Comments on the Draft CEDAW General Recommendation No. 41 on Gender Stereotypes
Belarus uses law, policy and media to construct, legitimize and enforce gender stereotypes as systemic governance mechanisms shaping identity and roles
Country: Belarus
Introduction
This submission provides targeted legal comments on selected provisions of the draft General Recommendation No. 41 (hereinafter – “the draft GR”), in light of the situation in the Republic of Belarus.
It advances the position that gender stereotypes, in certain contexts, must be understood not only as socially reproduced patterns but as state-produced, state-legitimized and state-enforced normative systems.
In Belarus, gender stereotypes operate through a coordinated set of mechanisms, including:
- legislative frameworks,
- public policy and administrative regulation,
- official discourse and symbolic state actions,
- and state-controlled or affiliated media.
These mechanisms do not merely reflect existing social norms. They define, codify and enforce a hierarchy of acceptable gender roles, thereby transforming stereotypes into normative standards governing identity, behaviour and life choices.
Particular attention is drawn to:
- family and demographic policy,
- the institutional promotion of “traditional values”,
- and legal restrictions concerning sexual orientation, gender identity and so-called “childlessness”,
as interlocking instruments through which the State constructs, normalizes and enforces gender stereotypes.
This demonstrates that gender stereotypes function as a form of governance, shaping the boundaries of acceptable roles and identities, and, where produced or enforced by the State, constitute a violation of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.
Comments on Chapter I
Comment on para. 2
Paragraph 2 correctly reflects the obligation of States parties under Article 5(a) of the Convention to transform social and cultural patterns and eliminate gender stereotypes embedded in institutions and practices.
However, the current formulation is conceptually incomplete, as it assumes that stereotypes are primarily societal in origin.
Proposed normative strengthening:
In the Belarusian context, gender stereotypes are not incidental but systematically constructed through State action.
State policy and official discourse establish a normative model of women defined by:
- reproductive function (motherhood as a central and expected role),
- responsibility for unpaid care,
- and adherence to “traditional family values”.
These elements are not presented as options but as normative expectations embedded in State ideology and policy.
State-led symbolic initiatives – including the designation of 2026 as the “Year of the Belarusian Woman” – function as mechanisms of normative codification, shaping an official model of femininity. While framed as recognition, such initiatives operate as regulatory signals defining socially acceptable roles.
In parallel, state and pro-government media reinforce this model by:
- privileging motherhood as a primary social value,
- promoting large families as a normative ideal,
- and excluding alternative representations of women’s identities.
These practices collectively demonstrate that:
- gender stereotypes may be produced through law and policy,
- legitimized through official discourse,
- and enforced through institutional and media systems.
Accordingly, failure to recognize State-produced stereotypes results in an incomplete interpretation of Article 5(a) and leads to non-compliance with the Convention, undermining its transformative purpose.
Comment on para. 4
Paragraph 4 correctly introduces intersectionality, including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity .
However, it does not sufficiently address situations in which intersectional discrimination is structurally produced through State-imposed normative models of identity.
Proposed normative strengthening:
In Belarus, State policy constructs a prescriptive model of the “acceptable” woman as:
- heterosexual,
- family-oriented,
- primarily responsible for care,
- and oriented towards motherhood.
Such measures constitute direct discrimination and are incompatible with Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.
This model functions not as a descriptive norm but as a regulatory standard embedded in law, policy and public discourse.
Individuals who do not conform to this model – including lesbian, bisexual, transgender and gender-diverse persons, as well as women who reject motherhood – are subject to:
- systemic stigmatization,
- exclusion from public legitimacy,
- and legal restrictions.
Regulatory measures restricting information related to LGBT identities and alternative life models operate as tools of structural enforcement, limiting:
- access to information,
- freedom of expression,
- and the visibility of non-conforming identities.
These measures do not merely reflect prejudice; they actively sustain a normative gender order.
This confirms that discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and reproductive choice:
- is structurally embedded,
- operates through the same normative framework,
- and functions as a core mechanism for maintaining gender stereotypes across all women.
The General Recommendation should therefore explicitly recognize that:
- heteronormativity and enforced reproductive expectations are central components of gender stereotyping, and
- legal and policy measures enforcing these norms constitute direct violations of the Convention.
Comment on para. 6
Paragraph 6 appropriately refers to the relevance of other international human rights mechanisms .
However, it should be strengthened to reflect the emerging convergence in international practice regarding the relationship between gender stereotypes, reproductive control and restrictions on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Proposed normative strengthening:
In the Belarusian context, international organizations have already identified that legal restrictions on information concerning:
- LGBT identities,
- non-reproductive life choices (“childlessness”),
result in:
- institutionalized stigmatization,
- restricted access to information,
- and reinforcement of hierarchical gender norms.
These measures operate as legal mechanisms of normative control, shaping not only behaviour but the boundaries of socially permissible identity.
