Good News for Earth Day: Women Instrumental In Fighting Climate Change
What is the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and gender inequality? Women. A new report released in late March says women are invaluable when it comes to impacting climate change.
Sociologists Christina Ergas and Richard York from the University of Oregon conducted a study which found that countries with more women in political decision-making positions see a reduction in the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions–considered to be the cause of human-induced global climate change.
Ergas and York cite different reasons for the study’s conclusion, including the fact that women are larger participants than men in the green movement–they make up 60 to 80 percent of environmental activists–and that they make different policy decisions than men. Perhaps most importantly, women have more at stake when it comes to climate change because the livelihood of rural women in many countries depends largely on environmental well-being.
The effects of global climate change–such as droughts, floods and crop failures–have serious repercussions for women farmers across the globe. And there are plenty of farming women: The 2012 U.N. Commission on the Status of Women Report noted that they make up 43 percent of the agricultural labor force in developing countries. In Bangladesh, for example, the number of women farmers has been steadily rising for the past decade and as of 2011, women made up nearly half of the agricultural force due to male labor migration. Women in China account for 41 percent of agricultural workers, and special trainings have been conducted to teach Chinese women about new water-saving irrigation technology.
The region with one of the highest numbers of women in agriculture is Sub-Saharan Africa, where women make up 60 to 80 percent of the farming labor force. In Tanzania alone, 98 percent of the rural women who contribute economically are farmers.
Whether out of necessity or choice, women affected by climate change in rural regions take on more social and economic responsibility as crop producers. But while organizations such as U.N. Women and USAID are recognizing and supporting women farmers through environmental technology training, funding and policy recommendations to their local governments, many rural farm women still lack access to land rights and farming subsidies. They also face the burden of unequal pay for doing the same job as their male counterparts, and suffer from various health problems (including exhaustion).
At a time when these detrimental effects of the gendered division of labor are becoming increasingly visible, the study by Ergas and York makes a key point. The conclusion to their report emphasizes the vitality of integrating women into decision-making for climate-change policy, stating:
Improving women’s status around the world may be an important part of efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and prevent dramatic climate change from undermining the long-term prospects of societies.
Focusing on gender equality as integral to the framework of the environmental movement would have many benefits, including providing women with higher cultural status and aiding in the success and efficiency of crop production. The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women reports that if women farmers had the same resources as men, crop productivity would rise 20 to 30 percent, and world hunger would be reduced by a similar percentage. According to Voice of America, that would mean reducing hunger for between 100 and 150 million people. And that’s a great goal to have in mind for Earth Day, which we celebrate this Sunday.
Agriculture under Creative Commons 3.0.
Cross-blogged from Ms. Magazine
Women of the World presents "Surviving and Prospering as a Leader Combating the Hidden Barriers to Success"
Featuring:
Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, Founder, Winning at Work: 21 Secrets to Lead & Succeed
and
Dr. Timothy Hayes, Psychologist,
C & H Counseling Solutions
Meet Jill Morgenthaler, an award-winning leader who trained equally with men in combat situations. She will take us to boot camp, to Bosnia as well as to her famous face-off with Saddam Hussein. The leadership skills she acquired came with no small price. Jill's good friend Dr. Timothy will give us tools for healing, empowerment and reclaiming your life.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
8:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
Mid-America Club
200 E Randolph, 80th floor
Chicago, IL
For further information call 312.467.0607 or email us at info@womenwotw.org
New 'Networked Feminism' Just Like the Old Networked Feminism: Organize or Die
So, I took time off from blogging to get my book going. That's my excuse for my silence of the last few weeks (in case anybody missed me!). But what I learned during these few weeks sure enough is just what the book is about: "Every day (really, really) is election day."
And what a glorious month and counting of election days it's been.
During these last few weeks, millions of my sisters woman-ed the barricades, wrote articles, carried protest signs, tweeted, posted to Facebook, and otherwise expressed their outrage over the latest attempt to beat back women: a campaign to deny women birth control. Yikes. Just writing those words, "deny birth control," makes me crazy, which is probably why I couldn't even begin to write anything cogent. (I, whose very first student internship was at Planned Parenthood.)
