Hey Wait A Mintute!

What is this crazy gender equality talk going on across the pond?
Has Margot Wallstrom been reading our blog?

I am lucky to come from a country - Sweden - where gender equality is practically taken for granted.

In order to create a level playing field there must at least be decent childcare systems in place.

Let me be very clear: I am not arguing that women are better than men. What I am arguing is that representative democracy which excludes 52% of the population from the decision-making tables is not real democracy at all. It is in the interest of society as a whole - women and men - that we be represented equally. Why? Because women bring a different view of the world to the table - they have different experiences, they see things differently and they act differently.

An example (to generalise): to a man, the word "security" often means tank battalions and missile defence systems. To a woman it can mean access to education and clean drinking water for children.

Not a bad read at BBC.
Happy International Women's Day (a day late but not a dollar short)!

UPDATE:

I am so tickled that Margot Wallstrom (wish I knew how to get my keyboard to generate the correct spelling) not only stopped by our blog, but that she left a comment. Thank you! You made my day. It encouraged me to do some more searching, which lead me to her blog here. In the same spirit as her comment, I am happy to have found her blog.

Clinton's State Department Will Champion Women

If you are a regular reader of news, you probably read all about Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing yesterday. You may have heard that it went swimmingly, or that there were questions about conflict of interest, or that a lot of it was about policy with countries like Iran. What seems to be getting left out of these stories is a lovely exchange between Clinton and Senator Barbara Boxer.

Boxer made it plain that she wanted to hear what the State Department is going to do about the international rights of women. Clinton was right there with her, promising a strong Women's Office and Office of Human Trafficking if confirmed. I didn't know there was such a thing. But here's the Women's Office and here's the Office of Human Trafficking. Boxer referenced a series of articles by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Kristof's columns are here (his recent articles are from January 1, 4, and 11; November 27 and 30; September 25; and August 31). In fact you can see that this isn't a new issue for him. There's a set of articles from 2004 on slavery and human trafficking as well. Who said women were the only ones who should be talking about women's rights?

I have to admit, I'm kind of surprised this story isn't getting a bit more play. The only example I've found? Rachel Maddow!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Quick Hit: Japanese Girl Drafted to Play Pro Baseball

A 16-year-old girl has been chosen to play on a Japanese men's baseball team, and is set to become the first woman to play professional baseball in Japan:

High school student Eri Yoshida was drafted by the Kobe 9 Cruise, a professional team in a new independent Japanese league that will start its first season in April.

"I always dreamed of becoming a professional," Yoshida, who is 5-feet (152-centimeters) tall and weighs 114 pounds (52 kilograms), told a news conference Monday. "I have only just been picked by the team and haven't achieved anything yet." [...]

Yoshida took part in a tryout held earlier this month and passed with flying colors. The right-hander held male batters hitless for one inning in the tryout and her successful outing helped her become one of the 33 players picked in the draft.

Congrats and good luck, Eri Yoshida! I know I've got a new favorite team...

Rwanda: Women Helping Women

With Gov. Sarah Palin serving as a daily reminder that women politicians don't always act in the best interest of women, it is refreshing to read of Rwandan women's success in advancing women's rights through increased representation in government:

Women hold a third of all cabinet positions, including foreign minister, education minister, Supreme Court chief and police commissioner general. And Rwanda's parliament last month became the first in the world where women claim the majority -- 56 percent, including the speaker's chair.

One result is that Rwanda has banished archaic patriarchal laws that are still enforced in many African societies, such as those that prevent women from inheriting land. The legislature has passed bills aimed at ending domestic violence and child abuse, while a committee is now combing through the legal code to purge it of discriminatory laws.

One lawmaker said the committee has compiled "a stack" of laws to modify or toss out altogether -- including one that requires a woman to get her husband's signature on a bank loan.

"The fact that we are so many has made it possible for men to listen to our views," said lawmaker Espérance Mwiza. "Now that we're a majority, we can do even more."

You can read more at the Washington Post.