They demonstrate that contemporary forms of gender stereotyping:
- extend beyond cultural or social practices,
- and are increasingly embedded in regulatory and legal frameworks.
Failure to incorporate this understanding would result in an incomplete interpretation of the Convention, as it would exclude contemporary forms of gender stereotyping produced and enforced through law and policy.
Comments on Chapter II
Comments on paras. 9-11
Paragraphs 9-11 correctly recognize that gender stereotypes are embedded in social and institutional systems and may persist in forms perceived as “positive” . However, the current formulation remains insufficiently precise in situations where such stereotypes are intentionally constructed, systematized and deployed by the State as part of governance and ideological policy.
Proposed normative strengthening:
In the Belarusian context, gender stereotypes are produced through a multi-layered system of State action, rather than through diffuse social processes.
This system operates through at least three interdependent mechanisms:
(1) Normative construction through symbolic and policy instruments
The State actively defines a “proper” model of womanhood through official campaigns and symbolic initiatives, which establish reproductive and caregiving roles as central and expected attributes of women. These initiatives function as norm-setting tools, rather than neutral representations.
(2) Ideological institutionalization through “traditional values” discourse
The State embeds these roles within a broader ideological framework that presents family and motherhood as women’s primary social function. This discourse is not descriptive but prescriptive, establishing a hierarchy of roles and legitimizing gendered expectations as social norms.
(3) Systematic reproduction through media and statistical narratives
State-controlled and affiliated media, alongside official statistical representations, reinforce this model by consistently portraying women primarily in relation to family, reproduction and care. These narratives produce epistemic normalization, whereby alternative identities are rendered invisible or illegitimate.
Together, these mechanisms demonstrate that gender stereotypes function as:
- institutionalized norms,
- ideological constructs, and
- regulatory frameworks shaping permissible roles and identities.
The Belarusian context further demonstrates that so-called ‘positive’ stereotypes – such as portraying women as caring, family-oriented or socially valuable through motherhood – operate as mechanisms of constraint and therefore constitute forms of indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention, because they:
- define acceptable life trajectories,
- exclude non-conforming identities,
- and restrict women’s autonomy.
Accordingly, the General Recommendation should explicitly recognize that “positive” stereotypes:
- are not neutral,
- may produce structural inequality,
- and fall within the scope of State obligations to eliminate discriminatory norms.
Comment on para. 14
Paragraph 14 highlights the role of media in shaping gender stereotypes . However, it does not sufficiently distinguish between media as a social actor and media as a state-controlled or state-aligned instrument of normative production.
Proposed normative strengthening:
In Belarus, state and pro-government media do not merely reflect existing social norms but actively construct and disseminate a standardized model of women’s roles.
Media content, including publications based on official statistics, systematically portrays women as:
- economically active,
- while simultaneously bearing primary and often exclusive responsibility for family and care.
This dual expectation is presented not as a structural imbalance but as a normalized and desirable standard, without recognition of:
- unequal distribution of labour,
- structural constraints,
- or alternative life models.
This produces a normative double burden, whereby:
- full participation in the labour market is expected,
- while primary responsibility for unpaid care remains unchanged.
Such representation:
- reinforces unequal gender roles,
- obscures structural discrimination,
- and contributes to material consequences, including overwork and emotional burnout.
These effects amount to structural discrimination linked to gender stereotypes.
The Belarusian context demonstrates that media can function as:
- a mechanism of normalization,
- a tool of ideological reinforcement,
- and a vector for the internalization of gender stereotypes.
Accordingly, the General Recommendation should explicitly address State responsibility for media systems that reproduce and legitimize gender stereotypes, including through indirect or structural control.
Comment on para. 15
Paragraph 15 addresses the use of culture and tradition to justify discriminatory practices . However, it should be strengthened to reflect situations where “tradition” is not merely invoked but actively constructed, codified and enforced through State policy.
Proposed normative strengthening:
In the Belarusian context, “traditional values” are not a passive cultural reference but a central element of State policy and regulatory strategy.
State authorities actively promote a family and demographic agenda in which:
- motherhood is framed as a social obligation,
- parenthood is presented as a normative expectation,
- and family roles are defined along rigid gender lines.
These positions are reinforced through:
- strategic policy documents,
- information strategies,
- and regulatory frameworks governing public discourse.
Such policies do not merely reflect culture; they produce and stabilize a singular model of acceptable identity, in which:
- deviation from reproductive and family roles is delegitimized,
- alternative life choices are marginalized,
- and diversity of women’s experiences is structurally excluded.
This demonstrates that ‘tradition’ functions as:
- a constructed ideological category,
- a policy instrument,
- and a mechanism of normative enforcement.
The Belarusian context therefore demonstrates that the invocation of “traditional values” may:
- limit autonomy,
- restrict access to rights,
- and sustain gender stereotypes through institutional means.