But, when I read the Forbes piece about "the new networked feminism," it touched my last nerve. Touched it so forcefully I about jumped out of my chair. Consequently, dear readers, here I am, right back at you: squarely between the eyes, I hope.
Yes, Tom Watson's, the Forbes' writer's basic point is a good one: Social media has enabled those of us wont to be politically active to be even more so, seemingly more frequently because social media is faster, cheaper, gets around the block without leaving the comfort of the couch, and, yes, because it's less hierarchical. And, yes, when each of us owns her own printing press, and the "printing costs" are negligible, that sure does create a do-not-miss opportunity to spread one's views and encourage action in support of them. (Marx was right: Owning the means of production is mighty sweet.)
But when I read this quote in the Forbes piece, by Allison Fine: "(Today) women aren't waiting to be told what to do or which petition to sign, they're just doing what we do best: talking and connecting," I went crazy all over again. I don't know Allison Fine's credentials when it comes to political organizing, or politics, or public policy. What her bio says is that she is an expert on social media. Fine. But this fine isn't nearly fine enough, at least when it comes to the topic of women's political organizing. In fact, this fine is very un-fine: "Talking and connecting (without being told what petition to sign)" is what's been happening this last month? Not hardly. Wrong on the facts. Wrong on the message. Wrong on the goal. Wrong, if what you want to do is support your sisters.
In fact, if one looks at the volume of activity, and what actually transpired during this last month, say,signing this petition to get Rush Limbaugh off of Armed Forces radio, as well as at the success in getting major corporate sponsors to drop Rush Limbaugh, not to mention the success in changing the conversation about women's rights, I'd say that what millions of American women -- from all regions, of all ages, and of every political persuasion -- have been doing this last month is way not chitting and chatting, (which is what the Fine image conjures-up to me, in the process demeaning those of us who did pass petitions instrumental to advancing women's rights), but really smart and really tough-minded political organizing.
But give Ms. Fine credit where credit is due. The primary medium for this recent organizing was social media. But the message sure wasn't, oh gee, let's talk and connect about the evil Mr. Limbaugh. It was, instead: Let's talk and connect ("network") to get rid of the guy. He is seriously bad news, and no one, but no one, should be supporting him.
Jodi Jacobson organized a tough-minded get-rid-of-the-guy campaign, and the petitions to sign to go along with it, to pressure Rush Limbaugh's sponsors to drop him because he was spewing hate-speech, because she didn't believe those corporations should condone such speech. She wasn't sitting around talking and connecting, or asking the rest of us to do the same. Not hardly. She organized the winningest political campaign she could, to combat and defeat this modern-day hate-mongerer.
And this is exactly why the new networked feminism is just like the old networked feminism. Back-in the-day, we were fighting to cripple anti-women hate-mongerers, too. We, too, called-them-out, pressed their sponsors to disaffiliate, and spread our message to like-minded sisters (and brothers). It's just that we did it with telephones and copiers and fax machines, not with social media. But the impetus to action -- by both generations of women activists -- is exactly the same: Beat back and organize against injustice, inequality, and sexism, not to mention against just plain haters. And that's what's really important as we look back at February and March 2012, and treasure this,2012'swomen's history month.
My point here isn't to quibble about the use of language. It is to speak plainly about the importance of properly characterizing a civil rights movement that continues, and vigorously, at that. We didn't chit and chat then; we don't chit and chat now. And, by the way, we want a mainstream media that accurately characterizes our activity for just what it is: a successful freedom movement of decades-long duration.
Finally, it occurs to me that the new networked feminism is just like the old networked feminism because the measure of success, just like the impetus, also remains the same. In this new day, when a new generation of American women is politically aroused, it won't be the number of social media outings, of tweets, of Facebook postings, or of blog posts that will be the measure of success. Nope. Instead, the measure of success will be the willingness and fortitude to constantly confront, and then seek to destroy, abusive power. Just like it always has been.
Indeed, if this teachable moment, centered-around Rush Limbaugh (!), teaches us anything, it teaches us about the continuing need for deep institutional change in this country, if we are to live in a place where each of us is judged by the content of her (or his) character.