The 3rd International Congress on Islamic Feminism

The Third International Congress on Islamic Feminism is currently taking place in Barcelona, and the BBC has published a collection of brief essays from some of the amazing activists taking part. The views expressed by Muslim feminist leaders of different countries are diverse, as you'd expect when a group of international leaders of any movement gather together, and there are naturally some contradictions in what different women see as the most difficult challenges, their sources, and how to address them. Yet, reading through the collection of views on feminism, religion and secularism made me feel surprisingly hopeful about all of our abilities to better our communities and to challenge one another. I was particularly struck by the words of Amina Wadud:

I do not wish to sacrifice my faith for anybody's conception of feminism, nor do I sacrifice the struggle and actions for full equality of women, Muslim and non-Muslim women, for any religion. Islamic feminism is not an either/or, you can be Muslim and feminist and strive for women's rights and not call yourself a feminist.

It is true, you can strive for women's rights and not call yourself a feminist. Perhaps I've been too intent on defining the label in the past...

Oh, and this seems like an opportune time to point to Fatemeh's "Open Letter to White Non-Muslim Western Feminists." For anyone who hasn't yet read it, this post is (hopefully) an eye-opener and a good guideline on how not to be an ass, one that I'm sure I'll need from time to time.

In Which I Am Again Confused by the Big, International Anti-Gay Agenda Run by Gay Men

This story is really as tragic as it is perplexing. If you've heard of Austria's Jörg Haider, you've most likely heard of his far-right intolerant views. As the head of Austria's most conservative political party, Alliance for the Future of Austria, Haider was known for his antisemitism and his "...championing traditional family values, railing against the European Union and calling for an end to immigration." Now, just two weeks after his death, his party is having to face an awkward truth about its former leader and the figure-head of Austria's "family values" movement- that he was gay.

Jörg Haider died on the night of October 11th. After having some drinks with his partner, Stefan Petzner, the two started arguing. Upset, Haider got into his car and sped towards home. He was drunk and driving far faster than the speed limit. His car ran off the road and flipped twice.

Now Stefan Petzner, who has taken over as the conservative party's leader since the night of Haider's death, is speaking out about their love:

“We had a special relationship that went far beyond friendship,” the successor, Stefan Petzner, a former fashion and cosmetics reporter, said Sunday in a highly emotional interview on Austrian Radio 3. “Jörg and I were connected by something truly special. He was the man of my life.”

The Times goes on to note that Haidar was maried and had two children, and that "he had cultivated a macho, man-of-the-people persona." And, of course, there are those in his party who insist that the rumors of an intimate relationship between Petzner and Haidar are false - that the sightings of the two men at gay clubs are inventions and that Petzner was speaking only of their friendship in particularly tender terms. Yet, Haidar's relationship with Petzner has been an open secret for years. From an article published in 2000, it seems like Haidar's affair can't truely be such a surprise:

Haider, who has become a target of criticism across Europe ever since his right-wing Freedom Party joined the ruling Austrian government, is widely known to be gay, according to Berlin's Tageszeitung and the Austrian paper Der Standard. "We've known about Haider's homosexuality for about ten years," stated the Austrian gay-activist group Homosexual Initiative.

What most bothers me is that Haidar and Petzner were clearly in a loving relationship. As the head of Austria's most conservative and anti-gay party, Haidar was not promoting an agenda of intolerance while feeling guilty about a one-night stand. He had a long term partner and a loving relationship. Why fight to undermine the ability of other couples to find that happiness - why undermine the chances of your own relationship being respected?

Since Haider cannot answer me, this is the question I put to other gay politicians and religious leaders who seem to work tirelessly against their own best interests. Let's start with the Log Cabin Republicans - why?

Immigrant Classes?

Something about this just doesn't smell right:

A controversial scheme to create special classes for immigrant children has been approved by the lower house of Italy's parliament.

The measure, proposed by the right-wing Northern League Party, would require foreign children to pass a special test before being admitted into schools...

Under the proposal, the children of immigrants would have to sit tests on citizenship and would be placed in "bridge classes" if they failed, where they would study Italian language, law and culture until they could pass the test.

A spokesman for the Northern League said the aim was to guarantee equal opportunities for foreign students and facilitate integration.

