This post could simply comprise links to work I've done in the past three years, in which I've documented, over and over again, that women matter less than men in the world. Not just in "Third World" countries, where women die at extraordinary rates in childbirth or as victims of "rape as tactic of war" epidemics that wipe out swathes of women in a marauding army's path.
Perhaps, I could talk, again, about what's going on in Afghanistan, a nation that we swore we were going to help restore democracy to, but which, since Barack Obama has become president, we have seen the ceding of control of parts of Pakistan to the Taliban, and new laws in Afghanistan designed to soften up Talibani members so they'll consider coming back to the Afghan government. Those laws, as you should all know by now, legalize rape in marriage. You should also know that girls attending school in Kandahar had acid thrown on their faces—for the simple crime of attending school. Or that Safia Amajan, an Afghan women's rights advocate, was gunned down for advocating women's rights.
Yesterday, on the OP-ED pages of the NY TIMES, Afghan women wrote the following:
That is why President Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan policy speech last month and his administration’s related white paper are worrisome: both avoided any reference to democracy in Afghanistan, while pointedly pushing democratic reforms in Pakistan. The new policy represents critical shifts — such as a new emphasis on civilian work, and recognizing the regional nature of the problem and the inadequacy and abuse of resources. But a faltering commitment to the democratization of Afghanistan and ambiguous statements from Washington on an exit strategy have left us Afghans scratching our heads.
…there is a temptation among some in Washington to believe that if the zeal for democratic reform or women’s and minority rights in Afghanistan were relaxed, Taliban insurgents would find “reconciliation” more attractive and the war would end more quickly.
This belief is encouraged by the radically conservative forces that have increased their influence since 2005 over the Kabul government, which has been backtracking on its commitment to rights like freedom of the press and equality under the law. This was exemplified by two events last month: the upholding of a 20-year jail sentence given to a young journalist for printing a controversial article from the Internet that was critical of the role traditionally assigned to women in Islam; and President Hamid Karzai’s signing of a law affecting the country’s Shiite minority that places restrictions on when a woman can leave her house and states the circumstances in which she is obliged to have sex with her husband. That law prompted the protests this week in Kabul.
Before anyone objects that the mistreatment of women is the "Afghan way" in which we must not interfere, let me further quote the article:
As for women’s rights, the troubles that brewed in Afghanistan during the 1990s — civil war, followed by the Taliban’s totalitarianism and harboring of Al Qaeda — were in great part the result of the female half of our population being deprived of social and political participation. Like everyone else, Afghans crave security, justice, accountability, educational and employment opportunities, and a promise of a future.
Democracy and progress are not products to be packaged and exported to Afghanistan. Afghans have to fight for them. Last month, the two of us helped organize “Afghanistan: Ensuring Success,” a conference led by Zalmay Khalilzad, the Afghan-born former United States ambassador to the United Nations. Speakers included Afghans from all walks of life and there was broad agreement that, in the words of President Obama, it was time to “pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off” and strive for genuine democratic progress and self-reliance.
But as we approach Afghanistan’s second democratic elections, in August, we cannot afford to have our allies falter — through rhetoric or policy — in supporting our nascent democratic forces. Those brave and burned young women of Kandahar did not give up. How could we?
I find myself wondering what would happen if, in our commitment to "human rights," we were insistent that "women's rights" were part of the word "human."
Even in our own country, over and over again when the Democrats were struggling to come back to power, I found calls to soften our commitment to abortion rights, gay rights, women's equality—the so-called "culture war" issues—in order to attract the "swing voter."
I even watched as gay activists asked women to throw themselves under the bus in order to help gays get rid of a reprehensible U.S. Senator.
As I wrote then, you could only ask women for so long to put their rights on the back burner before they would turn around and tell you to go piss up a rope.
So. Again. I ask. When, when will defending the rights of women be as important in foreign policy decisions as is considering strategic oil reserves, or the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, or the threat of "Communism" in certain Latin American countries? When will we cut off diplomatic relations with a country that stones its women for adultery or forces them to stay in their homes?
