medical technology ought to be funded if it has been used successfully to treat patients.
Adult stem cells are being used to treat patients successfully in more than sixty-five new therapies.
Adult stem cell research and technology should be funded.
A conclusion is sound (true) or unsound (false), depending on the truth of the original premises (for
any premise may be true or false). At the same time, independent of the truth or falsity of the
premises, the deductive inference itself (the process of "connecting the dots" from premise to
conclusion) is either valid or invalid. The inferential process can be valid even if the premise is false:
There is no such thing as drought in the West.
California is in the West.
California need never make plans to deal with a drought.
In the example above, though the inferential process itself is valid, the conclusion is false because the
premise, There is no such thing as drought in the West, is false. A syllogism yields a false conclusion if
either of its propositions is false. A syllogism like this is particularly insidious because it looks so very
logical–it is, in fact, logical. But whether in error or malice, if either of the propositions above is wrong,
then a policy decision based upon it ( California need never make plans to deal with a drought )
probably would fail to serve the public interest.
Assuming the propositions are sound, the rather stern logic of deductive reasoning can give you
absolutely certain conclusions. However, deductive reasoning cannot really increase human knowledge
(it is nonampliative) because the conclusions yielded by deductive reasoning are tautologies-statements
that are contained within the premises and virtually self-evident. Therefore, while with deductive
reasoning we can make observations and expand implications, we cannot make predictions about
future or otherwise non-observed phenomena.
Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a
generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence. You could say that
inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the
inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is
seen.
Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive
evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way to know that all the possible
evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might
invalidate my hypothesis. Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific
research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of
inductively reached, probable conclusions:
What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the
blood vessels surrounding wounds. The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal
source of cells for clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells for
therapies against cancer tumors [...].1
Because inductive conclusions are not logical necessities, inductive arguments are not simply true.
Rather, they are cogent: that is, the evidence seems complete, relevant, and generally convincing, and
the conclusion is therefore probably true. Nor are inductive arguments simply false; rather, they
are not cogent.
It is an important difference from deductive reasoning that, while inductive reasoning cannot yield an
absolutely certain conclusion, it can actually increase human knowledge (it is ampliative). It can make
predictions about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena.
For example, Albert Einstein observed the movement of a pocket compass when he was five years old
and became fascinated with the idea that something invisible in the space around the compass needle
was causing it to move. This observation, combined with additional observations (of moving trains, for
example) and the results of logical and mathematical tools (deduction), resulted in a rule that fit his
observations and could predict events that were as yet unobserved.

Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot

Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest
possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best
with the information at hand, which often is incomplete.
A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this set of symptoms, what is the
diagnosis that would best explain most of them? Likewise, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal
case, they must consider whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all
the points of evidence. While there may be no certainty about their verdict, since there may exist
additional evidence that was not admitted in the case, they make their best guess based on what they
know.
While cogent inductive reasoning requires that the evidence that might shed light on the subject be
fairly complete, whether positive or negative, abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of
completeness, either in the evidence, or in the explanation, or both. A patient may be unconscious or
fail to report every symptom, for example, resulting in incomplete evidence, or a doctor may arrive at a
diagnosis that fails to explain several of the symptoms. Still, he must reach the best diagnosis he can.
The abductive process can be creative, intuitive, even revolutionary.2 Einstein's work, for example, was
not just inductive and deductive, but involved a creative leap of imagination and visualization that
scarcely seemed warranted by the mere observation of moving trains and falling elevators. In fact, so
much of Einstein's work was done as a "thought experiment" (for he never experimentally dropped
elevators), that some of his peers discredited it as too fanciful. Nevertheless, he appears to have been
right-until now his remarkable conclusions about space-time continue to be verified experientially.
 Premise
A premise is a proposition one offers in support of a conclusion. That is, one offers a premise as
evidence for the truth of the conclusion, as justification for or a reason to believe the conclusion."