But opposition politicians have described it as "an act of the worst xenophobia".

Alright - I understand that adjusting to a new culture can be difficult, especially when you don't speak the language well. And immigrants to the U.S. have to pass similar tests before becoming citizens.

Yet, denying children access to education for not being enough like the locals - that makes me feel queasy.

Thoughts?

FGM Ban in Uganda

It isn't a country-wide ban, but its a promising start:

A community in eastern Uganda has banned the deeply rooted practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), an official has said...

"The community decided that it was not useful, that women were not getting anything out of it, so the district council decided to establish an ordinance banning it," Mr Chelimo told AFP news agency...

FGM is seen in some countries as a way to ensure virginity and to make a woman marriageable...

UN agencies have called for a major reduction in the practice by 2015.

They say it leads to bleeding, shock, infections and a higher rate of death for new-born babies.

It is hopeful to see this shift in rhetoric - the leaders of the community have stopped talking about what is desirable for men - a supposed insurance of virginity - and are instead promoting what is safe for women.

Babies vs. Xenophobes

That's right, xenophobes, our strategy has been revealed - our army of babies will ensure that your worst fear will be realized:



Did you see how my new favorite Aussie vlogger Natalie got around to mocking not one, but two flavors of racism? Brilliant.

(h/t Guanabee)

Quick Hit: Help Out a Feminist Magazine

Heretical, the annual magazine of the Women’s Collective at University of Queensland, might not be able to publish this year. As Tigtog explains:

They simply don’t have enough submissions, and time is running out, largely because the collective’s time has been spent coping with hostility and harassment on campus targeting women’s groups and also LGBTQ groups.

You can see a sample of that harassment, in the form of some vandalism of the Women's Collective, over at Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog.

So, with deadlines are fast approaching, the staff needs quality submissions in a rush. They are asking for submissions from feminist bloggers. If you have a post you particularly love, one that you feel might make a good article in an Australian university's feminist journal, send the link to Tigtog.

Now the only hard part is choosing a post to submit!

Now Entering the Boxing Ring

Berlin Boxgirls is bringing boxing to the masses these days. Well, maybe not the masses, but it is bringing boxing to young women.

In 2007 it was voted one of the 16 most innovative sports programs in the world by the Web-based global association of social entrepreneurs, Changemakers. It also won funding from Strengthening Girls!, a German government project aimed at encouraging girls and women to become more assertive through sport, especially in activities traditionally dominated by men, such as rugby, football, rock climbing and capoeira, a game that combines martial arts and dancing.

"Our mission here is not just to create excellent boxers," says Boxgirls founder Heather Cameron. "It is to help girls and women become more self-confident and start taking the initiative in their own lives.

In August 2008, a report by the University of Cologne's Gender Research Department lauded Boxgirls for the "opportunity it afforded girls to improve their ability to take charge of their own lives" and develop greater self esteem.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of boxing. True, Agincourt and I both enjoy The Contender because it showcases not only the sport, but also the motivations behind the sport. I appreciate the use of sport as empowerment so of course I find myself giving high praise for the Boxgirls program in Berlin. Not only is it allowing the use of sport as empowerment, but it is allowing girls and women access to that strength.

"There has been huge resistance to women's amateur boxing pretty much everywhere," says Cameron. "One problem is the sharing of resources. Opponents say why should we spend our limited funds on the girls when, let's be honest, they are not as good as the boys and they are not allowed to compete at the Olympics."

It is no small understatement to say that I loathe how women can be denied sporting opportunities simply based on ill conceived gender limitations. Would I want a daughter of mine (not that I have one, mind you) boxing against a boy her age? Of course not. However, if she wanted to box I most certainly would like to know that she could against other equal competitors.

Cameron sees boxing not just as a way of improving the quality of women's lives, both mentally and physically, but also as an agent for social change. She recently set up another branch of Boxgirls in Nairobi, Kenya, where she hopes women will also use self-confidence won through boxing to "take on leadership roles in their communities." Over time Cameron says she would like to establish a network of such clubs around the globe.

