Papers and Peer Pressure

by Susie Burdett

I had thought that I would blog to celebrate the creation of UN Women, the new UN organisation that has taken over operations for gender equality from the previous four organisations of the UN that were once dedicated to women's issues. I was going to talk about some projects, such as Prosperity Candles, or a shelter in Ethiopia, that are some of the positive initiatives occuring in complex political contexts. But then this article, about toilets, worked to combine a few of the random loose threads circling my brain.

Those loose threads can be effectively summed up in the picture at the top of this article.

So how do I get from toilets to Julia Roberts? Well, simple really. The International Development Enterprises (IDE) are trying to improve sanitary conditions in Cambodia and at the same time provide economic opportunities for local businesses. They do this through the somewhat controverisal method of shaming people into using a toilet. Sanitary conditions are a major problem in Cambodia. For the sake of those of a more sensitive constitution, I won't go into detail, but previous attempts to improve conditions by giving toilets away have failed. By shaming people into wanting a toilet, the IDE hopes to create the motivation to use it, and having developed an easy to build model, they have given local businesses a chance to build and sell the toilets, thus increasing economic activities at the same time as improving living conditions.

On the other hand is a photo of Julia Roberts dressed to impress which was widely ridiculed in the press due to the naturally occuring axillary hair clearly on display. Media, whether that be the newspapers, movie (both mainstream and x-rated) makers or magazines, continuely subjected people to images of a a supposed ideal of man and womanhood. Media has helped make plucking, shaving, trimming and shaping of body hair the norm, and have transformed plastic surgery to an aspiration for many seeking this apparent model of perfection, rather than a valuable tool allowing those suffering terrible injuries and disfigurements to lead normal lives.

Whilst I may find a narrow definition of beauty - and indeed the stress on the importance of beauty over other, more practical virtues - uncomfortable and distasteful, I am not actually condemning the beauty industry or the media (and cultural) obsession with celebrity and beauty - I am in no position to cast the first stone. My point is, if media can change the beauty ideal from the hairy men and women found in, say, The Joy of Sex to the plucked, buffed and toned actors, actresses and models we see on film, TV and in magazines, what else could they do?

Media, particularly social media, has been vital to raising awareness of conflict and tragedies around the world - as has been clearly highlighted by the news coming from Tunisia and Egypt, but it has also used peer pressure and shame to inflict and impose a narrow view of gender. It is clear how powerful media is as a force for creating change and raising awareness. How much change could they do for the good if, rather than using shame to inflict one way of being a woman (or man), they celebrated humanity, condemned injustice and encouraged equality? Both the media and the IDE use shame in their tool kit. But what a difference in the results!

Dates and Women

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.

International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women

By Susie Burdett

The United Nations has declared the 25^th November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and marks the beginning of the 16 days of Activism Against Gender Violence Campaign. Which seems as good a time to blog as any!

But the difficulty is what to blog about. I could talk about the abuse women suffer at the hands of those at home, by strangers, and even, in some places, by the authorities. I could discuss the use of such cruel punishments as flogging and the death penalty (or even just the death penalty itself). The choice is (sadly) almost endless, but I think I’m going to take inspiration from the root of the day, and see where it takes me…

The 25^th November isn’t just a random date chosen from the 365 available, but is the anniversary of the assassination of the Mirabal Sisters. Patria, Minerva and Maria Teresa were three sisters (their fourth sister is still alive and curates a museum dedicated to them) heavily involved in the resistance against the Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo, who ordered their assassination. On the 25^th November, after a visit to their husbands in prison, the three sisters, plus their driver, were dragged into a sugar cane grove then beaten and strangled to death. This marked the beginning of the end for Trujillo, who was assassinated a year later.

The Mirabal Sisters are just some of the many female political campaigners who dedicate their lives, sometimes at great danger to themselves, to promote democracy, equality or justice. Women all over the world, in many different ways, have, do and will continue to fight for what they see as right. From the Suffragettes of late 19^th/early 20^th Century Britain, to women participants in collective action in the South America, Asia and Africa, women have and do fight to promote democracy.

Political participation, however, continues to be problematic for the female sex. Women who wish to actively participate in politics continue to face challenges and obstacles, even when they have gained the right to vote and to stand in government. In Afghanistan, for instance, female candidates face intimidation and often violence during their campaigns. For one candidate, this intimidation ended in tragedy when five of her campaigners (all male) were killed.

Even in countries with a longer history of equal participation, such as the US, women candidates face obstacles in their campaign. This article shows how news media in the US treat male and female candidates differently. Female candidates not only receive less coverage, but their coverage concentrates more on their viability as candidates than their issue positions, and to further compound their chances, their viability coverage is more negative than their male counterparts (for instance, we are likely to be able to say more about the likelihood of Christine O’Donnell being a witch than on her political beliefs). With this kind of coverage, the general public, who are often dependent of the news media for their information on candidates, are more likely to form a negative opinion of female candidates than their male opponents.

But let us be more positive for a moment. Where there is success for female activists, and there are many successes, the benefit isn’t just to them, or just to women, but to the whole of their communities, country and to the wider world, who in today’s global communication era are touched by the efforts of others. This week we have also seen the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, whose decades long campaign to bring democracy to Burma, which has come at such a huge personal cost, has brought international attention to the plight of the Burmese people, and whose release will hopefully bring fresh hope to the people of Burma.

I realise that I have strayed from the theme of eliminating violence against women, but I firmly believe that without democratic privileges, women will not be free from violence, as they will not be able to hold to account the people who perpetrate that violence without the mechanisms which democracy gives them. Democracy is also an appropriate subject, as for many prominent female political campaigners (as well as make campaigners), violence and aggression are common tools employed to silence them.

I have always said that I will cast a vote at every opportunity given to me, because people have fought to give me that right and people continue to fight for that right, facing intimidation, aggression and violence. Voting is a privilege I am lucky to have, and with privilege comes responsibility.

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.