| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Monday Poem | Main | Government Isn't The Problem, Private Enterprise Is: The Global Terrorism Of Al Qaeda, BP And Goldman Sachs »

July 05, 2010

Women's Freedom - A Short Introduction to Why I Care

Womensrights Why have so many stopped fighting for women’s rights? We fight for “human” rights and discuss them as if they were a natural element of being human; groups lobby and defend, almost diabolically and with much vitriol, the rights of “animals” (species that are not human). Yet women’s rights, that better half of our species, remain a neglected element of secular discourse. It surprises me that so few of those who consider themselves secular humanists do anything concerning this important issue. This does not mean that many secular humanists do not think it important but there is a great divide between simply thinking it important and doing something to make it so. Not only do I think it important, I believe in my lifetime the liberation of woman, all over the world, for all time, is the single most important goal that we must defend, increase and enhance. The other goals which many of us long for, freedom of speech, lack of coercion, and so on, all are part of, and tributaries within, this pathway. By fighting for women, we fight for free speech and liberty; by defending their rights, we defend human rights; by finding the cause for their oppression we cease the cycle of violence and poverty within families around the world. Reports have suggested that a decrease in women’s freedom correlates to an increase in religious fanaticism. This does not mean that once women are free, all over the world, religious dogmatism, backward political regimes and patriarchal bullying will be banished from the earth; but there is little debate that the fight in itself will lead to a greater amount of freedom, more happiness and will result in woman no longer being the fodder for the religious wrath of backward mullahs and reverends.

According to estimates, which have more than likely increased, 70 percent of the two billion poor are women; two thirds of illiterate adults are women; employment rates for women are declining after increasing (yes, of course, the world wars are now over). At the same time many women are forced into veils and burqas, burnt for merely looking at men, stoned to death or buried alive for adultery, forced into sex, pregnancy and delivering HIV-infected children because they were raped, but if they were to report it, they would either be raped again, executed, exiled from their village or town or family. While this happens, the fashion industry booms with make-up and high-heels and plastic models and girls as thin as the paper they are pictured on, presenting us with yet another contrast to whether women really are in control of their bodies even in supposedly liberated societies. That is an issue unto itself, which I am not focused on, but it certainly should give us pause considering the areas we are dealing with. Modern writers, in the secular West, tell women to go back to the kitchen, obey the husband, be a mother, tie an umbilical cord around the house and hang themselves from it. “Feminine is good,” says women’s rights author, Nikki van der Gaag, “feminism is bad.” A lot of feminist views, philosophy and political goals truly deserve scorn, since they replace one tyranny with another; are subject to faith-based, dogmatic adherence rather than calculated sex equality. The vengeful world of patriarchal accident has given birth to a malicious view toward its women. As this highlights, the malicious desire is one of control - but I do not wish to instil Orwellian fears in big governments and little men.

Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, Nicholas D. Kristof and his wife Sheryl Wudunn, have released a book bringing all these fears to the forefront of discussion. Entitled Half the Sky, the book primarily focuses on the successes, horrors and tribulations of women in impossible situations in places where democracy is either unheard of or hated, and where secularism is scorned or prevented. Whilst I am critical of the blind obedience that is Oprah’s Book Club (basically a list of books that Oprah Winfrey – or her cohorts – read or liked), I am glad at least that the subject matter got Winfrey’s attention enough to earn Kristof and Wudunn a place on her show. Such platforms allow the message of women’s rights a greater reach. This is what matters: taking action to at least highlight the plight of women, globally. There are those who are still not aware that although Western women have the vote, are able to have proper jobs, etc., not all women do. More people must realise that the first and worst to suffer from backward bullying and religious fanaticism are most often women and children. It is such an obvious statement but the more it is reiterated, the greater chance we have for getting people into gear, then to change lanes: from passive realisation into full-throttle passion for women's freedom.

Consider the situation with regards to HIV/AIDS in my home continent of Africa. There are many reasons why HIV/AIDS is worse here than elsewhere: A combination of bad health policies and lack of resources, regimes that have not lost their hold on despotism, backward combinations of superstition and overzealous missionaries, and so on, all affect what ought to be done to help them. Add to this that women in Africa are breeding machines, scorned if their production facilities do not work, and we have a system that is designed to destroy a woman’s future, control, and autonomy. This must change: by giving women their bodies, minds and futures back, we are able to help far more people. As AC Grayling has said, summarising similar views on the plight of poorer countries: “If the world is to have a future, it rests in the hands of women”. Because in their hands, lies the happiness of their families, and therefore, of more people.