"I want to create places where women are taken seriously as athletes and where they lead by example."

Tschüss! :)MM

Family Values: US or EU?

The European Union might soon be a happier place for expectant mothers, as the BBC explains:

The European Commission has proposed extending fully-paid maternity leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks...

Maternity leave currently varies from 14 weeks in Germany to 18 months in Sweden, with many countries offering less than 18 weeks.

The proposed new rules would guarantee that women in the 27 EU countries would not be sacked during or immediately after maternity leave.

Governments would be free to offer new mothers more time off, but would have to pay them at least as much as sick leave.

Do you know how much fully-paid maternity leave women in the United States are guaranteed? 0 days. None. We're one of the few nations in the world that does not ensure some paid maternity leave. Many countries in Europe and the Americas offer paid paternity leave as well. Not us. If we really wanted to be a nation that valued families and parenthood, we'd be drafting legislation that would bring us more in line with our pro-parenting neighbors. Why aren't we talking about this issue in our presidential debates?

Oh, that's right - 'family values' has nothing to do with valuing families, and everything to do denying rights to same-sex couples and denying information about sex to teens. How naive of me to believe that we could actually care about what's best for working mothers or their babies here in the U.S. of A.

I really wish a question about parental leave had been asked in last night's debates.

Gender Asylum Threatened

Rodi Alvarado Peña fled to the United States from her home country of Guatemala seeking asylum after having endured ten years of domestic violence and multiple refusals of protection by both the police and the justice system in her own country. Staying in Guatemala would have meant risking death:

Despite her repeated attempts to obtain government protection, the police and the courts refused to intervene. When she ran away, her husband found her and beat her unconscious. Desperate to save her life, Ms. Alvarado finally fled to the United States...

Fleeing to another country, a country where she would be protected from the violence of her husband, was Rodi Alvarado Peña's only chance for survival.

Now the United States is in the process of deciding if she will be deported, and her case will impact the fates of other women who have come here seeking asylum from trafficking, honor killings, sexual assault, and violence. According to the New York Times, Attorney General Michael Mukasey has canceled a stay in Rodi Alvarado Peña's case:

Mr. Mukasey sent back the case of the woman, Rodi Alvarado Peña, to the Board of Immigration Appeals, encouraging it to set nationwide standards for determining when women who are victims of domestic violence in their home countries can win asylum. The case, held up since January 2001, caused many other asylum claims of battering victims to stall. A lawyer for Mrs. Alvarado, Karen Musalo, said Mr. Mukasey’s decision raised concerns because the appeals board denied asylum to Mrs. Alvarado in 1999.

When Rodi Alvarado Peña was first granted asylum and then had it revoked by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in 1999, the decision to deport her "led to denials of asylum protection to women fleeing a broad range of serious human rights violations, including trafficking for prostitution, gang rape and honor killing, as well as domestic violence." Janet Reno, who was attorney general at the time, responded to outrage at the BIA's ruling by overturning its decision and ordering that the BIA "... issue a new decision in Rodi's case after the issuance of proposed Department of Justice regulations on the subject of gender asylum (read the regulations). Those regulations have never been finalized by the Bush Administration."

This case will set precedents about which women will be protected by the United States and which will be turned away, precedents that will speak volumes about who we are as a nation.

WHO: Social Injustice Kills

A recent report from the World Health Organization documents the influence of social injustices on people's life-expectancies and finds that social factors -not genetics - are the root cause of variations in health and lifespan between different populations. In fact, differences in living conditions between two neighborhoods located just a few miles from one another can mean a difference of more than twenty years in the life expectancies of the people of those communities. The BBC explains:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has carried out a three-year analysis of the "social determinants" of health.

The report concludes "social injustice is killing people on a grand scale".

For instance, a boy living in the deprived Glasgow suburb of Calton will live on average 28 years less than a boy born in nearby affluent Lenzie.

I was particularly struck by this chart, which documents the difference in average lifespans in two neighborhoods near where my parents currently live - Washington DC and Montgomery County:

The report also reminds us that a woman's chances of surviving childbirth are dramatically different depending on where she's living. "In Sweden, the risk of a woman dying during pregnancy and childbirth is one in 17,400, but in Afghanistan the odds are one in eight."

