No, this blog isn't about the effects of a sticky fruit on women, or a guide to how best to romance a potential date, but is a kind of follow up to my last post International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The article "Dates and Women" on the BBC website was sent to me as possible inspiration for a blog post, and it seemed a suitable subject as a follow up. I encourage any and all readers of this blog to take a peek, if only to save me having to regurgitate the whole argument!
Farai Sevenzo writes a passionate and meaningful article about the need to go beyond dedicating days to women, and to look to making marked attidudinal changes to women's position, status and education. He argues that whilst dedicating days to raising awareness of women's issues is a start, we have to make changes in our own outlooks, and to bring about real differences, promote change and go further than the odd flashpoint of interest.
Whilst I agree with much of what Mr Sevenzo says, what strikes me most about the article are the comments left by readers at the bottom of the article. I feel that these highlight how our own points of view affect how we interpret the world. Among the comments left is praise from a Social Scientist, glad to shaken out of theoretical inertia and many comments from women from all over Africa speaking in support of dedicating dates to the issues they, and their sisters across the world face. But I think that two comments in particular jump out at me, one from an African woman who seems a little defensive, criticising Mr Sevenzo for discussing days dedicated to women, rather than commenting on the number of other days dedicated to other causes. She expresses no surprise that the article is written by a man. The last post (or at least at the time of writing this blog) comes from an British woman, who expresses her thanks that an African man points out the need for change, and for a new approach to the ending of gender discrimination.
I think these two posts in particular highlight the difference a persons perceptions can have on how they read this article - on one hand a lady who feels aggreved that a man should suggest that days dedicated to womens causes are not final solution to gender discrimination, and on the other hand we have a lady who agrees that we need to change our attitudes and awareness, not just on one or two important dates, but in general. The way we feel about an issue, and about the wider world, can affect how we view a certain situation. I am no exception to this. Doubtless I have read the post in a different way in which you may have done. This is what I get out of this story. Until we look critically at how we view the world, question our own assumptions, learn, educate others and fight inertia in the face of discrimination, real change will not happen, no matter how many Women's days there are. Last year was the centenary of the International Day to Eliminate Violence Against Women. Lets hope that by next anniversary there has been some real, positive change in the value women are held in, a reduction in discrimination and violence against women, and an improvement in their education.
Showing posts with label Discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Discrimination. Show all posts
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Man Up
by Emily Oldrieve
Recently, whilst queueing in a popular coffee shop, I overheard a conversation between two female friends which included the phrase: ‘that girl needs to man up’. At the time I took little notice of this as my concentration was fully engaged in obtained a much needed caffeine hit; however, in retrospect, I feel this statement needs some consideration, especially in terms of gender equality. On examining the episode it struck me that, perhaps more bizarre than the glaring contradiction expressed, was the fact that I did not immediately identify the statement as a contradiction. It seems that loaded phrases such as these have become common colloquialisms, at least for certain sections of modern British society. The two main points I want to consider are how important it is, in the grand scheme of things, to take the time to worry about something as abstract as a throw-away comment made in casual conversation. Furthermore to then understand what exactly the connotations of the phrase ‘man up’ actually are.
To address my first point, I must admit that I did initially feel my topic might be fairly insignificant when I read through previous blogs on this website which contain heart-wrenching stories, and facts that paint a scary picture for gender equality across the globe. Obviously what I am talking about isn’t the difference between life and death; however I feel we must not forget the seemingly little things which can, sometimes, make us aware of inequalities embedded in our society. Although words in themselves cannot be compared to an immediate, physical threat it is the vast amount of social and historical implications behind a phrase that represents the danger. To clarify this, I came across a rather interesting radio program hosted by Stephen Fry for the BBC entitled He Said, She Said (available on BBC i-player). Although he is exploring a slightly different issue he does discuss how during the 1970-80s women campaigned against words such as ‘chairman‘ claiming it should be ‘chairperson’, and ‘humankind‘ instead of ‘mankind‘. A significant part of their campaign was aimed at an awareness that certain words are unfairly orientated, in this case towards men. The importance of changing words and phrases for these women lay in the fact that words are heavily loaded with social meaning that every member of that society understands albeit subconsciously. I am not suggesting that we should be saying ‘person up’ or exiling gender based phrases from our vocabulary, but i am emphasising the importance behind words and the role they have in maintaining or establishing gender inequalities, and that we should be aware of what we are saying if we are to use these phrases.