When will we stop with this idea that a woman's right to control her own fertility, to choose what enters and lodges in her flesh, that her right to own her own body are "culture war" issues, and are instead, human rights issues. Basic issues? Non-negotiable demands that all humans are entitled to make?
Please tell me when women will matter. All women. Not just those who have risen to positions of authority in their country. All women. Perhaps when we care as much about the schoolgirls in Kandahar as we do about the men of Cuba, I might finally believe that human rights matters to us.
My bona fides in writing about these issues:
http://open.salon.com/blog/fingerlakeswanderer/2009/03/31/will_women_pay_for_peace_in_afghanistan
http://open.salon.com/blog/fingerlakeswanderer/2008/11/25/faces--updated
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=24109
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=24084
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=14583
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13396
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13160
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12387
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10976
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6879
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6705
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5340
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11981
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
emma peel 2
Donald Manns
The Flylooper
Vivian Henoch
Lydieth A
Sean Murphy
Salon.com
Comments
In my own view, it all comes down to competition and "ownership" / "control" over reproductive access. And everything else is attendant to that issue- either primarily or secondarily. Once you are able to perceive a person as a sort of commodity, it is hard to view them as entirely a person again. Though I suspect most people-- male or female-- would readily agree that "women are human" and maybe even (to varying degrees) that "women deserve equal rights and treatment". But the thorny issue will always come back to-- you know, the baby-making equipment.
As long as women are the sole gatekeepers for the baby factory-- whether for business or pleasure-- I think (my opinion) that it is going to be a long road to freedom and equality. I'm not saying its right or fair, but rather pointing out (in my own view) what I think the crux of the matter is.
In an alternate universe on a twin planet orbiting around a sun very similar to our own, life evolved slightly differently where it was the males who were in high demand. They could not travel without the protection of their women kinfolk, nor freely own or their own manly equipment since it was the key to female reproduction. Without its sacred essence, babies were not possible. So men became the de-facto chattel to women, ostensibly equal, but in reality subject to the whims and customs of women.
The truth in our world probably has much to do with sexual dimorphism, the fact that the human male is typically a bit bigger and physically stronger than his female counterpart, which has permitted him to at least demand (by force if necessary) access to the feminine reproduction facilities.
While human societies have evolved to more modern constructs, the original primitive instincts, emotions and protective behaviors still exist, and also many of the legacy customs, vestiges and fragments from varied and far-flung historical civilizations are still with us today. As are varying degrees of "enlightenment" throughout the populace at large.
It has always been human nature to exploit anything deemed "useful", "valuable", or simply "desirous", and women are no different. While women, in one context, are humanity's mothers and sisters and aunts and cousins, they are at the same time the owners of a coveted resource, to be exploited.
Women, throughout the ages, and especially in modern times, have pleaded with their men-- and men-- to be treated in a more sensible, equitable manner. But I think until these primitive elements can be addressed there will be a universal rift between the sexes. For myself, I wish it wasn't the case, for two reasons-- one, I've met some pretty decent women over the years; and two, as a species we have a lot of more important issues to deal with. I just wish we could find a way to get over this one.
Right now, there is a lot of talk and speculation on the internet about the possible impeachment of Jay Bybee, who (as an OLC lawyer) wrote that infamous memo justifying torture, and who was quoted on Rachel Maddow's show (during an interview with Sheldon Whitehouse) as saying (paraphrase) that waterboarding does not cause severe pain, and cannot truly be considered torture. And that's only the most "extreme" method. Those memos allowed for all kinds of actual torture, and in combination.
I honestly doubt that there will ever be the kind of parity in human rights that we all wish for women (here in this thread) until there is enough sharing of that judicial power.
I can think of many individual exceptions among men, but when, as a group, they have a severe imbalance of power, as they do in our courts, then the "structure" takes over, and all of that individual humanity does not in the end count for much.
