Peggy Antrobus is a founding member and the former general co-ordinator of Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN). She was Director of the Women's Bureau in the Office of the Prime Minister in Jamaica (1975–77) and was appointed in 1984 to the post of Advisor on Women's Affairs to the Government of Jamaica (later renamed Director of the Women's Bureau). She has served as Tutor-Coordinator of the Women and Development Unit (WAND), University of West Indies at Cave Hill (1978–95) and has worked in multiple capacities within the Caribbean and internationally. She is a founding member of several organizations including the Caribbean Association of Feminist Action and Research (CAFRA), DAWN, of which she was General Co-ordinator 1990–96, and the International Gender and Trade Network (IGTN). She has served as consultant to a number of agencies and in 1998 was a co-sponsor with Center of Concern, Washington DC, for the Strategic Planning Seminar on Gender and Trade. She has served on numerous boards, advisory and steering committees, and has written and published extensively on issues pertinent to women and development, including The Global Women's Movement: Origins, Issues and Strategies (Zed Books, 2004).

  • RR: 
    Tell me a little about your early life and some of the important influences in your personal and political development.
  • PA: 
    I was born in Grenada and grew up in the Windward Islands, where my father worked for the British colonial office. In those days the Windward Islands (Grenada, St Vincent, St Lucia and Dominica) were ruled as a single administrative unit so my family moved between the islands. As an adult, I lived in Jamaica and, now, in Barbados. I think this is why I have a strong identity as a ‘West Indian’; an identification with the region rather than with a particular country.
    Because I grew up in a family of civil servants in the years leading up to adult suffrage, federation and independence (1940s to 1960s) I was strongly influenced by the sense of public service, a feeling that the individual could contribute to improving the lives of people. This is why I chose to read for a degree in economics when I won a scholarship that enabled me to go to university.
  • RR: 
    You are now recognized as one of the leading international feminist activist/scholars. At what point did you become part of an international women's movement? What events, processes, individuals would you associate with this?
  • PA: 
    In fact, my involvement in women's issues was accidental: I was about to register for a diploma in education — I thought that teaching was a more appropriate career than public finance for a mother of young children — when I was invited to apply for the post of Advisor on Women's Affairs to the government of Jamaica, which had just established the post in response to recommendations from feminists within the ruling party. Up to this point I had never been involved in women's organizations, never even heard the word ‘feminist’. I was nominated for the position because I was known to be a good administrator — someone who could turn ideas into actions — not because I knew anything about women's issues. I think this turned out to be an advantage, because I didn't start with any preconceived ideas and knew that I had to pay attention to the way in which Jamaican women saw their issues. An open mind was an advantage, also, a willingness to see myself, as a woman, implicated in what I was learning about the lives of women in Jamaica.
    I was influenced by three groups of women: the political women to whom I felt myself accountable (it was clear to me that it was these women who cared about the programme I was attempting to define, and not the bureaucracy to which I was appointed); working class Jamaican women whose lives I tried to understand because the programme of a government committed to ‘democratic socialism’ was supposed to give priority to the needs of these women; and the women I met as I participated in the regional and international meetings that were part of the process of the UN Decade for Women (1976–85). My sense is that an international women's movement emerged in the context of this Decade and I was very much part of that, because of my position in the Jamaican Women's bureau, and later, as I set up the WAND Unit at the School of Continuing Studies of the University of the West Indies.
    It is just about thirty years since I attended my first UN meeting which was the regional meeting in preparation for the first world conference on women in Mexico City. I recall very well-orchestrated efforts of the delegations from Venezuela, Cuba and Mexico, the host of the meeting, to place on the agenda the call for a new international economic order and my own alliance with the delegates of the US in opposing this. How far I have come from those days when I could not see the relevance of a global call for economic justice to women's agenda!
  • RR: 
    Your recent publication The Global Women's Movement (Antrobus, 2004) suggests that there is still a global women's movement. How do you understand and characterize this movement, how have divisions affected its work and how do you see this movement's future?
  • PA: 
    I understand a GWM as a feminist-led social movement that has women's rights and empowerment as its overarching goal; that links local movements across the globe; addresses global issues from the perspective of women; and attempts to find a global perspective on these issues. I make a distinction between women's organizations and women's movements. A movement is political in objective; it advances women's equality and rights. Some women's organizations are part of the movement but the movement is more than this. I would locate the emergence of a global movement as apposed to the international movement, the 1990s, when women began to meet at the global level and talked about issues that were global in scope, perspectives and analyses.
