Women hold up half the sky

Absolutely. And Nicholas Kristof rocks our world. (Thanks also to his journalist wife, Sheryl WuDunn)

IN THE 19TH CENTURY, the paramount moral challenge was slavery. In the 20th century, it was  totalitarianism. In this century, it is the brutality inflicted on so many women and girls around the globe: sex trafficking, acid attacks, bride burnings and mass rape.

Yet if the injustices that women in poor countries suffer are of paramount importance, in an economic and geopolitical sense the opportunity they represent is even greater. “Women hold up half the sky,” in the words of a Chinese saying, yet that’s mostly an aspiration: in a large slice of the world, girls are uneducated and women marginalized, and it’s not an accident that those same countries are disproportionately mired in poverty and riven by fundamentalism and chaos. There’s a growing recognition among everyone from the World Bank to the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to aid organizations like CARE that focusing on women and girls is the most effective way to fight global poverty and extremism. That’s why foreign aid is increasingly directed to women. The world is awakening to a powerful truth: Women and girls aren’t the problem; they’re the solution.

Please please read the rest.

And while you're at it, be sure to click on this slide show.

Which reminds me, here's an interview with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, about how women are the the core of the Obama administration's foreign policy.

Democracy means nothing if half the people can’t vote, or if their vote doesn’t count, or if their literacy rate is so low that the exercise of their vote is in question. Which is why when I travel, I do events with women, I talk about women’s rights, I meet with women activists, I raise women’s concerns with the leaders I’m talking to.

I happen to believe that the transformation of women’s roles is the last great impediment to universal progress — that we have made progress on many other aspects of human nature that used to be discriminatory bars to people’s full participation. But in too many places and too many ways, the oppression of women stands as a stark reminder of how difficult it is to realize people’s full human potential.

Feminism. It's going to save mankind.

Heh.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE (Aug. 21/09): It's a movement! 

(H/t to Doreen.)

Comments

[glenfitz]

So, Antonia, do you really believe that feminism (re: women) is,” going to save mankind?”

There’s a political science doctorate sitting right beside me in this large cafeteria.

She has this peculiar idea that it isn’t feminism, or any of the ideological “isms,” that will, “save the world.” She adds the point that the progress of human civilization doesn’t just depend on women, because after all, men hold up the other,” half of the sky.”

Rather it is ordinary people perfectly united across the lines of gender, race, religion and politics that will save this Earth’s environment and human civilization.

Everyday folk who happen to be men and women will save the world. But feminism most definitely will not save the world---and for reasons which ought to be totally obvious.

[glenfitz]

I also wanted to comment that if Hillary Clinton claims that, "women are the the core of the Obama administration's foreign policy," she might as well claim that war is also the core of Obama's foreign policy.

On June 07, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today warned that by continuing to refuse to abandon its civilian nuclear program, Iran risked the possibility of an invasion and first strike by the US or," some other enemy that would do that to them."

That sounds like man talk to me.

Also note that the United Stated States' own National Intelligence Estimate as recently as 2007 published its conclusions that Iran possesses no nuclear arms program.

Also note that the United States has played a pivotal role in creating and supporting cruel and extreme tyranny in Iran---beginning in 1954 when the U.S instigated the coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected leader---a man beloved by Iranians as a true believer in democracy---and replaced him with the Shaw and the Shaw's vicious police state.

And I won't mention U.S covert support for Saddam Hussein's nineteen eighties bid to conquer Iran.

Given the United States continually belligerent stance toward Iran, I would say that's pretty harsh war rhetoric.

Clinton isn't called the ",war goddess," for nothing.

So here's another hint for you, Antonia. If the feminist movement ever becomes associated with the neo-conservative war party's militarism in the United States, most of us who oppose that militarism will turn against the feminist movement on a dime. That thought ought to scare most feminists.

The truth is, neo-conservatism, sometimes called neo-liberalism, is just as at home with the democratic as with the Republican party.

[Antonia]

Time to get out of the cafeteria Glenn. You're hearing voices.

And feminism will save the world. Where is no gender equality, there is no democracy, no social justice, no human rights, no birth control.

What there is is war over land and resources, violence, overpopulation, human trafficking, starvation, injustice, barbarity etc.

Feminist governments -- governments that truly subscribe to feminist principles and are not just headed by women -- do not make war on their own people.

[glenfitz]

Antonia, to insist that all "people," regardless of gender, united with one another across the "isms" and things that usually divide them will bring about a better world is to hear the voice of reason and true idealism.

Put another way, it is the voice of reason and true idealism (rather than feminism), speaking on behalf of All people (rather than just women) that will bring about a better world.

Perhaps, it will be some sort of broadly based human rights movement that will enable us to reach for that noble goal of enlightenment.

As far as I'm able to gather, feminism speaks on behalf of women----that is why its called feminism.

So feminism might be expected to bring about a better world for women. But to bring about a better world for everyone requires a movement that speaks for everyone. Logic 101, Antonia.

Unless you want to bend the meaning of the term "feminism" to mean all people, then I think it foolish to imply that it is just a movement based on the rights of women that will accomplish that task.

That is not to say that feminism doesn't fill a needed role to make us more aware of our collective failure to include women into an equal whole that makes up the human race.

I think I'm stating the obvious, don't you?

Cheers, Glenfitz

P.S: I assure you that the "voices" I heard in this crowded cafeteria in a large university are quite real human voices. I also assure you that some of the political science faculty can be found at the same table each day.

[glenfitz]

As much as I'd like to buy into your allegation that I'm hearing imaginary voices and take personal credit for the following point, I can't.

A very lovely person, a feminist and political science professor wants me to put the following questions to you. So here goes.

When you wrote the line about feminism that, "It's going to save mankind," did you deliberately use the sexist term, "mankind? (I would never have thought to ask the question, actually)"

And if you DID deliberately use the term, with forthought, could one loosely translate your line to really mean: "women will save men." After all, the feminist movement refers to a women's movement.

If what you mean to say is that women (i.e the feminist priniciple) will save men doesn't that assertion harken to female chauvinism?

Cheers, glenfitz

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"Feminism. It's going to save MAN(???)kind."?

[Antonia]

Irony. Heard of it, gentlemen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

What part of the ''heh'' did you not understand?