One place to start is to support the effort to have Bybee impeached. Although there were not as many women prisoners in our prisons and black sites, those who were there were likely tortured as well.
I liked this post.
Rated & Cheers!
rwnutjob. I hate to break it to you. but women are doing all those things (founding schools, helping each other out, etc) that you claim we're not doing. The woman I was talking about? She was assassinated for insisting on educating girls? The girls who had acid thrown on them? Were going to school? Women like Eve Ensler? Who have founded all sorts of institutions to help women? Are regularly kept of college campuses by rightwing organizations because she dares to talk about (sssssh) vaginas.
As to apprentice. Please. you're not telling me that you're using a "reality" show to base your understanding of human nature upon? really? May I suggest you try other things? like books?
Yes. I'm afraid it's true. Somehow, the basic power structure has to change, and that is a long, slow process. And just when we think we've made progress, we get attacked and certain rights we thought we had get taken away.
I agree with you KTM. I argued that allowing torture, as an assault on the body, is something that all people of conscience need to oppose, but women especially. because I believe that those who seek to abuse and downgrade women are so unable to experience their own bodies, so cut off from them, that it matters not to them whether they are raping a woman or torturing a prisoner. Ultimately, it's all the same. You hurt someone else's body to feel power.
It would follow that in the US, when women's rights are threatened, the economy and the political system tends to be confrontational and oppressive as well.
I would love to get a grant to do the research and get the stats on this, but I think it could be proven.
There is an innate necessity for people to put down others in order to feel better about their own behavior.
The same questions can be asked about humans period. The answers? I wish I knew.
Humans, both men and women, have a long history of exploiting whatever we feel like taking. In other situations though its equal-opportunity exploitation and women aren't singled out for their gender-specific resources (i.e. food, land, minerals, etc).
I also have to agree somewhat with the other poster who said something along the lines of "nobody gives you nothing for free-- you have to take it." Which is the essential element for "raising one's self up by one's petard" (or boot straps, whichever axiom you prefer). Once you assert power (political or otherwise) then you will get a "seat at the table", but you won't necessarily have "first nation status".
One question though that I think gets kinda left lingering out there is what affect will this have on gender relations, politics, and the need for procreation to perpetuate the human species? (Of course, one could also ask if the human species is worth perpetuating, but that's a different subject I think).
I have no disagreement that women are sorely mistreated in many ways by various societies. (I also believe men have some legitimate complaints too-- but I won't take away from the focus of your blog by posting them here, now). I wish I could think of an easy and equitable answer that would resolve everybody's angle-- but unfortunately I don't see it.
For myself, I have a wife and children. My own personal obligations to the perpetuation of the human species have already been fulfilled. So for me, the issue of access is pretty much moot. I enjoy sex with my wife, but beyond that we're pretty much equals-- except for the taking out the trash part-- that always seems to be my job for some reason... ?
:)
The Clinton administration ignored the subjugation of Afghan women throughout its tenure - during that time, more anger was directed at the Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues (yes unfortunate), than at their denial of the most basic rights of half their population. As part of its justification for going to war, the Bush administration made much of the poor treatment of women in Iraq, and then stood by silently while the rights that women during the Saddam years were slowly eroded. The Taliban with which the Obama administration is willing to reconcile consists of tribal leaders who take pride in never having allowed "their" women to see the sun. While I support constructive diplomatic engagement, how can we have dialogue with people who so completely deny the humanity of half their population? Isn't it ironic that administrations on both the right and left champion the cause of women when convenient and ignore women's oppression when doing so would interfere with their short-term goals? Thank you for calling attention to this issue. I, for one, will start with some letters to my congresswomen.
This is where me and academia part company. If you continue along this path, I urge you to reach down and roll up your pants legs.
you'll note that i'm no longer an acadamician. i can't even spell it.
:)
It's rooted in history, in religion and in ignorance. In men's fear of losing power and stupid superstitious beliefs about women's uncleanliness.
when women are truly seen as fully human. Which, sad to say, still isn't true. It's blatant in many cultures such as Afghanistan, but under the surface in most others as well. Why else do people still dislike the idea of "feminism" even in our "enlightened" culture here??