    I also include in the women's movement individual women who may not be members of any organization but are very clear about their stand on women's advancement or women's rights. So I consider these women as part of the women's movement whether they work within the bureaucracy, within the institutions/foundations or as activists, on the streets outside. And also our male supporters as well: our male allies are so few that they are very dear to us.
    I experience the global women's movement when I see the organizing that takes place, linking local movements to transnational networks, around issues on the global agenda of international institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations. I also recognize a GWM when local issues are taken up by other local movements around the world, generating global analysis and advocacy. The networking is one of solidarity and knowledge creation. It could lead to a global campaign, or feed into existing campaigns such as campaigns against gender-based violence, with local colleagues asking for specific acts of solidarity.
    It is important to note that the ‘global movement’ does not substitute for local and regional movements; it is, rather, a space from which women from local movements get support and which links actions around the globe. There are certainly divisions within this movement, but these are related to personality clashes, or to differences in emphases coming out of local struggles. I think these divisions can affect the work of a global movement at different points in time, but not over the long run. And I don't think that they negate the existence of a global movement, as I describe it in my book.
    I think the movement has a future precisely because it is so widespread. When local movements go into decline (as I think has been the case in the Caribbean, since its highpoint at the time of the Beijing Conference) the global movement continues; it can therefore help to re-energize local movements as new leadership emerges. I also think the movement has a future because the issues about which it is concerned continue. Issues of women's rights are always subject to reversal and backlash and a global movement is important to keep these issues on the agenda. The more we move forward, the greater the backlash. It is actually a sign that we are moving forward and my book hopes to provide the new generation of feminist activists with a narrative of this process.
  • RR: 
    One of the legacies of the women's movement of the 1960s to the 1980s has been the establishment of a number of regional and international organizations and institutional structures. You are associated with the emergence of one of the most significant transnational feminist networks — DAWN. What were the objectives of DAWN and to what extent have they been achieved?
  • PA: 
    The DAWN network has exceeded the expectations of its founders. Perhaps the founders did not have very ambitious expectations! In fact, when we produced our first analysis of the systemic linkages between economic, environmental, social and political crises, we never expected that it would lead to an ongoing programme of research, analysis and advocacy, and now training.
    The idea for DAWN arose at a meeting in Bangalore in 1984, when a group of feminists from the South presented a major indictment of the mainstream development model in time for the 1985 UN Third World Conference on Women in Nairobi, which marked the end of the UN Decade for Women. The platform that emerged from this meeting has become a significant voice from the Southern women's movement. The subsequent book Development, Crisis and Alternative Visions: Third World Women's Perspectives (Sen and Grown, 1987) drew together local and regional experiences of women in the global South into a new analytical framework that changed the terms of debate on women's issues and development by focusing on the ways that neoliberal macroeconomic policies, neocolonialism and militarism intersect and affect the lives and livelihoods of women in the developing world.
    By 1995, DAWN had created a niche in the global arena which gave legitimacy and voice to feminist perspectives from the South, and a more inclusive, and holistic basis for interventions in international policy debates. With its platform document for the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and its work for the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in 1994, and the World Social Summit in March 1995, DAWN has made a substantial contribution to a better understanding of the links between economic and gender justice and democracy, and has made strong recommendations on social development. At the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, DAWN made another significant intervention arguing that a three-tiered strategy for change — reform of the state, challenging the markets and strengthening civil society — was necessary to secure policies that favour women at the national and international levels.
    The DAWN analysis is always holistic (linking economic, social, political and cultural factors), feminist, political and seeking ‘alternative’ paths toward solutions. Following the 1995 conference in Beijing, and especially in the context of the five-year reviews of the conferences of the first half of the 1990s, the linkages between, as distinct from within the themes, became increasingly clear. For example, in its political analysis of the struggle to preserve the gains in sexual and reproductive rights and health in the context of the conservative backlash and hardening of North–South positions in relation to such issues as debt and trade, DAWN noted that Southern governments had been inclined to trade off gender justice (women's rights) for economic justice (see Sen and Correa, 2000).
    In 1999, DAWN strengthened its involvement in macroeconomic discourse with the release of its first WTO discussion paper ‘Free Trade or Fair Trade’ at the Ministerial Conference of the WTO (Williams, 2000). Soon after, DAWN Caribbean was instrumental in the launching of the International Gender and Trade Network, which has since provided the global women's movement with rigorous research and monitoring of the WTO and other trade bodies.
