| Posted 3/8/2010 at 1:30 PM by Chanti C (cacalabria) | |
|
 Today is International Women's day/Dia de la mujer! What are you doing to celebrate?
Thousands of events are being held around the world to celebrate International Women’s Day, an idea that was launched 100 years ago when a group of women from seventeen countries gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark to champion the rights of women.
Today, activists across the globe are drawing attention to a variety of concerns, including discriminatory laws, the high rate of pregnancy-related deaths in many parts of the world, the skewed sex ratio in China and India, the disproportionately high number of women who are killed and victimized by wars, the comparatively heavier burden of poverty on women, and the continuing disparity between men and women in terms of the quality of available employment and wages received. There are countless people taking part in marches, events, and rallies.
Also - 2010 marks the thirty year anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW, by the United Nations General Assembly. Seven countries that have not ratified the international treaty are the United States, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Nauru, Palau and Tonga...
... And my question is, why has the US not ratified the treaty?
 |
|
|
|
| Posted 3/8/2010 at 2:22 PM by Carolyn D (Carolyn) | |
|
 Efforts by India's ruling part to pass a law reserving 1/3 of the seats in Parliament for women has been delayed by upset lawmakers. Interestingly, the most vocal opposition comes from the Socialist lawmakers, who say the law does not do enough to empower women in poverty. Happy Day of the Woman indeed!
What do you guys think? Is a law like this a good way to open the door for increased female representation? Or should the Indian Congress concentrate its efforts on becoming more economically diverse? Are those two goals mutually exclusive?
Also, thanks for mentioning CEDAW, Chanti! The American Bar Association has a great outline of why the U.S. should adopt it. Just add it to the list of amazing pieces of international law that the U.S. should ratify, I guess. |
|
|
|
| Posted 3/8/2010 at 2:58 PM by Jasmin M (jmaurer) | |
|
 I'm going to make a base remark based solely on my mood today: The U.S. is stupid.
I feel like I would need to know more about India to make an informed opinion about whether or not I agree with increasing the seats in Parliament reserved for women, or if I should side with the Socialists about the poverty thing, but from my own biases, I think it would be a mistake to increase the seats reserved for women in Parliament without taking into account whether this will help women in poverty.
From what I do know about India, the caste system has created some strong economic divides, and it is VERY important to me that these types of injustices be eliminated. From my own bias alone, I would probably fight strongly on the side of economic diversity for true democracy. But I am not aware if this is entirely exclusive from promoting women in politics. I feel that there should be a means to address both.
Anyway, Happy International Women's Day! I didn't have any plans pre-made, since I was unaware of the event, but I'll try to think of something I can do to celebrate. Maybe sign some petitions? Chalk some feminists viewpoints on the sidewalks tonight? |
|
|
|
| Posted 3/8/2010 at 3:25 PM by Jaala H (jaala) | |
|
 Chanti wrote:
... And my question is, why has the US not ratified the treaty?
|
I would guess at least part of the reason has to do with the fact that women are still not recognized as having fully equal rights with men in the US yet (one example of this being that the ERA still has not passed), and not wanting to force that to come about through conforming to international law and expectations. For the very conservative, it may be that there is an active desire to not specify explicitly that women are equal to men, and for many moderates and even the more progressive, there may be ideas that the population will not sustain such changes in the US legal system if they come as a result of signing onto an international convention. For a very large percentage of the US, the idea of ceding any sovereignty is a very frightening one. It is a shame, to be sure. |
|
|
|
| Posted 3/8/2010 at 3:36 PM by Jen C (jennabellec) | |
|
 I am going to have to go with Jasmine on this and agree that "the U.S. is stupid." But I also want to add the sentament that I love women. The vast majority of people in my life that have really inspired, pushed and supported me have been women and like Jasmine, I did not know this day was happening and therefore did not make any plans, so i will simply take the opportuniy to thank and acknowledge the women in my life that have loved me through it all.
Thank You. If it was not for you, regardless of rather you are my mother or a woman that has fought for the general rights of women, I would not be able to be here today. Thanks for all you have done.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 3/8/2010 at 3:47 PM by Chanti C (cacalabria) | |
|
Another thing I just read (an opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof):
Three Proven Steps to Advance the World’s Women, on International Women’s Day
I don't necessarily agree 100% with some of what he's saying (Mr. Kristof, can you elaborate on how "educating girls is cheap"?), but I do think he brings up some good points. The commentary at the bottom of the piece is interesting, too.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 3/8/2010 at 4:34 PM by Jaala H (jaala) | |
|
Chanti C. wrote:
(Mr. Kristof, can you elaborate on how "educating girls is cheap"?) |
I'm not Mr. Kristof, but I do think he's right, at least in some ways, on this point.
Educating girls does not require the construction of a whole new system, nor does it require even the building of new school facilities or the hiring of new teachers. To integrate girls into existing school systems does not cost a lot of money or resources for countries struggling with a lack of wealth. When you educate girls, simply by "plugging them in" to existing education systems, you do provide them with important and empowering skills (reading and writing as a foundation) that they can use to access and manipulate the world in ways not available to them before.
Implementing laws, creating new systems, enforcing new or existing laws, developing separate leadership programs are all relatively more costly ways to do what education could do itself. Additionally, it is the empowerment piece that is incredibly important, because girls and women can internalize that, use it to continue educating and developing themselves in formal and informal ways, which provides a tremendous value for the initial investment of integrating them into the education system.
One more thing - educating women can have the effect of very quickly doubling the work force, increasing the productivity of a country almost on the spot, which creates more wealth and dramatically lowers the cost of educating girls (in fact, some might say that it becomes a net asset, rather than an increased cost when looking at it even from a purely economic standpoint because of this factor, among others). |
|
|
|
| Posted 3/10/2010 at 3:05 PM by Alan C (alan.calvert) | |
|
 Great detail and well worded Jaala! I like it. Your "educating girls is cheap" answer is sooo much better than what I started a couple of days ago... which I finally got back to.
here's what I was hoping to add, and I think fits, but works better when combined with Jaala's response.
--------
I'm sure it's been mentioned around here plenty of times, but I really like the perspective the http://www.girleffect.org/ places on the societal benefits of educating women.
According to The Girl Effect "When women and girls earn income, they reinvest 90 percent of it into their families, as compared to only 30 to 40 percent for a man."
Combine that with "Research in developing countries has shown a consistent relationship between better infant and child health and higher levels of schooling among mothers."
And
"An extra year of primary school boosts girls’ eventual wages by 10 to 20 percent. An extra year of secondary school: 15 to 25 percent."
You hopefully get a social structure that puts more money into the hands of individuals that are more likely to benefit the quality of life for the individuals of a community, thus reducing the need for support from sources outside the community and therefore increasing the self-worth and independence of a community.
I think what Kristof implies by "educating girls is cheap" is that the eventual positive outcomes produced by educating girls costs far less than other means of poverty relief that seem to only address symptoms rather than root causes.
Similar to how the cost of preventative medicine and health practices are much lower than the cost of treating the eventual conditions that arise without that preventative treatment.
(And now that I see Jaala's response I need to remind myself... oh yes, of course a big part of the lower cost is that the structure of providing education is already in place. (in most cases)
The full PDF of TGE's Fact Sheet can be downloaded HERE
|
|
|