As we approach November's elections here in the States, I can't help but feel like the WHO report highlights what's at stake. The report's authors explain that:

"(The) toxic combination of bad policies, economics, and politics is, in large measure responsible for the fact that a majority of people in the world do not enjoy the good health that is biologically possible."

...

The report calls for governments to consider how all their policies impact on health.

The report highlights education, affordable housing, management of access to unhealthy foods and social security protection as key.

It also said that governments should take action to ensure a living wage for workers, and working conditions that reduce work-related stress and ensure a healthy work-life balance.

All of this highlights the fact that our own health, and that of our neighbors, is at stake when we cast our ballots. If we vote for candidates who would keep working women and the elderly in a state of poverty for the convenience of big business, if we support politicians who are not committed to social justice, we are essentially decreasing our nation's vitality - dooming it to sickness and early deaths.

Yet, how do I talk to conservatives in my own family about the importance of providing education, affordable housing, and security to everyone? When my brother-in-law tells me that it is not our responsibility to help the less fortunate 'because they are the victims of their own bad choices,' how do I respond?

More on Mini-Skirts

A university in Mexico's Sinaloa province has banned mini-skirts, claiming that the new dress code will protect women from an atmosphere of violence. As Guanabee explains:

Director of Studies, Héctor Melesio Cuen Ojeda explained that with such a violent atmosphere existing in Sinaloa—the state spawned the country’s most fearsome drug cartel and is home to a bloody, ongoing battle with neighboring cartels in Tijuana— wearing such short skirts is “an invitation to be attacked or bothered, not only within the university facilities, but also on the outside.” Also discussed was the need to cover tattoos and remove face piercings.

Of course, we know that this type of 'lady clothes cause violence' logic isn't confined to Mexico, but common throughout the world. The problem with the ban on sexy as a protective device is that it simply doesn't work - in order to protect women, we have to change the attitude that abusing women is acceptable, we must stop victim-blaming, and we have to create a safe society where everyone can be comfortable walking around their universities and neighborhoods. This type of clothing ban hurts women in the long-run by promoting the idea that women can be responsible for the violence against them simply by being found attractive by an attacker. Perhaps another protest is in order.

You can read the original article, in Spanish, at El Universal.

Mini-Skirt Protest: The Right Way to Make a Point?

La Jornada reports that a group of young women wearing miniskirts and short-shorts interrupted services at the Metropolitan Cathedral (Catedral Metropolitana) in Mexico City last Sunday, protesting policies of the Catholic Church that they believe lead to wide-spread victim-blaming and misogyny:

Encabezadas por Perla Vázquez, las manifestantes acusaron a la Iglesia Católica de adoptar actitudes misóginas y machistas al supuestamente culpar a las mujeres que usan minifaldas o pantalones ajustados de provocar abuso sexual o violencia de género en su contra...

"Hacemos un llamado a exigir el fin de la opresión a la que somos sometidas por ser mujeres para acabar con la dominación y la explotación", expusieron.

Roughly translated, the above says (my apologies in advance for some awkwardness - I *hate* translating):

Led by Perla Vázquez, the protesters accused the Catholic Church of adopting misogynistic and sexist attitudes that blame women who wear miniskirts or tight pants for provoking sexual abuse and gendered violence against them.

"We are putting out a call to demand the end of the oppression that subjugates women, to do away with domination and exploitation," they explained.

I certainly understand the rage that the protesters are expressing - I was ready to take to the streets in protest after reading yet another victim-blaming piece, this time by mega-turd Peter Hitchens. Yet, my question is this: What's the right way to protest?

PETA provides almost daily proof that there is a wrong way to advocate for a cause. Countless stunts involving half-clad women, sham violence, and a complete lack of insight into the real problems facing people who don't share their privilege have perhaps even hurt the cause PETA ostensibly promotes, since the stunts draw attention without evoking wide-spread sympathy or a real understanding of animal rights issues. Rev. Dr. has even argued that most modern protests are ineffective due to a lack of dignity. Yet, if a group feels strongly that its members are aware of an injustice largely misunderstood by or even invisible to greater society, how should a protest be carried out in a way that both informs the public of the problem and builds sympathy for those who face injustices?