    Over the past twenty years the network's analysis has become highly respected by women's organizations and networks, widely used in universities and colleges and in development agencies worldwide. It has served to change our understanding of development issues, specifically, the linkages between different arenas — the political economy of globalizations and trade, sexual and reproductive rights and health, political restructuring and social transformation and sustainable livelihoods. DAWN now has active regional networks in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Pacific; five years ago, it embarked on biennial training institutes in feminist advocacy for young feminists from the South.
  • RR: 
    You have also played a major role in establishing institutions in the Caribbean and are associated with a number of regional and national initiatives such as CAFRA, UWI Centre for Gender and Development Studies (CGDS), the Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC) and many others. What have these been able to achieve and have they furthered the aims of the movement or not?
  • PA: 
    Overall, I think CGDS has exceeded my expectations. When we first conceptualized introducing ‘women and development studies’ into UWI and the University of Guyana, I was thinking of the inclusion of a focus on women's issues into various courses on the campuses of UWI. Thanks to the support of the Dutch government (and linkage with the Women and Development Programme of the Institute of Social Studies) and the Ford Foundation, the programme developed very rapidly through the initial campus study groups to the curriculum development seminars and the institutionalization of special courses on all the campuses.
    On the other hand, my hope that this would strengthen the link between UWI and the women's organizations/movement in the region has not been realized. I was particularly disappointed that the link between the teaching and research on campuses and the work of WAND in the field was never made in the way I had envisaged. I had hoped that researchers from the campuses would conduct research in some of the sites of WAND's field work, and that this would also feed into the teaching curriculum. Perhaps this was unrealistic given the different priorities and methodologies of the academy and the field. Nevertheless, CGDS has undoubtedly begun to make an important contribution to the work of the movement through knowledge-creation, specifically publications — although the links with women's activism still needs strengthening.
  • RR: 
    What obstacles or limitations may have affected their success? What new strategies/approaches would you suggest for these institutions at this time, in the current world context?
  • PA: 
    I think the recent re-energizing of DAWN Caribbean in the past five years provides another opportunity for links between university-based academics and activists that would strengthen the work of both groups. DAWN Caribbean's themes (which are linked to those of DAWN Global) are very relevant to the major policy issues facing the region today. We know that we still have a long way to go to generate the political will for real achievements in gender equality and the transformation of gender relations. I think that a conscious effort needs to be made to strengthen the links between academics and activists. I think the St. Augustine Campus of UWI has gone much further in this direction, thanks to your efforts, Rhoda!
    We're trying to build on the revitalization of DAWN Caribbean by focusing on the global themes that are of special interest to us, such as sexual and reproductive health and rights, with special reference to HIV/AIDS, sexuality education and, where appropriate, abortion law reform. We plan to build closer links with the International Gender and Trade Network (IGTN) and some of the work on Water and Sanitation in Jamaica, and poverty-focused projects such as the Grenada Community Development Association and Windward Islands Farmers Association. At our recent meeting of the Steering Committee in Jamaica, which took place soon after Portia Simpson's selection as Prime Minister, we decided to try to work with her, giving her critical support. We aim to be more active on all these issues.
    In my own experience, engagements with feminist activists from other countries have helped build my commitment to the movement, knowledge of what's happening in the world and the implications for women, and skills in advocacy and organizing. However, I've often witnessed reluctance on the part of Caribbean women to get involved in this kind of outreach. Maybe it will happen now that our young feminists have the chance of participating in the global DAWN Training Institutes every two years.
  • RR: 
    In your own work you have been able to bridge the relationship between Feminism and Gender and Development. How has this relationship developed over the years? What are the theoretical and strategic differences in working within a movement and within a policy institution?
  • PA: 
    Although I started as a ‘development specialist’/bureaucrat, feminism was my entry point into working with/for women. In 1975 no-one spoke of ‘gender’. So my use of the concept of gender in my work came after my feminist politics was well established.
    Like other feminists who saw gender as a way of dealing with the changes that men needed to make, I welcomed gender analysis, and continue to use it. However, I see how it has served to depoliticize women's programmes and to divert attention, and resources, from women towards men, and I understand the concerns of feminists who always saw the dangers.