And Ardee's theory isn't just speculation...I've seen articles with data that validate that countries that grant full equality to women have both more economic prosperity and stronger rights for all, etc. (Think European social democracies, as well as our own country.) The economic prosperity one is interesting, since that hits some people more than an appeal to human rights.
Whatever your view or politics, a woman is a central (perhaps the) central figure in a family. By attacking the woman, you by extension attack the family-- even if you then actually _do_ attack the family. You break her physically, you demoralize the husband who obviously is unable to successfully fight back, you cower the remaining family members, and if you're "lucky", you get new "loyal" citizens (as a by-product of rape). Of course if you have no breasts, or family support, or your legs have been sawn-off or any of the other horrible things that occur...
But while women suffer in the congo, men and other family members do also. While it can be easily argued that women suffer more-- after a point, what does it matter? Pain and suffering is pain and suffering, whether it is a man's, a woman's, or a child's. Like the old nuclear debate-- what difference does it matter if you can destroy the planet 10 times over or a 100 times?
The scale and magnitude of pain and suffering in various places around the world is unconscionable. And yet, the people in free nations-- such as the United States, who COULD take action-- do not.
It has been said that the people of the United States will rally together and move heaven and earth to save ONE person. But harden their hearts and turn their heads when it comes to the pain and suffering of unimaginable numbers of people.
Is the pain of knowing to great to bear? Maybe its the inability to react (individually). Or the suspicion that any contribution you make might get sucked-up into some corporate money-grinding machine and never get to the actual people you intended to help. Maybe its just apathy-- I'll get to that tomorrow. Maybe people just don't want to know, so they don't listen or change the channel. Maybe we don't identity with them-- they're not the same as us, so their pain doesn't equal ours.
I think there are two different issues being discussed here-- the general concept of female equality, and the specific issues regarding wholesale slaughter of innocents-- of all genders and ages, entire families-- by people who don't care what the consequences are, as long as they get their guns, drugs and money-- or whatever it is they're fighting over.
Just one more thing to control and exploit, and the local populace are simply in the way.
First, my students designed tee shirts. We are selling the tee shirts to raise money for the Panzi Hospital in the Congo, which puts women back together after their bodies have been torn apart by rape.
Second, I send money every month to this organization http://www.reason2smile.org/
It's run by a young woman (I think she's 23 now) who graduated from Wells, and went off to Kenya to work in a school for kids whose parents can't afford to send them to state-run schools (you must have a uniform to attend school in Kenya). The school feeds them, houses them and educates them. Keela Dates is an amazing person and i've met her, interviewed her and written about her. My 15 dollars a month is not much, but it supports one kid. And if we can start with one kid, or one woman, or one man, one at a time, maybe we can change the whole world.
If you are wondering why reason2smile is hosted by a church, it's because Keela is still trying to get non-profit status, and right now, her community's church is assuming that responsiblity until she can get all the paperwork/tax work done. I can personally vouch for the fact that the money goes where it's supposed to.
I read a number of her books years ago (in the 80's). I finally had to quit reading them in order to continue functioning in a two-gender world.
To me, talking about how women's rights are not as important as oppressed male rights here in America are what bothers me about some aspects of the Feminist movement. Arguments like that do nothing to advance the cause of any oppressed group and serve only to reduce the argument against oppression to gendered terms rather than the multi-layered interaction between gender, race, age, class, education, and disability.
I mean, you're chastising the gays for deigning to vote for an anti-choice politician when in several states, it was declared illegal for gays to adopt; a vote helped in large parts because of support from both men and women. In situations like that, gays could feel that their cause is their priority. After all, why should they fight for the rights of a group that freely oppress them?
Therein is my dilemma too. I do my best to fight for women's rights, although not on the level you do. But I admit that it gets hard because so many women feel that it's fine and dandy to oppress the disabled.