So, what exactly are we saying? The phrase ‘man up’ as I understand it means that one should either stop being overly sensitive, be brave or take responsibility. Does this therefore mean that only men can possess these qualities, and for women to become less sensitive or braver they must become more masculine? Can there not be a un-sensitive or a brave female personality? Similarly if this phrase is implying that a man is un-sensitive and hardened does this mean that all males must display these characteristics to be classed as a ‘man’? Furthermore is it suggesting men should be more obligated than women to live up to these characteristics? Any or none of these interpretations could be valid, but if these are the insinuations that lie behind a seemingly harmless comment it is an example of the dangerous and old fashioned stereotypes still being kept alive implicitly behind everything we say. Essentially this phrase relies upon, and supports, unhelpful generalisations about gender and detract from positive changes that are being attempted in our society in general. If nothing else this goes to highlight how issues of equality can affect every facet of our lives, and we should be aware of attacking inequality from every angle: even when we are gossiping in coffee shops!
To address my first point, I must admit that I did initially feel my topic might be fairly insignificant when I read through previous blogs on this website which contain heart-wrenching stories, and facts that paint a scary picture for gender equality across the globe. Obviously what I am talking about isn’t the difference between life and death; however I feel we must not forget the seemingly little things which can, sometimes, make us aware of inequalities embedded in our society. Although words in themselves cannot be compared to an immediate, physical threat it is the vast amount of social and historical implications behind a phrase that represents the danger. To clarify this, I came across a rather interesting radio program hosted by Stephen Fry for the BBC entitled He Said, She Said (available on BBC i-player). Although he is exploring a slightly different issue he does discuss how during the 1970-80s women campaigned against words such as ‘chairman‘ claiming it should be ‘chairperson’, and ‘humankind‘ instead of ‘mankind‘. A significant part of their campaign was aimed at an awareness that certain words are unfairly orientated, in this case towards men. The importance of changing words and phrases for these women lay in the fact that words are heavily loaded with social meaning that every member of that society understands albeit subconsciously. I am not suggesting that we should be saying ‘person up’ or exiling gender based phrases from our vocabulary, but i am emphasising the importance behind words and the role they have in maintaining or establishing gender inequalities, and that we should be aware of what we are saying if we are to use these phrases.
So, what exactly are we saying? The phrase ‘man up’ as I understand it means that one should either stop being overly sensitive, be brave or take responsibility. Does this therefore mean that only men can possess these qualities, and for women to become less sensitive or braver they must become more masculine? Can there not be a un-sensitive or a brave female personality? Similarly if this phrase is implying that a man is un-sensitive and hardened does this mean that all males must display these characteristics to be classed as a ‘man’? Furthermore is it suggesting men should be more obligated than women to live up to these characteristics? Any or none of these interpretations could be valid, but if these are the insinuations that lie behind a seemingly harmless comment it is an example of the dangerous and old fashioned stereotypes still being kept alive implicitly behind everything we say. Essentially this phrase relies upon, and supports, unhelpful generalisations about gender and detract from positive changes that are being attempted in our society in general. If nothing else this goes to highlight how issues of equality can affect every facet of our lives, and we should be aware of attacking inequality from every angle: even when we are gossiping in coffee shops!
Friday, 23 July 2010
Clothes
by Susie Burdett
My thoughts recently have been on clothes. And for once thats not just because I've been shopping in the sales (taupe silk/cotton shift dress if you must know), but because I have realised how central clothes are to me, without even realising. It is also appropriate due to recent issues concerning the attire that many Muslim women choose to wear.
France (among other countries) have now banned the wearing of the burqa and the niqab in public. They have cited a number of reasons for doing so, including that wearing such an obvious religious symbol is against French values of equality and secularism, and that the full face veil was a sign of discrimination against women.
Now, I'm in two minds over this issue. One part of me can't help feeling outraged to assume that;
a) women are being forced to wear the veil, when many choose to do so freely, and under no pressure except that of her own religious feeling, and that this assumption underlines the prejudice that assumes women are helpless and ignores that large amount of evidence that women are perfectly able to make up their own minds about an issue
b) that the banning of an article of clothing is not equally as discriminating as forcing someone against their will to wear something.