Back in the day, we talked, and connected, and networked to get organized. Today, led by my younger sisters, we are doing just the same. This is the very best history report I could imagine reading during women's history month. Let's keep making this history and writing this report.
Cross-blogged from Huff Post Politics
Authored by: Rebecca Sive
Follow Rebecca Sive on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@RebeccaSive
Before Rosa Parks, Claudette Colvin Stayed in Her Bus Seat
I wasn’t going to walk off that bus voluntarily.
These words were spoken by Claudette Colvin during an interview with NPR in 2009. Her remarkable civil rights story was overlooked for decades. But finally, writer Philip Hoose won her trust and wrote about this little-known pioneer in African American women’s history. Now, the full story of a 15-year-old girl’s contribution to the civil rights movement is finally getting its time in the sun. Hoose’s book, Claudette Colvin: Twice toward Justice, details Colvin’s story of courage and humility.
Like most people, I was taught that it was Rosa Parks’ civil disobedience — she refused to give up her bus seat to a white man — that sparked the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott in 1955. I felt a sense of pride that this black woman was strong enough to stand up to white racists with quiet dignity and strength. There was so little taught about black history in school that everyone I knew was just glad to have someone to admire. Parks remains a global symbol.
But more than nine months before Parks’ arrest, a 15-year-old high school student, Claudette Colvin, was taken into custody when she refused to relinquish her seat on a Montgomery bus. It happened on March 2, 1955, during Negro History Week, when Colvin learned about the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law. Hoose’s book tells how Colvin, who boarded the bus with other students from Booker T. Washington High School, refused to move from her seat for white passengers, even after the bus driver ordered her to. She yelled, “It’s my constitutional right.” Those were powerful words to be uttered by a young girl. Students’ daily lives were affected by injustices under the Jim Crow segregation laws — they couldn’t eat at lunch counters or even try on clothes in a store. Colvin had had enough.
About her motivation, Colvin remembered:
My head was just too full of black history, you know, the oppression that we went through. It felt like Sojourner Truth was on one side pushing me down, and Harriet Tubman was on the other side of me pushing me down. I couldn’t get up.
The driver called the police, who dragged Colvin off the bus. She was thrown into a police car and handcuffed.
All ride long, they swore at me and ridiculed me. They took turns trying to guess my bra size. They called me “ni–er bitch” and cracked jokes about parts of my body. I recited the Lord’s Prayer and the 23rd Psalm over and over in my head, trying to push back the fear.
Colvin’s arrest was major news, and some thought that it was time to take the issue of bus segregation to the courts. But despite her bravery, initially she was overlooked. Many reasons have been offered over the years — she was too dark-skinned, too young, her family lived in the poorer part of town — but when Colvin became pregnant by an older, married man a few months later, the decision was made. Civil rights leaders felt that it would be difficult for her to undergo the scrutiny required for a legal case.
Months later, 42-year-old National Association for the Advancement of Colored People secretary, seamstress, and respectable married woman Rosa Parks took historic action on a Montgomery bus, which led to the boycott that lasted more than a year. Colvin, who was active in the NAACP’s Youth Council, knew Parks and was advised by her.
Ultimately, Colvin joined Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith as a plaintiff in a suit challenging Montgomery’s segregated public transportation system, a case known as Browder v. Gayle. On June 19, 1956, a three-judge panel ruled that Montgomery segregation codes “deny and deprive plaintiffs and other Negro citizens similarly situated of the equal protection of the laws and due process of law secured by the 14th Amendment.” The U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to strike down bus segregation on December 21, 1956.
Colvin now lives in New York City, where she moved after leaving Alabama in 1958. She is retired and is finally getting the recognition she deserves. The next time you see a school, park, or highway named in honor of Rosa Parks, remember Claudette Colvin and how her bravery and sacrifice changed our country, too.
Cross-blogged from AAUW
Enough is Enough!
I don’t know about you but I’ve about had enough of cleaning commercials featuring only females who skew towards the “typical” stay-at-home soccer mom.