As many commentators have stated, one of the characteristics of a country that is not controlled by a tyrant or despot is free-speech. I think, however, we must also consider the freedom of women to be equally important. It is no accident that highly-controlled, anti-liberal, highly religious countries not only have blasphemy laws, but give no freedom to their women. Indeed, I think countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia do not so much limit women’s freedom as deny them personhood. By this I mean they are denied the same freedoms, recognition, aspirations, duties, goals, dreams, and so on, that are found in their husbands or fathers. Many might reply and say that the men themselves prisoners; then, all the more reason we need to focus on change. Once again, though our primary goal is to better the lives of women, our reasons are for the betterment of all. 

Awareness is the beginning of change. Anger is the beginning of amelioration. We must take charge of these situations, as individuals, and do what we are able to help the better half of our species.

We can do this in many ways: spreading the message, constantly, consistently and with clarity. We can better our knowledge into the plight of women, whether in our own societies, or more importantly in those places that do not welcome gender equality. There are groups, such as UNIFEM and Relief Society, which need volunteers, campaigners, and managers. From our positions within secular democracies, we tend to ignore our voices which have the potential to echo out across international zones. Our voices can create tiny cracks in foundations long since fossilised into tradition. However, I do not think we will ever completely liberate our entire species, or even the better half. But even a few lives saved, even a few lives bettered, is worth anything we choose to do. Apathy is no longer a choice. If you have a voice, use it. We must begin to help the better half of our species; because, in that way, we help our species as a whole.

PS: I obtained my stats from various sources, but please email me if you have updated facts that show my mistakes.

Posted by Tauriq Moosa at 03:20 AM | Permalink

Comments


Tauriq Moosa,

Thank you very much for your informative pleading for action. I hope you will continue to write more on this subject on 3QD.

When women are given access to education, and control over their own reproduction, they find a way out of poverty, and all of society benefits.

Ban women from education, and much learning is denied to their children. Subject women to sexual exploitation and violence, and their children suffer the same fate. Prevent women from pursuing their own financial independence, and their children will not learn how to rise from poverty.

We men, and all of society, have everything to gain from the liberation and protection of women and children. Many of us either don't know this, or don't believe it.

What is most outrageous and most grievous in its effects, is that many men and male dominated institutions DO NOT WANT to release their control over women. This is especially true for male institutions that refuse to surrender control over women's reproduction.

In this sense, men and male dominated institutions are in control of life and death over all women. Who wants to give up the ultimate power over the fate of another human being, for this world and the next? It is a power that competes, easily, with God the Father Almighty?

Posted by: Norman Costa | Jul 5, 2010 6:12:47 PM

"groups lobby and defend, almost diabolically and with much vitriol, the rights of “animals” (species that are not human). Yet women’s rights, that better half of our species, remain a neglected element of secular discourse."

Once again, it's possible for a person to care about both animal rights and women's rights so stop acting like a choice must be made between the two (or more than two options). A person that feeds children is not accused of not caring for the elderly so why must someone working for animals be accused of not caring for humans? I know it's not the point of this article but I get sick of seeing the same thoughtless objections and dismissals of animal rights.

Posted by: Misty | Jul 5, 2010 6:15:14 PM

As for the abstract point:

It is great to see someone passionately attached to an important goal. At the same time, informing people who are passionately attached to other goals that they should abandon theirs and take up yours is not likely to endear you -- or your cause -- to them.

On a practical level, working for things like freedom of speech, liberty, human rights -- all these can help women, just as much as working toward the liberation of women may bring us closer to liberty and equality for everyone. The campaign for better treatment of animals surely helps humans as well, insofar as it highlights the undesirability of treating *any* beings with selfish, oblivious cruelty.

We each do what we can, and we each (presumably, to the extent that we can free ourselves from being guilt-tripped) choose to focus our energies toward the goals that most touch our hearts. Besides the fact that I don’t think it’s true that liberating women would solve all our other problems, it’s naïve to think that everyone can be exhorted to abandon other causes in favor of this one; as Misty’s reaction illustrates, it’s insulting to some people to even suggest it.

The world is a mess. Lots of people are hurting, as are many other kinds of living beings, as is the entire living system that humans depend on for survival. The essay didn’t even mention “the environment” as a cause, or its healing as a goal, but if the natural world that sustains us takes on too much more damage, there won’t be any women (or men) left to fight for.

Shorter me: I never listen to anyone who says “we” “must” do something. I’ll decide for myself, and especially, I’ll speak for myself

As for the numbers:

I would love to see some sources for this notion that 70 percent of the world’s poor are women. I mean some numbers from the UN, for instance, along with a coherent definition of what’s being counted as poverty, not just someone’s opinions or impressions, as in “which have more than likely increased.” (Or is there a source for that assertion too?)