Yet, part of me can't help agreeing with others that the veil reflects an extreme reading of Islam and the Koran, and that it also reflects the unwillingness of certain sectors of the migrant population to assimilate into their new home (see this article for further discussion on this). Even within the Muslim community, opinion is divided (see for instance, this article about a French, Muslim politician and this blog for opinions in favour of the ban from within the Muslim community).
Personally, I have to agree with Valerie Hartwich on this one, that this is an over simplification of a far wider issue, and I would add that I am deeply suspicious of any law that attempts to dictate what women can and cannot wear. This quote from Hartwich pretty much sums it up:
Women’s liberation is a battle that has been fought for over a century, and will have to continue through sheer dedication, advocacy and dialogue. Equally, ensuring national security and cohesion is a tedious task, which requires enormous amounts of personnel, intelligence and dialogue. In neither cases will a law banning the burqa truly help. It might give the illusion of political action, and reassure some that ‘sacred Western values’ are being preserved. But in fact, it will go a long way towards entrenching positions further, rendering dialogue harder, and making tensions run higher. A law will not resolve the identity crisis many European countries are going through, nor will it help towards the integration of European citizens. The burqa is but a crystallisation, an expression of these tensions.
My thoughts recently have been on clothes. And for once thats not just because I've been shopping in the sales (taupe silk/cotton shift dress if you must know), but because I have realised how central clothes are to me, without even realising. It is also appropriate due to recent issues concerning the attire that many Muslim women choose to wear.
France (among other countries) have now banned the wearing of the burqa and the niqab in public. They have cited a number of reasons for doing so, including that wearing such an obvious religious symbol is against French values of equality and secularism, and that the full face veil was a sign of discrimination against women.
Now, I'm in two minds over this issue. One part of me can't help feeling outraged to assume that;
a) women are being forced to wear the veil, when many choose to do so freely, and under no pressure except that of her own religious feeling, and that this assumption underlines the prejudice that assumes women are helpless and ignores that large amount of evidence that women are perfectly able to make up their own minds about an issue
b) that the banning of an article of clothing is not equally as discriminating as forcing someone against their will to wear something.
Yet, part of me can't help agreeing with others that the veil reflects an extreme reading of Islam and the Koran, and that it also reflects the unwillingness of certain sectors of the migrant population to assimilate into their new home (see this article for further discussion on this). Even within the Muslim community, opinion is divided (see for instance, this article about a French, Muslim politician and this blog for opinions in favour of the ban from within the Muslim community).
Personally, I have to agree with Valerie Hartwich on this one, that this is an over simplification of a far wider issue, and I would add that I am deeply suspicious of any law that attempts to dictate what women can and cannot wear. This quote from Hartwich pretty much sums it up:
Women’s liberation is a battle that has been fought for over a century, and will have to continue through sheer dedication, advocacy and dialogue. Equally, ensuring national security and cohesion is a tedious task, which requires enormous amounts of personnel, intelligence and dialogue. In neither cases will a law banning the burqa truly help. It might give the illusion of political action, and reassure some that ‘sacred Western values’ are being preserved. But in fact, it will go a long way towards entrenching positions further, rendering dialogue harder, and making tensions run higher. A law will not resolve the identity crisis many European countries are going through, nor will it help towards the integration of European citizens. The burqa is but a crystallisation, an expression of these tensions.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
R2P and Gender
by Susie Burdett
Ok, so that sounds like some sort of thesis title and I really will try not to waffle too much with this, but let me explain a few things before I get going. I am currently writing (or should I say failing to write) a dissertation on the independence of Kosovo, and this introduced me to the idea of R2P.
R2P stands for Right to Protect, and is a set of principles (primarily in international relations and politics) that sees sovereignty not as a right but as a responsibility. I will explain the main principles shortly. I have been reminded about R2P by an article by the journal Foreign Policy about women in Afghanistan (discussing this report) and how the planned withdrawal of US involvement will end what little progress has been made here since the invasion. This article made me extremely angry. Read it. You'll see why. Though I fear that it may make me unable to write a clear blog!
