A warm and enthusiastic atmosphere was apparent in the opening of gender-perspective training organised by DPC PWKI in the City of Surakarta in collaboration with Yayasan Yekti Angudi Piadeging Hukum Indonesia (YAPHI), on Monday (8/6/2026). The activity took place at Anawim Hall, Yayasan YAPHI as a first of three training meetings designed to strengthen participants’ capacity in understanding gender issue and accompaniment of victims of violence.

Before the activity started, presenter Yosi Krisharyawan introduced safety procedure to participants. He explained where the emergency exit was, where access to the room, and where the toilets were, including disability-friendly toilets. In addition, he also informed participants about the consent form for photos and videos for publication purposes.

The activity then started with prayer by Dwi Erni, who asked for God’s guidance throughout the learning process. In the prayer, Dwi Erni asked participants to thank God for the opportunity to learn together and to bless them so that the lessons would be meaningful for their service to the Church and the community.

In her opening speech, the chairperson IV of DPC PWKI in the City of Surakarta, Nurul Sutarti highlighted the importance of training for the board members and for PWKI members as a whole. She explained that one of the organisation’s legal, human rights and political program under her responsibility was accompaniment of women and children victims of violence.

She explained that to the day, victim accompaniment process often faced challenges, including perspective differences amongst organisations and amongst individuals involved in case management. As a result, victims often experienced new wound in the process of seeking justice.

“Accompaniment will not be effective if it does not start from common understanding and perspective. For that reason, the training is highly essential so that we have the same viewpoints in managing the cases,” she emphasised.

Nurul also paid attention to the more complex forms of violence, including online gender-based violence. She explained that the phenomenon necessitated everyone’s preparedness to update their knowledge and skills in order to protect victims.
Meanwhile, the director of YAPHI, Haryati Panca Putri expressed her concern with regards the high number of violence cases against women and children that kept increasing year-after-year. She gave an example of a number of new cases YAPHI managed, from domestic violence to the social impacts of online gamble.

Putri argued that violence could not be separated from patriarchy culture and and old viewpoints firmly instilled in communities. For that reason, changes could not simply be promoted through case management, but also through education and critical awareness raising at community level.

She hoped that participants from a variety of Churches and women’s organisations were able to act as change agents in their respective communities. By better understanding about gender and human rights, participants were able to create safe and equal spaces free of violence.

Putri also introduced YAPHI as an organisation founded in 1987, with its focus on legal aid, community empowerment, protection of women and children, and accompaniment of victims of serious human rights violation. To date, the organisation accompanied hundreds of victims of human rights violation and continued to develop networks with civil society organisations.

In her closing, Putri asked participants to reflect. She believed that each person needed to be aware that in day-to-day life, anyone could be a victim and perpetrator of violence, including through words and attitudes they may consider unserious.

“For that reason, the study room is expected to become a safe space for discussion, sharing experience, and building new awareness about justice and humanity,” she said.

The training would continue to August and would be the first step towards building common understanding about gender, so that prevention measures and victim accompaniment could become more sensitive, just, and have victim perspective.

Understanding Gender and Justice in Theological Perspective

The gender training in theology perspective was interactive and featured Reverend Retno Ratih Suryaning Handayani, as resource person and facilitator. The activity was part of accompaniment program developed by PWKI to equip people who would be accompanying victims of violence with basic knowledge about gender, theology, and pastoral approach to justice.

At the beginning of the session, Ratih explained that accompaniment to victims of violence necessitated a strong foundation. Without adequate understanding, accompaniment potentially lead to women experiencing recurring victimisation. For that reason, she asked participants to understand gender concept thoroughly before they stepped deeper to discussion about theology.

Through participatory discussion, Ratih asked participants to mention the general characteristics attached to men and women. Participants mentioned women as beautiful, gentle, sensitive, responsible, and multi-talented. Men were described as strong personalities, masculine, leaders, protectors, and income earners.

Yet, that illustration was re-examined through a number of questions. Whether men may be sensitive, gentle, or dependent on others? Whether women could be strong, dominant, heads of households, or protectors? Most participants acknowledged that men and women could have those characteristics.

From that point, Ratih explained the difference between gender and sex. Sex had to do with biological characteristics inherent since a baby was born and could not change, such as uterus, vagina, penis, or ability to give birth. Gender, on the other hand, was a social construction about women’s and men’s roles, characters, and attitudes assigned to them.

“Gender is not destiny nor fate,” she insisted. She explained that social construction may change depending on time, culture, places, and community context. What was perceived as appropriate for women or men in a given place may not necessarily applied in other places.

Ratih highlighted the impact of gender ideology passed down from generation to generation. She argued that the construction often bred injustices, for women and men. Women often experienced marginalisation, multiple work load, limited access to resources, to victims of gender-based violence. On the other hand, there were social expectations for men to be strong and not show their vulnerability.

In the session about theology, Ratih explored how patriarchy culture affected interpretation of the Bible texts. She explained that many interpretations of the Bible emerged and survived in social contexts that placed men as the centre of life standard and experiences. As a result, women’s experience often received less attention.