Let's not dilute your wonderful argument by a small, angry point that's only true through perspective.
Your point is well taken. We have both felt anger when one group, whom we support, decides to throw us under the bus in favor of advancing their own group. It's one of the side effects of power, I think, that we wind up fighting amongst ourselves for limited pieces of pie. My fight with Dan Savage was this: Rick Santorum was an awful man. Agreed. But did he have evidence that Casey was going to be better? Was Casey going to be on board for gay rights? Or was the point just to get rid of Santorum? In the Pa situation, there had been a Democratic candidate who was both pro-choice and in favor of gay rights, and I didn't see Dan Savage out there beating the bushes for this guy. Thus, some of my anger.
You are right to call me out for this. I am no stranger to history, and am still ashamed of the early feminists who got their knickers into a twist because black men got the right to vote before white women--and they wound up sounding racist and condescending in their arguments.
We all need to support one another. If I wasn't clear about that, I should have been. And I appreciate you pointing out to me that I don't ever want one group's rights to be at the expense of somebody else's.
Peace.
see my note to jon henner. and also, yes. I've talked to my students many times about womanism, feminism, and how civil rights and feminist rights and all that shouldn't be at odds with one another. Sometimes, I forget that I'm speaking too much from my position as a white lower-middle class woman. I apologize for not being more aware.
We're all in this together.
this is driving me crazy. she was a cultural anthropologist. not daly. not mead. theorist. I almost think it was one of the french, like irigaray, except that's not right. I will eventually remember her name and then I'll post it here. Until then, I can even see the damn book in my head.
Red cover.
Shit. Maybe it was Irigaray. But which essay?
another piece in the puzzle. it was written as a critique of some essay by Levi-Strauss.
I wrote about it for my PhD exams.
I wrote it in response to an essay that was in "Fetishism as Cultural Discourse" a compendium of essays that I have packed away in box.
I FOUND IT!!! the red book was on my shelf.
Essay is called "Women on the Market" by Luce Irigaray in THIS SEX WHICH IS NOT ONE. It's a critique of THE ELEMENTARY STRUCTURES OF KINSHIP by Levi-Strauss.
A sample paragraph for those whose head has not blown off from this romp in the field of academia:
""all the systems of exchange that organize patriarchal societies and all the modalities of productive work that are recognized, valued, and rewarded in these societies are men's business. The production of women, signs, and commodities is always referred back to men (when a man buys a girl, he "pays" the father or the brother, not the mother...), and they always pass from one man to another, from one group of men to another. The work force is thus always assumed to be masculine, and "products" are objects to be used, objects of transaction among men alone."
( of course, there's Marx's notion of commodity fetishism in here, too. complicated genealogy of thought. Jesus. I can't believe I used to do this 24/7 as a grad student.)
I was thinking about the Saudis the whole time I was writing this. Thanks.
lb
We don't have the power to control all the cultures of the world. I don't know how we could when it seems to me that women have lost ground here.
I've never understood why rights for any group should be in conflict or competition with another. It's fought sometimes as though rights are a scarce resource.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali who wrote the books: Infidel and The Caged Virgin has kept this dialogue going for years. It is NOT cultural to treat women like cattle - it is nothing more or less than misogyny. She has been begging Western countries for years: "stop giving these men a pass for treating their women like slaves!"
I can't tell you how many American women say to me, "well, it must just be their culture that they....kill their wives, stone their women, rape their daughters, etc. etc. etc. Rated.
One thing that I'll add, unrelated to the specific, violent environments you mention here but about the women-as-commodity-or-means-of-reproduction lens: I read something once about ten years ago that I have not been able to find since was about the power that traditional women (and by that I think I mean women who stay at home in some capacity or take on more of the child-rearing than men) have in shaping the species. The argument is that ultimately they have more power than men over the species because of the transference of values to the offspring. I am perhaps not saying it exactly right, but I remember finding it ironic that, at least according to this theory, women who complained about their time with their children were apparently unaware of their influence in the larger picture. The study/article was scholarly and sociological. It wasn't about any one situation and wasn't promoting a particular lifestyle or inequality. There was a term that was used that I haven't been able to remember--the meaning reminds me of "imprinting" as it's used biologically, but it was not that word. Anyway, if anyone knows of this concept and can lead me to more reading on it, I'd appreciate it.