I have nothing against that demographic, I am a proud former t-ball, softball and soccer mom who juggled work and various sports attendance functions while my three kids were younger. It’s just that once in a awhile – no, actually 50% of the time – I’d love to see a Swiffer (or another Proctor & Gamble) household product commercial featuring men cleaning their kitchen floor (not just Mr. Clean who grins and watches women cleaning – or that Bounty towel fellow - most often in their kitchens and bathrooms).
Actually it would be totally refreshing to see men and women handling the cleaning duties together like real people do – ya know – without the “I’ve had-a lobotomy-but–apparently-don’t-know-it” grins on their faces.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate living in a clean environment. But I’d really appreciate seeing more modern couples sharing the vacuuming, dusting, pot and toilet scrubbing, dog washing, as well as parenting-related duties.
Equality, for featuring men who can capably clean, what a fab idea!
What’s your thought on this topic – do the female-heavy cleaning (and other household-management related) commercials bother you at all? Comment on the Twitter or Facebook pages.
CROSS BLOGGED FROM WOMEN CENTRIC
The 1990s Roots of the Contraception Battle
In January 1998, in the run-up to the twenty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton held a meeting in the Map Room of the White House with leaders of women’s groups ranging from Planned Parenthood to the National Women’s Law Center. The meeting took place in the aftermath of the painful and polarizing debate on late-term abortion—a debate in which conservatives capitalized on a seemingly extreme abortion position in order to bludgeon progressive leaders. In that meeting (I was there, as a staffer for the First Lady), Clinton pushed the groups to develop a proactive agenda around women’s health, one that would shift the debate away from a rarely used procedure and back toward the reproductive health needs of women. And if that debate took place in a way that demonstrated the extremes of the anti-choice position—so be it. Over the course of the discussion, Clinton and the leaders in the room hit on the issue of contraception: specifically, promoting contraceptive coverage in health care plans.
Fourteen years later, the strategy formed in the White House in 1998 is being tested on the national level, as we debate the Obama Administration’s contraceptive coverage proposal. But today’s debate differs from the one that took place in the ’90s—when many states passed laws mandating contraception coverage—in one troubling way: the vociferous opposition by religious groups. The past few months have seen the issue of contraception coverage turned into a question of religious liberty. And, initially at least, that rhetorical shift by conservatives made an enormous political difference.
Before it was made into a religious issue, contraception was a subject where the majority of Americans were firmly on the side of women’s rights: Most people viewed it as a basic health protection, not a controversial issue. And that’s why it was also successful as a political cudgel, helping isolate extreme anti-choice advocates from the mainstream. Indeed, it was a Republican Senator, Olympia Snowe, who introduced the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (which lacked any sort of “conscience exception”) in 1999, and plenty of Republicans co-sponsored it.
That extent of mainstream sympathy for contraception coverage was especially evident on the state level. At the time, state affiliates of women’s organizations started pushing contraceptive coverage in state legislatures—and in many places, they passed. One such organization was NARAL-NY, which advocated for the Women’s Health and Wellness Act in New York in 1999 and 2000. The legislation—like the original Obama policy—only allowed an exemption for houses of worship, not religiously affiliated hospitals or colleges, perhaps because its authors recognized that the vast majority of employees at these institutions are not Catholic. But the Catholic Church did not actively resist, or try to prevent the bill’s passing. At the time, the Church said that, in its affiliated hospitals, it would “continue for the immediate future providing the contraception coverage under formal protest.” This was far from the cries of “religious coercion” that we see today.
And, in some states, religious groups were silent altogether. In 1999, New Hampshire passed a law requiring contraceptive coverage in all prescription drug plans. (The law was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Democratic governor.) Both lawmakers and religious groups never raised the issue of religious liberty during the legislative debate; in fact, there was not a single discussion on that issue according to the legislative history.
How could it be that the Catholic Church did not object, and did not threaten to spend millions of dollars defeating political opponents? Simply put, contraception coverage was seen as part and parcel of health care access.