May offers this example of a major and minor premise, as well as a conclusion, that echoes the
example from Merriam-Webster:

1. All humans are mortal. [major premise]

2. G.W. Bush is a human. [minor premise]
3. Therefore, G.W. Bush is mortal. [conclusion]

May notes that the validity of an argument in philosophy (and in general) depends on the accuracy
and truth of the premise or premises. For example, May gives this example of a bad (or inaccurate)
premise:

1. All women are Republican. [major premise: false]

2. Hilary Clinton is a woman. [minor premise: true]
3. Therefore, Hilary Clinton is a Republican. [conclusion: false]

The Core Fallacies

Irving Copi’s 1961 Introduction to Logic gives a brief explanation of eighteen informal fallacies.
Although there is some variation in competing textbooks, Copi’s selection captured what for many was the
traditional central, core fallacies.[1] In the main, these fallacies spring from two fountainheads:
Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations and John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690).
By way of introduction, a brief review of the core fallacies, especially as they appear in introductory level
textbooks, will be given. Only very general definitions and illustrations of the fallacies can be given. This
proviso is necessary first, because, the definitions (or identity conditions) of each of the fallacies is often a
matter of contention and so no complete or final definition can be given in an introductory survey;
secondly, some researchers wish that only plausible and realistic instances of each fallacy be used for
illustration. This also is not possible at this stage. The advantage of the stock examples of fallacies is that
they are designed to highlight what the mistake associated with each kind of fallacy is supposed to be.
Additional details about some of the fallacies are found in Sections 2 and 3. As an initial working definition
of the subject matter, we may take a fallacy to be an argument that seems to be better than it really is.
1. The fallacy of equivocation is an argument which exploits the ambiguity of a term or phrase which has
occurred at least twice in an argument, such that on the first occurrence it has one meaning and on the
second another meaning. A familiar example is:
The end of life is death.
Happiness is the end of life.
So, death is happiness.
‘The end of life’ first means ceasing to live, then it means purpose. That the same set of words is used twice
conceals the fact that the two distinct meanings undermine the continuity of the reasoning, resulting in
a non-sequitur.
2. The fallacy of amphiboly is, like the fallacy of equivocation, a fallacy of ambiguity; but here the
ambiguity is due to indeterminate syntactic structure. In the argument:
The police were told to stop drinking on campus after midnight.
So, now they are able to respond to emergencies much better than before
there are several interpretations that can be given to the premise because it is grammatically ambiguous. On
one reading it can be taken to mean that it is the police who have been drinking and are now to stop it; this
makes for a plausible argument. On another reading what is meant is that the police were told to stop others
(e.g., students) from drinking after midnight. If that is the sense in which the premise is intended, then the
argument can be said to be a fallacy because despite initial appearances, it affords no support for the
conclusion.
3 & 4. The fallacies of composition and division occur when the properties of parts and composites are
mistakenly thought to be transferable from one to the other. Consider the two sentences:

a. Every member of the investigative team was an excellent researcher.