Deborah brings up an interesting point that deserves discussion, I think. (And women do things like what I just did--adding the "I think" to my statement for fear of sounding dictatorial. Have you noticed? I do it all the time, in both writing and speaking. It's a way of ameliorating my message. But I don't think of it as a sign of weakness at all. Perhaps it's just a difference. It's nothing I apologize for.) But back to Deborah: I think thoughtful people can disagree on the best way to handle that particular situation. Obviously you can't get more women-centered than Hillary Clinton, so it's not like she's interested in subjugating women over there. I can see the thinking that her mere presence over there is a start, an inroad, even if she feels the need to cover herself in the traditional garb. It's the whole idea of pushing the concept slowing, acceptably. But I see your point about her and other women leaders just presenting themselves as they are. I'd hasten to add, though, that it's not entirely true to say that "American women don't dress like that." In fact, I know several who do. They live down the street from me. I'll agree that most don't.
I immediately think of this poem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hand_That_Rocks_the_Cradle_(poem)
But I also think of Marx, who I think said the same thing. (I think. My brain is blowing farts all over the place today.) But I've heard the argument you're citing--that the power women have in the home is the kind of real power that could change the world. Food for thought. Although, if the woman in the home is seen as subservient to the husband, maybe it doesn't work. On the other hand, how many writers have written about growing up in households where mother ran things at home, and dad merely went along?
So much to think about.
This thread has gone off in so many different directions. I love the chaotic nature of it.
As Fingerlakeswanderer points out, there's the old adage, "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle Rules the World". I think there is a lot of truth to it. Or its unpublished corrolaries, "regarding the unrocked cradle (wild kids) and households where both parents must work to get by. In times past the old "nuclear family" notion of mom staying home while dad goes out and works, might not have been so bad. Of course we could re-write the script these days where dad stays home while mom works.
I think many, perhaps even most (ladies, your opinion?) mothers and likely fathers as well, would like and appreciate the ability to stay home with their kids and raise their families. That's not saying the "woman's place is in the home", but acknowledging that for many women that's the place they would _like_ to be (and men too).
One particularly good aspect of "womens lib" was breaking down the precept that a woman _must_ be in the home and nowhere else. But one bad aspect of the never-ending ratcheting divide between the halves and the have-not-so-muches is that women (and men) don't have much of a choice anymore. So in that respect the cradle goes unrocked, by any hand.
I personally believe the result is what we see around us.
The link leads to a pamphlet about women's oppression, about 20 pages long. It was published in 1994, so it's a bit out-of-date, but it's still worth reading. You can find it here.
Yeah, just like suttee is a cultural practice.
This discussion has almost made me miss grad school. :)
and I guess I'm older than many here, because I would not be inclined to apologize for suggesting that women's rights have been thrown under the bus more than once.
It wasn't just during the original fight for suffrage, either. During the civil rights movement in the 60's and 70's, it was the same story. The Equal Rights amendment was secondary to getting getting actual voting rights for blacks in the south.
I don't understand why it had to be either/or... but it was. Perhaps that's because there were more men than women in those leadership positions. But, there was that message... yes, you women have to wait your turn. Again.
Over and over again, research has shown that advancing the status of women does more to advance a family's SES status than advancing a man's. (That is true here. And it's true in 3rd world countries.) Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps, it's tied up in those poverty figure that show most of those living in poverty (at least until this current downturn) are/were women and children. Men, in general, manage to maintain their quality of life after divorce, etc. Women with children. Not so much.
So, whenever I donate to one of those micro-lending organization's, I always donate to a woman. More value for the dollar.