Where such frameworks are State-driven, they are incompatible with Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.
The General Recommendation should explicitly recognize that:
- State reliance on “tradition” cannot justify discriminatory norms,
- and where such reliance produces or reinforces stereotypes, it constitutes a breach of the Convention.
Comment on para. 20
Paragraph 20 addresses the relationship between gender stereotypes and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity . However, it does not sufficiently capture situations in which such stereotypes are directly codified, enforced and sanctioned through law.
Proposed normative strengthening:
In the Belarusian context, the introduction in 2026 of Article 19.16 of the Code of Administrative Offences represents a paradigmatic example of legal enforcement of gender stereotypes.
This provision establishes liability for disseminating information that presents as “attractive”:
- homosexual relationships,
- gender transition,
- childlessness,
- and other related phenomena.
This provision does not regulate isolated conduct. It establishes a state-defined hierarchy of acceptable identities and life models.
Its structural implications are threefold:
(1) Legal consolidation of deviation as a unified category
By grouping sexual orientation, gender identity and refusal of motherhood within a single prohibitive norm, the law constructs them as equivalent deviations from a single normative standard. This produces a legal classification in which all non-conforming identities are positioned outside the socially acceptable order.
This signals that only a model based on:
- heterosexuality,
- binary sex identity,
- and reproductive orientation
is legitimate.
(2) Transformation of motherhood into a legal expectation
The explicit inclusion of “childlessness” indicates that reproduction is no longer treated as a personal choice but as a normatively prescribed function of women.
This constitutes a shift from:
- reproductive rights → to
- reproductive obligation.
Accordingly, the law directly reinforces the stereotype of women as compulsory reproductive subjects, thereby limiting autonomy and life choices.
(3) Expansion of control through regulation of information space
The prohibition of “dissemination of information” creates an extremely broad and indeterminate scope, extending to:
- education and academic activity,
- human rights advocacy,
- public debate and media discourse,
- individual expression, including social media.
This transforms the law into a mechanism of epistemic control, whereby the State:
- restricts knowledge production,
- suppresses alternative narratives,
- and eliminates the visibility of non-conforming identities.
As a result, the provision does not merely regulate behaviour; it regulates the boundaries of permissible thought and identity and therefore constitutes a direct legal enforcement of gender stereotypes and a violation of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.
International human rights mechanisms have already identified that such measures:
- institutionalize stigmatization,
- restrict freedom of expression,
- and increase vulnerability of women and LGBT persons.
The Belarusian context therefore demonstrates that gender stereotypes may be:
- legally codified,
- hierarchically structured,
- and enforced through sanctions.
The General Recommendation should explicitly recognize that:
- laws defining “acceptable” identities or roles,
- and penalizing deviation from them,
constitute direct violations of the Convention, rather than indirect or contextual concerns.
Comments on paras. 24–30
Paragraphs 24–30 address the impact of gender stereotypes in the sphere of family, private life and social roles . However, they should be strengthened to explicitly recognize that such stereotypes produce systemic and measurable economic consequences, constituting structural discrimination.
Proposed normative strengthening:
In the Belarusian context, stereotypes concerning women’s role in the family are not confined to the private sphere but operate as structural determinants of economic inequality.
This is evidenced by several interrelated patterns:
(1) Gender pay gap as a structural outcome of stereotyping
Official data indicates that women’s wages amount to approximately 74–76% of men’s wages, reflecting a gap of 24–26%. This disparity is not incidental but linked to:
- sectoral segregation,
- concentration of women in lower-paid sectors (education, healthcare, social services),
- and persistent assumptions about women’s “appropriate” roles.
(2) Vertical segregation and restricted career advancement
Despite high levels of education and labour market participation, women remain underrepresented in senior and decision-making positions. This reflects:
- structural barriers linked to expectations of caregiving,
- assumptions about women’s availability and commitment,
- and implicit bias grounded in gender stereotypes.
(3) Legal restrictions on access to professions
The continued existence of a list of prohibited occupations for women constitutes the persistence of a paternalistic regulatory framework.
Such restrictions:
- position women as inherently vulnerable or incapable,
- limit access to higher-paying sectors,
- and reinforce occupational segregation.
These patterns constitute structural and indirect discrimination resulting from gender stereotypes, engaging State responsibility under Article 2 of the Convention.
This constitutes a form of state-endorsed stereotyping embedded in labour regulation.
Taken together, these elements demonstrate that gender stereotypes:
- structure labour market outcomes,
- reproduce economic inequality,
- and restrict women’s access to resources and opportunities.
The Belarusian context confirms that stereotypes related to family and motherhood:
- operate as systemic economic constraints,
- produce both horizontal and vertical segregation,
- and sustain gender-based disparities in income and employment.
