Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Women Have Never Striven More for Less
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/style/women-have-never-striven-more-for-less/article1345668/
Women have never striven more for less
Females are willing to do more work than men for less credit, a reality that will always keep our daughters down no matter how diligent they are in school and work. And it isn't a new story
Published on Friday, Oct. 30, 2009 4:16PM EDT Last updated on Sunday, Nov. 01, 2009 1:02PM EST
Good news, girlfriends: It was a banner week for women.
According to the University of Alberta, the salaries of recent female business graduates narrowly exceeded those of their male counterparts for the first time. In the U.S., a recent study called the Shriver Report found that half the American work force is now composed of women.
Women, the report said, currently make up an amazing 40 per cent of the country's breadwinners. On this side of the border, Statistics
So, my sisters, it's time to pop the champagne, put on the Beyoncé and do the Single Ladies dance until ... hey ... wait a second. If you stop the pelvic-thrusting long enough to read the fine print of the 400-odd-page Shriver Report, which was conducted by California first lady Maria Shriver with the help of a think tank, the Center for American Progress, the news is actually not so great.
Despite working harder and in greater numbers than ever before, women are still earning less than men in the same jobs over all and taking most of the responsibility for housework and child care.
In essence, the plight of women is like that old morale-boosting management trick: the no-compensation promotion (also known as the non-raise raise). It's all very flattering until you realize that you have just taken on twice as much work and responsibility for no extra pay or respect.
It's a raw deal. And here's another bitter pill: Working harder than men is not going to help us renegotiate the terms.
If you want proof, just look at the plight of women in the developing world. Of the roughly one billion people who live in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women and girls. It's a situation that has prompted Plan International to launch its new Because I am a Girl campaign, a global initiative to change to the lives of women through education and community development work. According to the mission statement, “investing in girls is the key to wiping out the cycle of global poverty.” This is because women are the donkeys of the developing world. You don't need a statistician to tell you that African women on balance work much harder than their male counterparts and have far less to show for it.
Of course, there are fewer opportunities in the developing world – it's estimated that 20 million poor women never go to school or learn to read. But when we do get a chance at education, we work our tails off. For every 100 women enrolled in a U.S. university, there are only 77 men. In Canada, a similar gender gap exists.
The question is: Where is all this hard work actually getting us? As one perennially exhausted breadwinner/mother of three young children recently said to me, “As the mother, you just have to work harder at everything. You might as well accept it; otherwise you'll just be miserable.”
No wonder the Shriver Report found that women “feel increasingly isolated, stressed and misunderstood.” We have cast off our patriarchal shackles, but in exchange for enforced hard labour.
In this new world order, women get to support their partners, remain the primary child-care givers and earn less money for doing the same jobs as men. See? Promotion without compensation.
At least in the 1950s, middle-class women got to stay home and drink martinis like on Mad Men. Maybe they were miserable, but they could wallow in it. Most working mothers I know wouldn't even have the time to register if they were on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
While women around the globe are working more in exchange for less, what are we worried about here in Canada? Boys. Apparently, they're struggling so badly that we need to dismantle the public education system to accommodate them. In Ontario, experts are recommending extra recesses and special “active learning” classrooms where boys can swing from the rafters while learning long division. We're concerned not enough of them are going to university and that, by extension, girls are going to take over the world.
But don't fret, all you protective parents of hyperactive boys, that will never happen. Because what the Shriver Report really tells us is that women are willing to do more work than men for less credit, a reality that will always keep our daughters down no matter how diligent they are in school and work. And it isn't a new story – just ask any African woman.
I'm not saying that men don't work hard – just that, when they do, they are much better at reaping the benefits of success. While men work toward outward status – the double brass ring of power and success – women tend to be driven by intrinsic reasons: duty, loyalty, the need to be “good.”
Joanne Lipman, the former deputy managing editor of The Wall Street Journal and editor-in-chief of Portfolio magazine, recently wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times responding to the Shriver Report. In it, she revealed that, during her years as an editor, “many, many men have come through my door asking for a raise or demanding a promotion. Guess how many women have ever asked me for a promotion? I'll tell you. Exactly… zero.”
Maybe while we're letting the boys out at recess, we should take the girls aside and teach them how to demand a raise. If our daughters are going to get a promotion, they might as well get compensated for it.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
New Anti-Choice/Personhood Initative
http://coloradoindependent.com/40520/personhood-initiative-lining-up-friends-and-foes
Personhood initiative lining up friends and foes
New anti-abortion plan would freeze much genetic and fertilization research in the state
By Joseph Boven 10/27/09 10:15 AM
A version of the anti-abortion initiative soundly defeated by Colorado voters in 2008 is making its way to the 2010 ballot, this time reworked as an “egg-as-a-person” initiative.