Women and men both lash out when an imbalance exists.
Men abuse women when they view them as chattel, because they aren't, but since those men don't understand that, they view female humanity as a crime against their "values".
Men attack women when those women claim too much power, as in the case of militant feminists, or those perceived as militant being attacked for their views.
Women have lashed out and gotten a good portion of their human rights through civil disobedience, what would probably be called terrorism if it occurred today.
Women who claim too much power, I have learned both from personal experience, and from having friends in the world, are inept at having relationships that don't reflect their perceived power. I.E. they can only successfully date submissives. They are normally just as abusive as the men who view women as chattel, only perhaps more so, because their values appear to them to be intellectually superior, whereas someone following tradition and religion can be reasoned with to see that which is harmful could never be desired by our ancestors, or by a merciful and loving God.
It's true that, aside from some universities that I have not attended, there probably is no place where women are more powerful as a group, than men, but if there were, I would not want to be a part of that culture either.
Humanity has to not only make; but raise, babies into functional and productive adults, if it wants to continue. Until we learn to do that without making either sex feel used, overworked, and stressed to the point of breaking, there's gonna be problems.
Which, of course, is another reason why the childfree movement is silly. You don't just give up when you encounter a problem, you try to solve it.
Women need to love themselves more. Men need to love them better.
That is such an excellent and succinct thought. I'm definitely going to remember it.
Thank you!
Years ago when I was building a retail sales force, made up of 98% women, we weren't having the results that we wanted. One of the rare male Marketing Directors said to me after listening to my angst:
BR, the answer to your problems is that you've got to think like a man. I took it, then, that he was alluding to taking risks, being bold, taking stands, not backing down and never giving in.
More women than not, today, acquiesce and we/they wind up paying a high price for it.
Mr. E's comment illustrates the differences:
"Women, throughout the ages, and especially in modern times, have pleaded with their men-- and men-- to be treated in a more sensible, equitable manner."
Men don't plead with anyone to be treated more equitably. They just are, to a certain degree.
"Women, throughout the ages, and especially in modern times, have pleaded with their men-- and men-- to be treated in a more sensible, equitable manner."
Men don't plead with anyone to be treated more equitably. They just are, to a certain degree.
Yes, that's it exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself :)
Key to understanding the answer is through fundamentalist religionists, (including Christianity, the Taliban, Islamists) who believe women are mandated by their God and holy books to be submissive to men through the Biblical Law of Submission.
They believe whole-heartedly that women should not vote, should not hold political office, nor should they work outside the home lamenting the passage of the hard-fought 19th Amendment. The role of women is to be help-mates to men and subservient, if you will.
@ onecorgilover:
"As a black feminist, I've often been asked why I wouldn't leave this feminism thing alone. The feeling was, as soon as blacks achieved full civil rights, we could then focus on women's rights. My question was why must the two be mutually exclusive? Can't we fight for all of the above at the same time....."
Sojourner Truth posed those same questions through "Ain't I A Woman?"
Delivered 1851 at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio
"Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?
That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?
Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?
Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.
If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.
Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say."
150+ years later, we're still asking the same questions.
Excellent post and I apologize for the lengthy response.
And how societally and collective unconsciously, our male side has been dominating for some time now, keeping us wholly unbalanced (Excuse me, Mr. Jung, if I messed up your take on this.)
It got me thinking, that on a micro level, that is something we can all work on. The balance within to create change without. Perhaps too esoteric for such a major, major problem - but I do believe there is truth to this. It's a psychic issue for the world - not a political issue. A deeply psychic one at that.
Most certainly when I was in graduate school, I saw it in that light. Then I went out in the real world, and thought I saw it differently. But now, as I again assess what I see, I wonder just how psychically damaged we are as a species that we still resort to animosity based on such fundamental difference/non-difference as gender and race (not to mention structural differences such as class.) Great point.
Remarks while First Lady to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, Plenary Session in Beijing, China: 5 September 1995.