    For me gender is a useful theoretical and strategic tool for working both within the movement and in the bureaucracy. I think it's essential to use it when working with bureaucracies and development planners/policy makers, who don't really care about women's lives. It allows me to use the ‘expediency’ arguments: if you want to achieve certain development goals — increase production, improve childhood health, nutrition and education, stem the spread of HIV/AIDS, achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) — a gender analysis is useful. By the way, while I see the MDGs as strategic entry points to expose contradictions (as I did at the GA Informal Interactive Hearings in June 2005, representing our networks), we must be aware that they can also be the ‘most distracting gimmicks’ (as I've called them), extracted selectively from the global conferences of the 1990s, and devoid of any reference to inequality and human rights. The public–private partnerships in projects are a strategy in which the private partner calls the shots. How far the UN has departed from its early calls for redistribution and justice of the 1970s!
  • RR: 
    In similar vein, the women's movement has worked with other social justice groups over the years. What has the relationship been with these other movements and how can it be improved?
  • PA: 
    The relationship between the women's movement and other movements is important, but usually fraught with difficulties for feminists. My most recent experience has been with the G-CAP (Global Campaign against Poverty) where representatives of the Feminist Task Force (FTF) have had to work hard to ensure that concerns about violence and other women's rights are included along with advocacy on economic issues. The struggle goes on; just when you think you've made some headway, you find you're fighting the same battles over again. As soon as you turn your back, your male colleagues (with the full compliance of non-feminist women) will drop your language and your issues.
    I have no idea how to improve the situation other than continuing to win real allies (as distinct from those who go along with you out of political correctness, or to gain some resources and kudos for themselves). However, I think a two-pronged approach — such as the one followed in the G-CAP — of setting up your own ‘task force’ (which is accountable to feminist/women's movements and allows space for strategizing) while working with the mainstream is helpful. I recall the early debate about whether or not to work with G-CAP: I was a strong advocate for setting up the FTF. I watch the difficulties our representatives have with the campaign, but I still think it is important to be part of this campaign. It's a reflection of the real world!
  • RR: 
    Over the past decade, Gender Mainstreaming has been a key strategy for work at policy level in institutions and even national governments. How successful has this been in your opinion? Can gender ever really be ‘mainstreamed’ or is this an oxymoron?
  • PA: 
    I don't have much evidence of successful experiences of mainstreaming; and yet I think it's a legitimate strategy — but not a substitute for a programme dedicated to guaranteeing women's rights. This is a parallel discussion to what I have said about the distinction between working within the bureaucracy and within the movement. I don't think that ‘gender’ (per se) can be mainstreamed (I think the problem is with the language!). However, I believe that it is possible (and necessary for our political goals) to have policies and programmes that are sensitive to women's concerns, and that attempt to challenge and change the asymmetry of gender relations. A feminist gender analysis is an essential tool for doing this. The problem is that a lot of bureaucrats treat gender analysis as a technical tool, separated from the politics of gender.
  • RR: 
    What is your view about the state of feminism in the Caribbean region?
  • PA: 
    I'm an eternal optimist. For me, lying down and playing dead is not an option. Over the years I've swung between great hope and minor despair, but in the main I have hope — enduring hope — always looking for the half-full glass, taking the long view. Right now I'm more hopeful, partly because of the work of groups like ASPIRE Advocates for Safe Parenthood: Improving Reproductive Equity, a reproductive health organization in Trinidad and Tobago) and CAFRA (in St Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago), but especially because of DAWN Caribbean. There is new energy injected by young women and the continuing leadership of older feminists which will revitalize the movement in the region along with leadership training for young feminists.
  • RR: 
    You expressed some disappointment with academic feminism in the Caribbean region in your Lucille Mathurin Mair Lecture (Antrobus, 2000). Some argue that teaching women/gender studies is a feminist act in itself and there is no need for additional activism. What do you think? How can this distance be bridged?
  • PA: 
    I don't agree that ‘teaching women/gender studies is a feminist act in itself’! It depends on whether it's taught by a feminist who identifies with the movement, and sees teaching (and research) as serving a larger purpose — not just politically but theoretically and epistemologically. The distance can only be bridged by feminists, like yourself, in the academy. So the question becomes: how do you nurture feminism in the academy?
  • RR: 
    For some decades, the feminist movement, DAWN, and you in particular have sought to link gender justice to social justice through an intellectual critique of economic neoliberalism. How would you evaluate this process? Have these efforts have been able to influence international economic policy?