Yet, Ratih showed that many stories in the Bible showed the importance of women’s roles. She gave an example of figures like Ester, Debora, and Samaritan women trusted to lead big changes in crisis situation. She also highlighted Jesus’s actions to defend and recover women’s dignity in the midst of patriarchy culture of the time.
At the end of the session, Ratih emphasised the importance of promoting gender justice in Churches. This could happen when policies were responsive to gender, women empowerment, and offering equal spaces for women and men in church services and leadership.

She pointed out that understanding of gender was not simply women’s issue, but joint measures to create just and equal relations that reflected values of love taught by God to all people.

Overhaul Gender Construction and Build Just Perspective

In subsequent session, Ratih asked participants to dig further about knowledge of gender concept through participatory discussion method. She asked participants to name characteristics attached to men and women in day-to-day life.

Participants offered a number of answers. Women were portrayed as beautiful, gentle, sensitive, emotional, and responsible. Men, on the hand, were often portrayed as strong, rational, firm, brave, leaders, and income earners for family.
Then, Ratih asked participants to question those stereotypes. She asked participants to imagine whether men could be sensitive, gentle, or dependant on others. Conversely, she also asked whether women could be leaders, heads of household, protectors, o dominant people. Through such dialogue, participants became aware that most personalities attached to sexes were in fact applied to everybody.

Ratih believed that it was important to distinguish sex and gender. Sex was a biological characteristic attached since a baby was born, such as having a uterus, vagina, penis, or ability to deliver a baby and to breastfeed. These characteristics were natural and unchanged. Gender, on the other hand, was a social construction established by communities about how men and women had to behave, played roles, and acted.

“Gender is not destiny or fate,” she said. This was conceived by culture and social structure, and gender construction may change as fit the community needs and broader progress.

Ratih also paid attention to the impacts of gender ideology passed down from generation to generation. She believed that stereotypes were continuously reproduced leading to injustices against women and men. Women often experienced marginalisation and multiple workloads as they had to take of their household while at the same time worked in public spaces. On the other hand, men were had social expectations to always be strong and not showed emotional vulnerability.

As a result, individuals not fit with the prescribed social standard often experienced pressures, even became targets of harassment. “Gentle men are often bullied, while firm women are not fulfilling their expected roles,” said Ratih.

In the presentation, she also revealed that gender injustices still appeared in many aspects of life, from access to education, technology, economy, to political participation. Even in day-to-day life, women often lost their personal identity because they were known as somebody’s wife or of a particular family, rather than own their own merit.

Ratih added that education institutions and a number of cultural products often, unintentionally, perpetuated gender stereotypes. Textbooks, pictures in curriculum, to social habits often presented role division between men and women. This situation then formed community’s view early in their life.

For that reason, measures to establish gender justice had to start from people’s point of view. Critical understanding of social construction would help communities see that capacity, leadership, responsibility, and tenderness were not typical only of a certain sex. These values could grow and develop in every human, both men and women.

Identifying Gender Injustices in Church Life

After the presentation on gender and theological perspective, participants reflected and discussed in groups. In this session, they were asked to identify forms of gender injustices found in churches and in day-to-day services.

Nurul Sutarti opened the discussion by asking participants to remember the interpretation of the Bible often used in the Churches. She gave an example of chapters often quoted in marriage context, specifically with regards to the relation between husband and wife. She iterated that people often had narrow understanding of a number of the Bible texts and they used that understanding to support unequal relations when they did not read it fully and within the right context.

Participants then discussed their own experience. Each story and viewpoints started to come out.

One participant explained how traditional view of women’s roles remained entrenched within families and churches. She said that she argued with her family because of viewpoints that women had to be in the house, while men had space to do activities outside the house.

Other participant described her experience when she was involved in a committee to build a church. Although she had enough knowledge and experience in construction, other people did not consider her inputs seriously. She felt that people doubted her capacity just because she was a woman.

“When I gave my inputs on the design of the building and access to rooms, the responses implied the view that women knew nothing about the technical aspects of construction,” she said. Her experience made her reflect that gender bias not only happened in household setting, but also in decision-making setting in churches.
The discussion also touched on women’ leadership issue in churches. A number of participants believed that there remained tendency amongst church members to accept male priests rather than female priests. This kind of stereotyping often influenced the way members viewed women’s capacity and authority in church services.

One person involved in accompaniment of violence cases added that it was critical for priests and pastoral counsellors to understand gender justice. A number of cases of violence in the domestic domain required sensitive handling of victims’ experience, particularly when victims’ safety was at dire situation that threatened victims’ life.

By the end of the activity, Yosi explained that the materials for the subsequent meeting would focus on the roots of gender-based violence. Meanwhile in session three, participants were led to understand the phenomenon of online gender-based violence and learned basic techniques to accompany victims.

The activity closed with written evaluation. Participants wrote new knowledge they gained and inputs for future training. As she wrapped up the training, YAPHI director, Haryati Panca Putri reminded that changing viewpoints necessitated a long process. Yet, through joint study spaces, participants were expected to use “a new lens” to understand the relation between men and women in a more just, equal, and humane manner. (Ast)