b. It was an excellent investigative team.
Here it is ‘excellence’ that is the property in question. The fallacy of composition is the inference from (a)
to (b) but it need not hold if members of the team cannot work cooperatively with each other. The reverse
inference from (b) to (a)—the fallacy of division—may also fail if some essential members of the team
have a supportive or administrative role rather than a research role.
5. The fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii) can occur in a number of ways. One of them is
when the proposition one is trying to establish is unwittingly assumed. For example:
God has all the virtues.
One of the virtues is benevolence.
So, God is benevolent.
The analysis of this fallacy is that the general premise could not be known to be true unless the conclusion
is known to be true; so, in making the argument, the conclusion is assumed true from the beginning, or in
an older mode of expression, the arguer has committed the fallacy of begging the question. Whately (1875
III §13) gave this example: “to allow everyman an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the
whole, advantageous to the State; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the Community, that each
individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments.” This argument begs the
question because the premise and conclusion are the very same proposition, albeit expressed in different
words. Some versions of begging the question are more involved and are called circular reasoning. They
include more than one inference. Descartes illustrated this kind of fallacy with the example of our belief in
the Bible being justified because it is the word of God, and our belief in God’s existence being justified
because it is written in the Bible.[2] The two propositions lead back and forth to each other, in a circle, each
having only the other for support. Nowadays many people—even educated people—ignite the ire of
philosophers by using ‘begs the question’ to mean ‘raises the question’.
6. The fallacy known as complex question or many questions is usually explained as a fallacy associated
with questioning. For example, in a context where a Yes or No answer must be given, the question, “Are
you still a member of the Ku Klux Klan?” is a fallacy because either response implies that one has in the
past been a member of the Klan, a proposition that may not have been established as true. Some say that
this kind of mistake is not really a fallacy because to ask a question is not to make an argument.
7. There are a number of fallacies associated with causation, the most frequently discussed is post hoc ergo
propter hoc, (after this, therefore because of this). This fallacy ascribes a causal relationship between two
states or events on the basis of temporal succession. For example,
Unemployment decreased in the fourth quarter because the government eliminated the gasoline tax in the
second quarter.
The decrease in unemployment that took place after the elimination of the tax may have been due to other
causes; perhaps new industrial machinery or increased international demand for products. Other fallacies
involve confusing the cause and the effect, and overlooking the possibility that two events are not directly
related to each other but are both the effect of a third factor, a common cause. These fallacies are perhaps
better understood as faults of explanation than faults of arguments.
8. The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion, is indicative of misdirection in argumentation
rather than a weak inference. The claim that Calgary is the fastest growing city in Canada, for example, is
not defeated by a sound argument showing that it is not the biggest city in Canada. A variation of ignoratio
elenchi, known under the name of the straw man fallacy, occurs when an opponent’s point of view is
distorted in order to make it easier to refute. For example, in opposition to a proponent’s view that (a)
industrialization is the cause of global warming, an opponent might substitute the proposition that (b) all
ills that beset mankind are due to industrialization and then, having easily shown that (b) is false, leave the
impression that (a), too, is false. Two things went wrong: the proponent does not hold (b), and even if she
did, the falsity of (b) does not imply the falsity of (a).
There are a number of common fallacies that begin with the Latin prefix ‘ad’ (‘to’ or ‘toward’) and the
most common of these will be described next.
9. The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy
involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an
authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in
which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or
social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base
one’s view on the authority of just some of them. (See also 2.4 below.)
10. The fallacy ad populum is similar to the ad verecundiam, the difference being that the source appealed
to is popular opinion, or common knowledge, rather than a specified authority. So, for example:
These days everyone (except you) has a car and knows how to drive;
So, you too should have a car and know how to drive.
Often in arguments like this the premises aren’t true, but even if they are generally true they may provide
only scant support for their conclusions because that something is widely practised or believed is not
compelling evidence that it is true or that it should be done. There are few subjects on which the general
public can be said to hold authoritative opinions. Another version of the ad populum fallacy is known as
“playing to the gallery” in which a speaker seeks acceptance for his view by arousing relevant prejudices
and emotions in his audience in lieu of presenting it with good evidence.
11. The ad baculum fallacy is one of the most controversial because it is hard to see that it is a fallacy or
even that it involves bad reasoning. Ad baculum means “appeal to the stick” and is generally taken to
involve a threat of injury of harm to the person addressed. So, for example,
If you don’t join our demonstration against the expansion of the park, we will evict you from your
apartment;
So, you should join our demonstration against the expansion of the park.
Such threats do give us reasons to act and, unpleasant as the interlocutor may be, there seems to be no
fallacy here. In labour disputes, and perhaps in international relations, using threats such as going on strike,
or cutting off trade routes, are not normally considered fallacies, even though they do involve intimidation
and the threat of harm. However, if we change to doxastic considerations, then the argument that you
should believe that candidate XX is the one best suited for public office because if you do not believe this
you will be evicted from your apartment, certainly is a good instance of irrelevant evidence.