More specifically, how do women best protest the injustices that still face us?

(image 1 via this Dailylife story about similar protests in South Africa, image 2 via Feministing)

Not A Gay Disease: HIV, Homophobia, and the Americas

When a friend of mine heard one of her medical school professors refer to HIV/AIDS as a 'gay disease,' she had to speak-up. "We need to be clear when talking to patients that it isn't being gay that puts people in a higher risk category, it's anal sex."

Noticing the stunned looks of her classmates, she assumed that they simply hadn't understood her point and attempted to clarify, "Look, while I was living in Honduras I had a friend who insisted that he wasn't at risk, because he sometimes had sex with women and therefore wasn't gay. His doctor had told him that only gay men needed to worry about HIV. We need to make it clear to patients that any unprotected sex puts them at risk, and it is unprotected anal sex with multiple partners - not identifying as gay - that increases your chances of catching the virus."

My friend has been shunned by many of her classmates since making her point. Apparently, honest talk about sex isn't ladylike - even in a hospital.

Yet disease isn't deterred by cultural taboos, and we are needlessly endangering people through this combination of homophobia and excessive prudishness. By stigmatizing homosexuality, and by making being openly gay dangerous, we encourage people to lead double lives and to lie about their sexual experiences - putting themselves and all their partners at risk. An unwillingness to openly talk about sex only compounds the problem.

As the New York Times reports, the myth of AIDS as a 'gay disease' is common throughout the Americas, and interferes with efforts to protect people:

Martín Márquez Chagoya, a gay man who has had H.I.V. for 14 years and counsels other men, visits a park in downtown Puebla [Mexico] where men go to have sex with other men, but he says his efforts to promote condom use there often fall on deaf ears. The No. 1 response he hears from men there is that they are not gay and are therefore not at risk. They say they are merely having sex with gays.

It is time we all acknowledged that fear and misinformation do not constitute a prevention plan.

In order to limit the spread of disease, we need to fight homophobia and discrimination. Here in the United States, we are currently working to pass legislation that would ensure that no one could be fired on the grounds of sexual orientation; but even if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passes the Senate, it faces the risk of a presidential veto and fails to extend protection to transgender citizens. Denying legal protections to the LGBT community sends a frightening message to young gays - that they should stay in the closet. We cannot ask people to be honest about their identities while threatening the livelihood of anyone who is openly gay. If our societies paint homosexuality as something punishable, how are we to encourage young people to be honest about their sexual identities - even with their doctors and partners?

We also need to combat the myth that people's sexuality can always be fitted into neat little categories. As Professor Hector Carrillo of San Francisco State University recently explained to the New York Times, "Sexual identity is a very complex thing... We like to think that once someone figures out their sexual attraction, they will fit into the categories we’ve created. But life isn’t like that." A greater acceptance of how very fluid sexual identity can be for many of us would help combat myths about who is at risk.

We also need to stop kidding ourselves about the progress we've made. Sure, the world is a more accepting place than it was 50 years ago, but homophobia still kills. According to the Mexican gay rights group Letra S., "[b]etween 1995 and 2006, about 1,200 Mexicans were killed because of their sexual orientation." And violence against gay and transsexual citizens is not a country-specific problem, but is common throughout the rest of the Americas as well. Yes, even here in the States, where people come with the expectation of protection (rest in peace, Angie Zapata). Our governments need to ensure that hate-crimes are recognized as such, and prosecuted. Parents need to make sure that their children know that dehumanizing someone because of their sexual identity is evil. We cannot continue to create an environment of hate, and those who promote intolerance need to keep in mind that the ripple effect of acts of violence has the ability to impact us all in a multitude of ways.

We cannot fight disease with lies, threats, or platitudes. If we want to keep all of our citizens safe, we need to respect and protect them. And that means being honest - even about sex.