  • PA: 
    I think that neoliberal globalization, and the militarism, racism and fundamentalism that accompanies this is devastating for women, especially in some countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. It has served to set back our agendas, and challenges women's movements to be clearer about the links between the abuse of women's rights and the economic, social, cultural and political fallout from this relentless spread of the most rapacious forms of capitalism.
    The process of critiquing this model evolved out of ongoing work on DAWN's four themes and the objective to create a Southern-based consensus on the particular theme that reflected the diversity of experience throughout the South, and the linkages between the theme and the larger macro-economic policy framework. My own analysis of the links between economic and religious fundamentalism1 also highlights the linkages between economic and gender justice.
    In today's context — the Bush administration's leadership of the forces of religious and economic fundamentalisms against the interests of women and the poor — recognition of the linkages of gender justice, economic justice and democracy is even more important. I think DAWN's work has undoubtedly influenced feminist leadership and advocacy and perhaps through that, the official development agenda, although this is less certain. However, one of the things we have learned over the past five years or more is that international policy is not easily influenced: it is so often held hostage to geo-political considerations that have little to do with people's lives and livelihoods (the current debate about UN Reform is an excellent example of this game).
    We need to go beyond affirmative action and equality itself to transformation. I think we have to go beyond the UN's defined twelve critical areas of concern (from the Beijing Platform for Action) and the eight MDGs, to seek a more fundamental change in the ongoing relationships of power. An affirmative action approach focused on the number of women in parliament, in schools, heading corporations and so on, is only the first and necessary step toward the transformation of the relations of power that perpetuate the oppression/subordination of women and block the policies that will address issues relevant to women's gender interests for security, in the widest sense of the word. We need a new discourse and within this a new definition of human security.
    The UN Report on Human Security (United Nations, 2003) used a conception of human security that linked ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’. It recognized that gender justice is at the heart of freedom from want and central to the achievement of freedom from fear. However, it failed to draw on the excellent and comprehensive feminist literature on both topics. As a result, there was a disconnection between the excellent examples drawn from women's experiences and its failure to recognize the need for a special focus on that experience. It gave insufficient attention to the threats to women's lives and livelihoods and failed to reflect on the significant contradictions between the rhetoric of the patriarchal state and the actual failure of most states to protect the rights that guarantee the needs of women worldwide. It stopped short of making the promised link to gender justice, or acknowledging that those who seek militaristic approaches as the key to national and human security are often those whose policies tend to be antagonistic to women's development and women's human rights, and that it is important to recognize women's agency as the key to securing human security for everyone.
    But the fact that a UN commission, even one led by people who are sympathetic to women's rights, cannot speak the truth about human security is indicative of the fundamental problem of an institution that mirrors the imbalance of power in the international community. When the five permanent members of the Security Council are among the countries that are the chief manufacturers of weapons and the apparatus of war, we have to wonder whether the UN's highest councils can ever help to bring about peace.
  • RR: 
    What would you advocate in this situation?
  • PA: 
    The global women's movement must speak truth to power. I suggest three linked approaches. First I think we have to question the way the UN approaches the issue of human and national security. Second, we have to mobilize and amplify feminist voices against violence and war. And third, we have to integrate this voice into post-conflict situations and peace movements.
    One of the greatest omissions in all of the UN reports is the failure to see the links between militarism and patriarchal definitions of masculinity, hegemonic masculinity or to the sexualized and racialized imagery around domination, terrorism and war. For this we have to look outside the UN, to work of feminist scholars and writers. They have drawn attention to the ways in which aggression is embedded in the psyches of men through learnt values embedded in our political, social and religious cultures which celebrate a destructive brand of masculinity. The acceptance of this widespread definition of manhood serves the purpose of those who wish to mobilize public opinion and vast resources to unleash so much destruction. Those who followed the debate in the Security Council on the rush to war in Iraq may remember the way in which Colin Powell used the words ‘afraid’ and ‘impotent’ to threaten the men regarding their reluctance to support the US's determination to go to war. Most people recognize that poverty and injustice fuel the deep resentment that makes it possible for extremists to recruit the disenfranchized for their deadly projects but few recognize the sexism inherent in systems that invest in killing rather than caring.