12. The fallacy ad misericordiam is a companion to the ad baculum fallacy: it occurs not when threats are
out of place but when appeals for sympathy or pity are mistakenly thought to be evidence. To what extent
our sympathy for others should influence our actions depends on many factors, including circumstances
and our ethical views. However, sympathy alone is generally not evidence for believing any proposition.
Hence,
You should believe that he is not guilty of embezzling those paintings; think of how much his family
suffered during the Depression.
Ad misericordiam arguments, like ad baculum arguments, have their natural home in practical reasoning; it
is when they are used in theoretical (doxastic) argumentation that the possibility of fallacy is more likely.
13. The ad hominem fallacy involves bringing negative aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to bear on
the view they are advancing. There are three commonly recognized versions of the fallacy. The abusive ad
hominem fallacy involves saying that someone’s view should not be accepted because they have some
unfavorable property.
Thompson’s proposal for the wetlands may safely be rejected because last year she was arrested for
hunting without a license.
The hunter Thompson, although she broke the law, may nevertheless have a very good plan for the
wetlands.
Another, more subtle version of the fallacy is the circumstantial ad hominem in which, given the
circumstances in which the arguer finds him or herself, it is alleged that their position is supported by self-
interest rather than by good evidence. Hence, the scientific studies produced by industrialists to show that
the levels of pollution at their factories are within the law may be undeservedly rejected because they are
thought to be self-serving. Yet it is possible that the studies are sound: just because what someone says is in
their self-interest, does not mean it should be rejected.
The third version of the ad hominem fallacy is the tu quoque. It involves not accepting a view or a
recommendation because the espouser him- or herself does not follow it. Thus, if our neighbor advises us to
exercise regularly and we reject her advice on the basis that she does not exercise regularly, we commit
the tu quoque fallacy: the value of advice is not wholly dependent on the integrity of the advisor.
We may finish our survey of the core fallacies by considering just two more.
14. The fallacy of faulty analogy occurs when analogies are used as arguments or explanations and the
similarities between the two things compared are too remote to support the conclusion.
If a child gets a new toy he or she will want to play with it;
So, if a nation gets new weapons, it will want to use them.
In this example (due to Churchill 1986, 349) there is a great difference between using (playing with) toys
and using (discharging) weapons. The former is done for amusement; the latter is done to inflict harm on
others. Playing with toys is a benign activity that requires little justification; using weapons against others
nations is something that is usually only done after extensive deliberation and as a last resort. Hence, there
is too much of a difference between using toys and using weapons to conclude that a nation, if it acquires
weapons, will want to use them as readily as children will want to play with their toys.
15. The fallacy of the slippery slope generally takes the form that from a given starting point one can by a
series of incremental inferences arrive at an undesirable conclusion, and because of this unwanted result,
the initial starting point should be rejected. The kinds of inferences involved in the step-by-step argument
can be causal, as in:
You have decided not to go to college;
If you don’t go to college, you won’t get a degree;
If you don’t get a degree, you won’t get a good job;
If you don’t get a good job, you won’t be able to enjoy life;
But you should be able to enjoy life;
So, you should go to college.
The weakness in this argument, the reason why it is a fallacy, lies in the second and third causal claims.
The series of small steps that lead from an acceptable starting point to an unacceptable conclusion may also
depend on vague terms rather than causal relations. Lack of clear boundaries is what enables the puzzling
slippery slope arguments known as “the beard” and “the heap.” In the former, a person with a full beard
eventually becomes beardless as hairs of the beard are removed one-by-one; but because the term ‘beard’ is
vague it is unclear at which intermediate point we are to say that the man is now beardless. Hence, at each
step in the argument until the final hair-plucking, we should continue to conclude that the man is bearded.
In the second case, because ‘heap’ is vague, it is unclear at what point piling scattered stones together
makes them a heap of stones: if it is not a heap to begin with, adding one more stone will not make it a
heap, etc. In both these cases apparently good reasoning leads to a false conclusion.