I will now admit to some cheating. The following three bullet points have been lifted from Wikipedia(apologies, I know that this isn't always the most reliable source, but what it says does fall in line with what I have read about it...).
R2P can be thought of as having 3 main components:
1. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
2. If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions.
3. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.[1]
According to the The Wall Street Journal, the US, along with many other UN countries, has supported the doctrine known as the Right to Protect. If this is the case, their own actions tell another story.
Whilst I am no advocate for military intervention, and certainly not the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I do believe that if our governments, in their so called wisdom, choose to invade another country in the name of international security and use the excuse that they are doing so to improve the lives of the affected population, and then go on to use images that promote this idea (such as George Bush's use of images of women and girls going to school to "prove" that they have made a positive impression on the said invaded countries), they should take the responsibility to promote the policies, the structures and the mechanisms by which these war torn countries can strengthen the progress made and develop it further!
And yet the article from Foreign Policy (as well as numerous other articles I'm not going to even bother listing) highlights how little progress has actually been made, how the US, UK and their allies have failed to ensure the safety and security of Afghanistan's women, and have thus failed the whole population. The US (and their allies, I am not going to lay all the blame on one countries shoulders) blindness to continuing gender discrimination, violence and the violations of human rights in Afghanistan (and other countries) just highlights how the rhetoric spoken, and the policies pursued so frequently don't match up.
Surely if the UN members pursue the implementation of the norm of R2P and make it law, the UN members should pursue strategies that actually reflect it? Surely the member countries are therefore obliged to pursue the issue of gender discrimination in order to successfully implement the norm?
Surely we have enough evidence to show that unless gender discrimination is addressed and remedied then no state will protect it's population, nor be able to protect the population of another? Gender discrimination is so much more than an issue that affects women - it affects everybody.
Ok, so that sounds like some sort of thesis title and I really will try not to waffle too much with this, but let me explain a few things before I get going. I am currently writing (or should I say failing to write) a dissertation on the independence of Kosovo, and this introduced me to the idea of R2P.
R2P stands for Right to Protect, and is a set of principles (primarily in international relations and politics) that sees sovereignty not as a right but as a responsibility. I will explain the main principles shortly. I have been reminded about R2P by an article by the journal Foreign Policy about women in Afghanistan (discussing this report) and how the planned withdrawal of US involvement will end what little progress has been made here since the invasion. This article made me extremely angry. Read it. You'll see why. Though I fear that it may make me unable to write a clear blog!
I will now admit to some cheating. The following three bullet points have been lifted from Wikipedia(apologies, I know that this isn't always the most reliable source, but what it says does fall in line with what I have read about it...).
R2P can be thought of as having 3 main components:
1. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
2. If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions.
3. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.[1]
According to the The Wall Street Journal, the US, along with many other UN countries, has supported the doctrine known as the Right to Protect. If this is the case, their own actions tell another story.
Whilst I am no advocate for military intervention, and certainly not the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I do believe that if our governments, in their so called wisdom, choose to invade another country in the name of international security and use the excuse that they are doing so to improve the lives of the affected population, and then go on to use images that promote this idea (such as George Bush's use of images of women and girls going to school to "prove" that they have made a positive impression on the said invaded countries), they should take the responsibility to promote the policies, the structures and the mechanisms by which these war torn countries can strengthen the progress made and develop it further!
And yet the article from Foreign Policy (as well as numerous other articles I'm not going to even bother listing) highlights how little progress has actually been made, how the US, UK and their allies have failed to ensure the safety and security of Afghanistan's women, and have thus failed the whole population. The US (and their allies, I am not going to lay all the blame on one countries shoulders) blindness to continuing gender discrimination, violence and the violations of human rights in Afghanistan (and other countries) just highlights how the rhetoric spoken, and the policies pursued so frequently don't match up.
Surely if the UN members pursue the implementation of the norm of R2P and make it law, the UN members should pursue strategies that actually reflect it? Surely the member countries are therefore obliged to pursue the issue of gender discrimination in order to successfully implement the norm?
Surely we have enough evidence to show that unless gender discrimination is addressed and remedied then no state will protect it's population, nor be able to protect the population of another? Gender discrimination is so much more than an issue that affects women - it affects everybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)