Accordingly, the General Recommendation should explicitly recognize that:
- economic inequality is not a secondary effect,
- but a direct manifestation of gender stereotyping.
Failure to address this dimension risks limiting the analysis of stereotypes to cultural or social domains, while neglecting their material and structural consequences.
Comments on Chapter III
Comments on paras. 43–48
Paragraphs 43–48 address the role of State institutions, policies and public discourse in shaping and reproducing gender stereotypes . However, the current formulation remains limited insofar as it conceptualizes the State primarily as a duty-bearer that may fail to act, rather than as an entity that may actively design, coordinate and enforce systems of gender stereotyping.
Proposed normative strengthening:
In the Belarusian context, gender stereotypes operate as a systemic governance structure, produced through coordinated State-controlled mechanisms.
This system can be analytically disaggregated into four mutually reinforcing layers:
(1) Normative construction through official discourse and symbolic policy
The State constructs a prescriptive model of womanhood through:
- official narratives,
- symbolic initiatives,
- and public statements by state officials.
Initiatives aimed at defining the “image of the Belarusian woman” establish a normative template of identity, in which:
- motherhood,
- family orientation,
- and adherence to “traditional roles”
are presented as socially legitimate and expected.
These mechanisms operate as discursive regulation, shaping the boundaries of acceptable identity.
(2) Legal enforcement through restrictive legislative frameworks
Legislative measures, including administrative liability for the dissemination of information concerning:
- “non-traditional relationships”,
- “gender transition”,
- and “childlessness”,
demonstrate that the State not only endorses a normative model but enforces it through sanctions.
Such laws:
- define permissible and impermissible identities,
- construct deviation as unlawful,
- and transform gender stereotypes into legally binding norms.
(3) Reproduction through social, demographic and information policy
State strategies and programmes systematically promote:
- family-based models of social organization,
- motherhood as a central social function,
- and parenthood as a normative expectation.
These policies operate as instruments of normalization, embedding gender stereotypes within:
- welfare systems,
- demographic strategies,
- and public communication frameworks.
(4) Material reinforcement through economic regulation
The State reinforces stereotypical roles through:
- restrictions on access to certain professions,
- persistent labour market segregation,
- and structural inequalities in employment.
These measures translate normative expectations into material consequences, ensuring that:
- women’s economic opportunities align with stereotypical roles,
- and deviations from those roles are structurally constrained.
Taken together, these layers demonstrate that gender stereotypes in Belarus function not as isolated beliefs but as a coherent and institutionalized system, characterized by:
- normative definition of roles,
- legal enforcement of conformity,
- policy-based normalization,
- and economic reinforcement.
This system transforms gender stereotypes into operational governance mechanisms regulating identity, behaviour and access to rights.
Accordingly, the General Recommendation should explicitly recognize that:
- States may actively construct such systems,
- and where this occurs, it constitutes a systemic and ongoing breach of the Convention arising from coordinated State action, not merely a failure of implementation.
Concluding recommendations
In light of the above, the draft General Recommendation No. 41 should be strengthened through the inclusion of the following principles:
1. State responsibility for the production of stereotypes
The General Recommendation should state:
“States parties bear responsibility not only for failing to eliminate gender stereotypes but also for actively producing, institutionalizing and reinforcing them through legislation, policy, official discourse and public action.”
2. Heteronormativity and enforced reproductive roles
It should clarify:
“The imposition of heteronormative frameworks and expectations of mandatory motherhood, including through legal or policy measures, constitutes a form of gender stereotyping and discrimination under the Convention.”
3. “Positive” stereotypes as restrictive norms
The General Recommendation should establish that:
“Stereotypes presented as positive – including those relating to care, motherhood or family roles – are discriminatory where they define normative expectations, restrict autonomy or limit the range of life choices available to women.”
4. Economic dimension of gender stereotyping
The General Recommendation should explicitly state that:
“Gender stereotypes constitute structural drivers of economic inequality, including the gender pay gap, occupational segregation and restricted access to professions, and must be addressed as forms of indirect discrimination.”
5. Legal codification and enforcement of stereotypes
The General Recommendation should explicitly state that:
“Legal norms that define ‘acceptable’ roles or identities, stigmatize deviation or restrict access to information and expression – including in relation to sexual orientation, gender identity and reproductive choice – constitute direct violations of the Convention.”
6. State responsibility for media and information systems
The General Recommendation should explicitly state that:
“State-controlled, affiliated or influenced media, as well as official statistical and informational narratives, function as instruments for the production and normalization of gender stereotypes, engaging State responsibility under the Convention.”
7. Systemic nature of gender stereotyping
The General Recommendation should explicitly state that:
“Gender stereotypes may operate as systemic mechanisms sustained through the interaction of state ideology, legislation, policy frameworks and economic structures. States parties must identify, dismantle and prevent such integrated systems.”
About The Author