This new version would move the legal definition of a person further back into the reproductive cycle, granting cells the full spectrum of citizen rights. Opposition groups, including Colorado genetic and fertilization researchers, say the law would have spiraling consequences, that it would put women at risk and freeze current work in medicine and reproduction.
Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, the groups behind proposed Initiative 25, are undeterred by the fact that Coloradans voted against the test-run amendment last year by a margin of three to one. The new amendment is even farther reaching, moving the initial marker for the beginning of life from “fertilization” to “the beginning of the biological development of a human being.”
Personhood Colorado Director and the initiative proponent Gualberto Garcia Jones told The Colorado Independent that the change was made “to be more comprehensive in our definition of a person” and was not done to make it more appealing to voters.
“It’s intended to account for human beings who may be created through asexual reproduction in laboratories and used as raw material for research, organs, or stem cells. Fertilization would not have properly applied to asexually reproduced humans, but even asexually reproduced human beings have a definite biological beginning,” Jones explained.
“Over half-a-million Coloradans voted for the personhood initiative in 2008,” Jones said in a press conference announcing the campaign. “Their votes acknowledging the God-given right to life of the pre-born revolutionizes the pro-life movement and encourage us toward victory. ”
Science stoppage
Johnathan Van Blerkom, professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said if the personhood initiative were passed and upheld, it would have negative consequences for those not only involved in embryonic stem cell research but also for individuals looking to participate in in-vitro fertilization programs.
“To begin with [embryonic] stem cell research would stop,” Van Blerkom said. “There would be no research in genetics in the causes of the origins congenital diseases that occur in humans, how to fix them, how to protect them early.”
“You would find in this state, myself included, that embryo research would freeze. If there were criminal penalties or you were lumped together with abortionists for looking at embryos that are discarded because they are abnormal and you want to know why they are abnormal … no one is going to do it.”
Van Blerkom who works at a fertilization clinic as well, said that in-vitro fertilization would likely end in the state. He explained that the very process of fertilization can kill the embryo if more than one sperm gets into the egg. He said legal liability would loom over all procedures.
“It’s criminal liability. So would any program want to freeze an embryo in the state of Colorado? If the embryos die, as they frequently do when they are thawed, is that your responsibility? Is it an act of God? An act of science?”
Women’s rights
Monica McCafferty, media relations specialist for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said the slightly modified language does nothing to protect the rights and safety of mothers.
“The new initiative has the same goal [as Amendment 48], to ban all abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the woman is in danger.”
McCafferty said that the language is vague and misleading but the ramifications are clear. “This would have huge implications.”
The legislation would end women’s right to choose in Colorado but would also hamper their ability to take many forms of birth control. McCafferty said the law would create major government intrusions into private lives.
“Coloradans have said time and again that they don’t want government or the courts in their lives when it comes making these personal private decisions.”
Jones frankly agreed. He said the goal of the amendment was to provide a child in the womb with due process and equality of justice.
“If passed, the Personhood Amendment would regain the state’s right to extend protections broader than those granted by the U.S. Constitution, and it would help transform our current decadent culture which currently values a person’s utility instead of their innate worth as a human being.”
But Jones didn’t agree that the language was vague.
“We have proposed a very simple, level-headed definition of what a person is. Namely, a person is a human being from the very beginning of his or her biological development.”
During the 2008 debate over the personhood initiative, Jessica Berg, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, told NPR that fertilized eggs in fertility clinics might need to be counted on the census and that pregnant women presumably could use the high-occupancy traffic lanes. There are absurdities that grow out of this kind of thinking, she said.
“If you don’t know you’re pregnant and you drink or do something dangerous — or you do something problematic very early on, and you’re in Colorado or even passing through Colorado — have you committed child abuse and endangerment?”
Power politics
Asked why voters did not support the initiative in the past Jones told The Colorado Independent that the initiative fell victim to power politics.
“We realize that there are very large political and corporate interests that will do everything in their power to twist this simple proposition into ludicrous scenarios. We’ll be more aggressive this time around in addressing those scare tactics.”
He said that with groups such as Planned Parenthood heading up a coalition of groups to oppose the initiative — last year’s coalition was called Protect Families, Protect Choices — the “pro-abortionists have almost unlimited funds.”
“You see, killing babies pays. Saving babies doesn’t.”