And, if Obama’s rising approval rating among women is any indication, it still is today. Moreover, after some initial uncertainty surrounding the politics of the contraception measure, it is now clear that a solid majority of Americans (63 percent) support it. Fourteen years ago, leaders of the women’s movement saw contraception as a unifying issue, one that the vast majority of Americans would support. They strategized that those who opposed contraception would be seen as extreme. In the past several weeks, they were proven right.
Author: Neera Tanden is president of the Center for American Progress.
Cross-blogged by The New Republic
Save the Date for GroupTalk and Renew Your Membership
Save the date for our next GroupTalk presented by Jian Ping, author of Mulberry Child. Relive her tale or resilience and survival during China's Cultural Revolution
Date: Monday, March 26
Location: Home of Donna Gutman (Gold Coast)
Time: 6:00 to 8:00 pm
An evening of empowerment, wine & wisdom, networking & conversation
Mulberry Tree is now a major documentary film returning to Chicago
March 30th - April 5th to the Siskel Theatre.
Roger Ebert reviewed the film and gave it 3 1/2 stars, stating, "This is a powerful and touching film."
Information on the film can be viewed at www.mulberrychildmovie.com
This is a complimentary members event
we invite non-members/$50,
which will be credited towards membership
For further information call 312.467.0607 or email us at info@womenwotw.org
Join Women of the World Today
Already a member?
Renew your membership with our new promotion
Promotion ends March 8th
Membership good until Dec. 31, 2013
30 yrs. & under
Complete Membership Application
AAUW Issues Statement on Rush Limbaugh’s Comments Against Women
WASHINGTON — Lisa Maatz, the top policy adviser for the American Association of University Women (AAUW), released the following statement on the recent inflammatory comments by talk show host Rush Limbaugh about access to birth control and Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke:
The nation has been dismayed by the blatantly sexist and offensive comments of talk show host Rush Limbaugh this week. Quite frankly, I am confounded by it. Where is Limbaugh's filter? Where is his reflexive sense that telling a woman she must pay for her health care by performing public sex acts is not just morally objectionable but reprehensibly wrong? This is not about mere political correctness; such extreme comments are an affront to every woman and to all people of good will. AAUW respects Limbaugh's right to disagree with Sandra Fluke's policy position, but his aggressive personal insults and unnecessary coarsening of the public debate are unacceptable. We will not allow such offensive commentary — clearly intended to paint all women with a scarlet letter for our reproductive choices — to silence us.
As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Title IX this year, Limbaugh's comments about Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke are especially ironic. Title IX, which is well known for transforming educational opportunities for women and girls, is under attack because of its success. Without this groundbreaking civil rights law, women like Fluke might still be precluded from even attending law school. AAUW's members have long been the most vocal guardians of the law, defending it from concerted efforts to undermine its principles. Limbaugh's intolerant remarks about a courageous and articulate young woman show just how much we still need Title IX. It is also this kind of mean-spirited partisanship that has so many Americans disenchanted with politics.
Cross-posted from AAUW
Follow Lisa M. Maatz @LisaMaatz
Save The Date GroupTalk - March 26th
Save the date for our next GroupTalk on
March 26 presented by Jian Ping,author of Mulberry Child
- now a major documentary film returning to Chicago
March 30th - April 5th
Information on the film and most of the press coverage can be viewed at www.mulberrychildmovie.com
Roger Ebert reviewed the film and gave it 3 1/2 stars, stating, "This is a powerful and touching film."
Click here to see the interview with Phil Ponce on the Chicago Tonight Show.
Details and registration will be available later this month
For further information call 312.467.0607 or email us at info@womenwotw.org
Young Women Are More Stressed Out Than Anyone Else
Women are more stressed out than men. In a survey by the American Psychological Association, 49 percent of female participants said their stress levels have increased in the past five years compared to 39 percent of male participants.
Women are stressed out about their finances, relationships, and ability to effectively manage their time; whereas men are most stressed by work, reports another survey by Polaris Marketing Research. Polaris also revealed that young people are more stressed out than any other generation:
Cross-blog from Business Insider
Author: Vivian Giang
Please follow Careers on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Vivian Giang on Twitter.
Ask Vivian A Question >