    Women's advocacy against violence and war is often too polite and too muted. Where is the passion, the sense of outrage that can galvanize us into action? Surely the sources of that passion lie in women's own experiences of violence and violation. Over the years, as I became increasingly involved in feminist organizing within the women's movement, I have addressed the issue of violence against women more centrally, although I am still identified with issues of poverty, macroeconomic policy economic justice and trade. It was only when my two sisters were murdered by the boyfriend of one (as she tried to leave him) and my son's fiancée was murdered as she tried to resist a rapist, that I realized the extent to which my commitment to this movement for justice for women is driven by such acts of violence. When women try to claim bodily integrity they often place their lives in jeopardy.
    Although I continue to be a major advocate for economic justice I do not separate gender justice from economic justice. Sexuality and reproductive rights and health, including freedom from violence, are the foundation of women's ability to engage in the political struggle against inequality and injustice, not just for women but for everyone. It is the ground on which we stand. Peace movements also need to be linked more explicitly to those that advance gender equality and women's empowerment. Although most wars are about the struggle for control of resources, the methods and practices of war are deeply gendered.
    So I am calling for a redefinition of the goals of the women's movement, no less. As we seek more meaningful partnerships with men in redefining women's security, we need to see ourselves as the vanguard of a larger movement of men and women, as scholars and activists working for gender equality and women's empowerment, capable of giving political voice to a redefinition of human security that can link freedom from fear and freedom from want and both with transforming our gender relations. This is especially important as we face the fact reflected in WEDO's monitoring report ‘Beijing Betrayed’ (WEDO, 2005), that says our governments have failed to deliver on the commitments made in the four World Conferences and now when we are experiencing the spread of violence in Bush's ‘war on terror’.
  • RR: 
    You have been interacting with younger feminists from the Global South, what message would you have for them as they face the future?
  • PA: 
    Don't waste your time reinventing wheels: build on what we've done, but don't be limited by it. The issues are clearer now — especially the linkages — but there's much more (intellectual) work to be done to articulate these linkages more clearly, and there must always be new strategies to suit the times.
    Now, more than ever, we need a women's movement with links between issues (horizontal) and from local to global to deal with the ongoing crises. We also have to draw men into our advocacy against violence since they are the chief victims of male violence and wars. The present conjuncture highlights the links between sexism, racism and imperialism and calls urgently for strategies to address these and for a new dialogue and new partnerships between men and women who seek global justice.
    We need to revisit the three themes of the UN Decade for Women — equality, development and peace — that represent different emphases or approaches to women's agency. The theme of equality emphasizes a justice approach using law to enforce equality. The theme of development is an expediency approach and focuses on public policy. The theme of peace speaks to a wisdom approach. This approach requires political voice, the commitment and activism of the women's movement. The wisdom approach brings us closer to challenging the asymmetric relations of power between men and women. We must seek it if we are to strive for justice in an unequal world.
  • 1

    First explored in my lunchtime talk on ‘Globalization, Fundamentalism and Women's Lives’ at CGDS, St Augustine, 7 November 2001.


  1. Top of page
  • Antrobus, Peggy (2000) ‘Lucille Mathurin Mair Lecture: The Rise and Fall of Feminist Politics in the Caribbean Women's Movement 1975–1995’. Mona, Jamaica : Centre for Gender and Development Studies, University of the West Indies .
  • Antrobus, Peggy (2004) Global Women's Movements: Origins, Issues and Challenges. London : Zed Books.
  • Sen, Gita and Sonia Côrrea (2000) ‘Gender Justice and Economic Justice: Relections on the 5-year Reviews of the UN Conferences of the 1990s’. Prepared for UNIFEM, New York .
  • Sen, Gita and Caren Grown (1987) Development, Crises and Alternative Visions: Third World Women's Perspectives. New York : Monthly Review Press.
  • United Nations (2003) Human Security Now. Commission on Human Security. New York : United Nations.
  • Williams, Mariama (2000) ‘Free Trade or Fair Trade?’. DAWN Discussion Paper presented to WTO.
  • Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) (2005) Beijing Betrayed: Women Worldwide Report that Governments Have Failed to Turn the Platform into Action. New York : WEDO. Available online:

Rhoda Reddock is professor and head of the Centre for Gender and Development Studies at the University of the West Indies, St Augustine Campus, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago. A Founding member of CAFRA, she has numerous publications including Women, Labour and Politics in Trinidad and Tobago: A History (Zed Books, 1994); Plantation Women: International Experiences (Berg, 1998, co-edited with Shobhita Jain); Caribbean Sociology: Introductory Readings (Ian Randle, 2000, co-edited with Christine Barrow); and the edited collection Interrogating Caribbean Masculinities (The UWI Press, 2004).