Jones said Planned Parenthood had taken in more than $1 billion in 2008.
RH Reality Check recently reported, however, that anti-abortion rights groups are not hurting for funds.
Wendy Norris, former editor for The Colorado Independent, wrote that personhood groups have brought in almost $58 million in donations. The American Life League, an organization where Jones recently served as legislative director, has brought in more than $35 million since 2003.
National drive
Emilie Ailts, executive director of Denver-based NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, said that the initiatives are part of a nationwide attempt to advance personhood legislation. She said that Personhood USA initially had hoped to introduce legislation in 29 states but that Personhood USA now seems ready to mount grassroots efforts in only nine states.
Aits said that the initiative would change the Colorado Constitution in 20,000 different places.
“People can not even prognosticate how once it was fully implemented how it would affect peoples lives. It would impact so many laws.” She said it would impact not only fertilization and stem cell research but also access to many forms of birth control in the state.
NARAL, like Planned Parenthood and the Republican Majority for Choice banded together with the Colorado Bar Association and 90 other groups, many which do not normally deal with reproductive issues, to create Protect Families, Protect Choices, Aits said. Like last year, she expects the same groups to oppose the measure should it make its way onto the ballot.
“Everyone saw this as something so draconian in 2008 that it would have very negative impacts on the lives of women and their families in the state of Colorado.”
McCafferty said that while Protect Families, Protect Choices worked diligently to oppose last years personhood initiative, it was the Colorado voters who made the decision to reject the amendment.
Jones said he is confident his measure will pass.
“With so much money comes a lot of influence, earned and bought media, and friends in high places. Against this, personhood only has one thing, the truth. The amazing thing is that it is only a matter of time before we prevail.”
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Is supporting women and girls just another fad?
http://jezebel.com/5366937/is-supporting-women-and-girls-just-another-fad?skyline=true&s=x
Is Supporting Women And Girls Just Another Fad?
Edna Adan, founder of a hospital in Somalia, laid out the inequalities women face in her country. She said Somalian women were dying in childbirth "because nobody cares... [People think] she's dying because she was meant to die. She was not meant to die. She could be safe." She added, "the decision of whether she has treatment must be left to the woman. Often it's a husband or a brother or a father who decides whether she will be taken to the hospital or not." Zainab Salbi of the nonprofit Women for Women International told listeners that oppression of women isn't just a third-world problem, and that one in four American women suffers from domestic violence. "It is really a global issue," she said. She also argued that "we can't actually get into environmental issues or climate change or ending poverty or wars if we don't invest seriously in women."
It's a common statement these days. Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn are giving issues affecting women and girls lots of exposure, and arguing that resolving these issues will actually reduce poverty and violence. And panelist (and Goldman Sachs CEO) Lloyd Blankfein's statement that "investing in women is investing in families" is no longer controversial. But does that mean the corporate world really cares about women and girls?
Panelist Rex Tillerson, chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, said,
Philosophically, we are committed because it's critical to our own sustainability in the countries in which we operate. A large part of our activities today and in the future are in less-developed parts of the world. So our longer term success is built around the ability to have a productive work force, have communities that are stable. And it's not just financial commitment, but human-resource commitment. [...] funding is not the issue. Not necessarily.
But according to Zainab Salbi, funding is the issue, because women still get only one cent of every development dollar spent around the world. And even those who agree that money is necessary may not care so much about helping women and girls as an end in itself. Jos at Feministing writes, "for the businessmen on the panel 'empowering' women seemed to be more about using them as the person that funds go through." And Blankfein called investing in women "a recruiting tool and a retention tool" for Goldman Sachs.
Helping women and girls seems to be the method du jour both for reducing global poverty and for looking like a socially responsible business. Insofar as this actually leads to the improvement of female lives around the world — and there's evidence that microfinance efforts, at least, do — this is a good thing. And if helping women also results in helping families and societies, that's good too. But Tillerson's lip-service to women's issues and Blankfein's use of them as a recruiting tool are troubling because they suggest that big business leaders think supporting women and girls is the hip thing to do right now. This hipness could lead to real change, but it could also lead to high-profile, low-impact efforts that don't do much good. Environmentalism is in a similar state right now — it's cool to be photographed wearing "green" clothing, but we need a lot more than Cameron Diaz in an organic shirt to stop climate change. And we need more than an oil exec talking about "human-resource commitments" to stop women dying in childbirth. Let's hope we get it.
Global Power Gals [The Daily Beast]
Clinton Global Initiative: Investing In Girls And Women [Feministing]
Monday, September 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