This is truly a celebration - a celebration of the contributions women make in every aspect of life: in the home, on the job, in their communities, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers, citizens and leaders.
It is also a coming together, much the way women come together every day in every country. We come together in fields and in factories. In village markets and supermarkets. In living rooms and board rooms.
Whether it is while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come together and talk about our aspirations and concerns. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and our families. However different we may be, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future. And we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world - and in so doing, bring new strength and stability to families as well.
By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and participate fully in the political life of their countries.
There are some who question the reason for this conference.
Let them listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces.
There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe.
Let them look at the women gathered here and at Huairou - the homemakers, nurses, teachers, lawyers, policymakers, and women who run their own businesses.
It is conferences like this that compel governments and people everywhere to listen, look and face the world's most pressing problems.
Wasn't it after the women's conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic violence?
Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum, where government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are working on ways to address the health problems of women and girls.
Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local - and highly successful - programs that give hard-working women access to credit so they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families.
What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish.
And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish.
That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on our planet has a stake in the discussion that takes place here.
Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children and families. Over the past two-and-a-half years, I have had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the world.
I have met new mothers in Jojakarta, Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care.
I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in creative, safe, and nurturing after-school centers.
I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping build a new democracy.
I have met with the leading women of the Western Hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for the children of their countries.
I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, rickshaws, thread and other materials to create a livelihood for themselves and their families.
I have met doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.
The great challenge of this Conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard.
Women comprise more than half the world's population. Women are 70% percent of the world's poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught to read and write.
Women are the primary caretakers for most of the world's children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued - not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.
At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries.
Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or treated; they are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation; they are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers; they are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the bank lending office and banned from the ballot box.
Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not.
As an American, I want to speak up for women in my own country - women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can't afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.
I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air and clean airwaves; for older women, some of them widows, who have raised their families and now find that their skills and life experiences are not valued in the workplace; for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, and fast food cooks so that they can be at home during the day with their kids; and for women everywhere who simply don't have time to do everything they are called upon to do each day.
Speaking to you today, I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for women around the world who are denied the chance to go to school, or see a doctor, or own property, or have a say about the direction of their lives, simply because they are women. The truth is that most women around the world work both inside and outside the home, usually by necessity.
We need to understand that there is no formula for how women should lead their lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her God-given potential.
We also must recognize that women will never gain full dignity until their human rights are respected and protected.
Our goals for this Conference, to strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies, cannot be fully achieved unless all governments - here and around the world - accept their responsibility to protect and promote internationally recognized human rights.
The international community has long acknowledged - and recently affirmed at Vienna - that both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear.
No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture.
Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated.
Even in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict. Women and children make up a large majority of the world's refugees. When women are excluded from the political process, they become even more vulnerable to abuse.
I believe that, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break our silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights.
These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.
The voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loud and clear: It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.
It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.
It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.
It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes.
It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.
It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is that human rights are women's rights - and women's rights are human rights. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely - and the right to be heard.
Women must enjoy the right to participate fully in the social and political lives of their countries if we want freedom and democracy to thrive and endure.
It is indefensible that many women in nongovernmental organizations who wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend - or have been prohibited from fully taking part.
Let me be clear. Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize, and debate openly. It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of the peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions.
In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage. It took 150 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote.
It took 72 years of organized struggle on the part of many courageous women and men. It was one of America's most divisive philosophical wars. But it was also a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot being fired.
We have also been reminded, in V-1 Day observances last weekend, of the good that comes when men and women join together to combat the forces of tyranny and build a better world.
We have seen peace prevail in most places for a half century. We have avoided another world war.
But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that continue to diminish the potential of half the world's population.
Now it is time to act on behalf of women everywhere. If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too.
Families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care; families rely on women for labor in the home; and increasingly, families rely on women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other relatives.
As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace around the world - as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled and subjected to violence in and out of their homes - the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.
Let this Conference be our - and the world's - call to action.
And let us heed the call so that we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future.