Perfectly Patriotic: Creating a 'Smiling Angel' for Opening Ceremonies

According to the BBC:

Wearing a red dress and pigtails, Lin Miaoke charmed a worldwide audience with a rendition of “Ode to the Motherland”.

But the singer was Yang Peiyi, who was not allowed to appear because she is not as "flawless" as nine-year-old Lin...

Speaking on Beijing Radio station, musical director Chen Qigang said the organisers needed a girl with both a good image and a good voice.

They faced a dilemma because although Lin was prettier, seven-year-old Yang had the better voice, Mr Chen said.

"After several tests, we decided to put Lin Miaoke on the live picture, while using Yang Peiyi's voice," he told the radio station.

"The reason for this is that we must put our country's interest first," he added.

The message to girls world-wide is clear: No matter what your talents might be, be cute or get out of sight. You know, for your country.

UPDATE: Feministing has picked up this story and rightly makes the point that Yang Peiyi is adorable. She's really cute. So it isn't enough just to be cute and talented - you have to be the state-approved variety of cute. Otherwise, here is a state-approved curtain to hide behind, girls!

Do We Have a Global Responsibility?

As a very passionate activist, I often find myself having conversations with people about why I feel the need to, say, help women in Africa who are subjected to FGM, when I live and work in America. It's not my problem, they usually say. Not my responsibility. Can't I at least stick to my own country? We've got a war going on, the economy to worry about, all sorts of problems. Don't I have better things to worry about?

People insist that I should mind my own business and keep to myself.

I just can't do that. Here's why...

For starters, the world is not as disconnected as we'd like to think. A recent study suggests that the six degrees of separation theory was pretty dead on (it's also been studied in mathematical theory, but I don't have a link for that). But even more than that, for all of our differences, people around the world are just like us. They have families to love, jobs to keep, and rights being violated. If I can help them just the teeny, tiniest bit by taking action and urging others to take action too, why the hell shouldn't I?!

Also, helping with one cause doesn't stop me from helping with another. I can write to authorities in Iran asking them to stop a woman from being executed by stoning AND write to congress about ending the war in Iraq. I can donate a suit that'll never fit me to a woman who really needs it AND cast a vote on Election Day.

There is of course the image of the big, bad, American feminists trying to tell Third World Women how to live their lives. I've given this a lot of consideration, and I just don't think it's as prevalent as people think it is. Women in other countries deserve to lead their lives with lives. I don't want to you to lose your culture, but I do want you to have access to birth control and safe abortions, stronger rape laws, the ability to leave your husband if he beats you, etc.

So, DO we have a global responsibility? Do we even have a local responsibility? I agree with JK Rowling on this one: we have imaginations so that we can use our cognitive ability to empathize with people all around the world in situations we will never face. I think our responsibility is to act on that empathy if we really feel it. So long as you are communicating with the people we want to help, rather than giving them the help we think they might want.

In the end, I think it is a personal choice. If you can barely make ends meet for yourself, I don't expect you to donate anything to someone living halfway around the world. And if you do have more than you need, but you don't want to for whatever reason, I won't make you. Just don't try to stop me from doing it, because I won't.

What are your thoughts? Do you think we have a global responsibility? Or should we clean up our own house before trying to bust into others?

Rape Inquiry Squads

The UK has a good idea, one that is long-overdue. According to a report in the BBC:

Every police force should set up a specialist squad to investigate rape allegations, a senior officer says.

John Yates, who speaks on the issue for the Association of Chief Police Officers, argues such teams would help raise standards of victim care.

They would also help improve conviction rates as rape inquiries are demanding and require specialist skills, he told a London conference on the issue.

Hopefully, this proposed specialist squad will become a universal reality soon. In addition to increasing the level of expertise of the officers who investigate rapes, I believe more survivors might report if they understand that their cases will be taken seriously, and that they will be provided the support of officers who specialize in rape and sexual assault. I have heard too many accounts from survivors that they've been asked victim-blaming questions by officers who come to investigate, and that the experience of reporting was more traumatic that it should be. Hopefully, the British are on the path to changing that.

UPDATE: Also, my third and fourth Feministe posts are up!

(image via)