The reason I say this is that I have seen this number thrown around a lot, and I have *never* seen it sourced.

Interestingly, until reading this essay I have always seen this or similar estimates applied to the number of *women and children* -- not just women -- living in poverty. The first time was in an article in a Buddhist magazine quite a few years ago. The author wrote something like this (I didn’t keep the magazine, sad to say, so I can’t give a source): “Fully 75% of the people living in poverty on this earth are women and children.”

She wrote this as though it was a horrible outrage, as if there were, proportionally speaking, wildly more women and children living in poverty than men. But if it’s true that 70-75 percent of people living in poverty are women and children, then the numbers, although somewhat disproportionate, are not wildly out of whack. [Just women would be another story, mathematically.]

This website:

http://sasweb.ssd.census.gov/idb/worldpopinfo.html

has world population figures, but not poverty figures (I haven’t found any hard data on poverty but I haven’t looked that hard). The chart for 2009 shows five-year bands ending in 4 and 9, so it doesn’t break down exactly where I would prefer to talk about “children” (maybe 16 or 17). But if you take all children up to and including the age of 14, and all women older than 14, those groups constitute 63.5% of the whole. If instead you take as “children” everyone up to and including the age of 19, and all women older than 19, those groups are 68% of the whole. So yes, if 75% of the world’s poor are women and children, and women and children make up only 63-68% of the whole, they are disproportionately represented. But not wildly so.

I tend to ignore outrage manufactured from misleading statistics. If you’re going to talk in numbers, they should at least make sense. I’m aiming this more at the article that first introduced me to this “statistic” than at the essay above, but it applies in all directions. “Lies, damned lies, etc.” If there were ten times as many women and children than men living in poverty, that would support some outrage. But I would still probably save my outrage for the fact that anyone at all lives in poverty when there is so much wealth floating around the world.

Posted by: JanieM | Jul 5, 2010 8:16:38 PM

JanieM- a simple search will provide you with all the facts and figures you require -

http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/women_poverty_economics/facts_figures.php

then we come to the missing women -
Amartya Sen of Harvard University has estimated that
more than 100 million females are “missing”
globally— a stark figure that he attributes to
the comparative neglect of female health and
nutrition, especially, but not exclusively,
during childhood.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html

and a report by Mayra Buvinic,a Chilean national and internationally respected expert on gender and social development, who is the Wolrd Bank's senior spokesperson on gender and development issues. Before joining the Bank in 2005, she was Chief of the Social Development Division at the Inter-American Development Bank and the IDB's Special Advisor on Violence Prevention. Prior to this, she was a founding member and President of the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW).Chief of the Social Development Division of the Sustainable Development Department.

http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/beijing12/womeninpoverty.pdf


For yet further information read the book which Tauriq mentions in his piece -

http://www.halftheskymovement.org/

thanks

Posted by: Flicki | Jul 6, 2010 12:24:55 PM

Misty and JanieM,

Nowhere in this article does the author mention that we should abandon our other goals. Nor does he attempt to force a choice between animal or human rights and women's rights. The comparison shows how concern for women's rights fails to be on par with concern for other sorts of rights, and that this is a situation that deserves, even demands, to be rectified if we are to act effecctively for the greater good.

Misty, it is your comment that is a thoughtless objection. The reference to animal rights is certainly not an anti-animal perspective but merely an (arbitrary) illustration to illuminate the de-prioritzation of women's rights.

JanieM, it would seem that Tauriq's point is to show that working for human rights and freedom of speech etc has in fact *not* improved the plight of some women. Thus, for this very reason, working for the freedom of women requires separate treatment.

Posted by: CSB | Jul 6, 2010 3:10:30 PM

Flicki: thanks for the references. It would take me weeks to chase down all the secondary links, articles, books, etc., and the truth is that I don’t have time for it, or more honestly, time+interest. The link I gave for world population leads directly (after you choose a year) to a chart of numbers. I would still like to see a chart like that for poverty without having to read a bunch of books and articles and follow a lot of further links and footnotes, but it’s not high on my list of things to worry about so I am definitely not asking you to go and find one for me.

My point was more an objection to the use of poorly sourced and sometimes invented numbers to manipulate reactions (the Eskimos and their words for snow come to mind, though that one wasn’t linked to a cause). And I wouldn’t have bothered making it if I hadn’t felt that the essay was questionable on other grounds, for which, see my response to CSB, below.

CSB: You write, “The comparison shows how concern for women's rights fails to be on par with concern for other sorts of rights.” It doesn’t show any such thing, it just *asserts* it, and that is part of why I reacted the way I did.

The essay is a long rant full of passionate but unsupported or unsupportable assertions, right from the opening sentence: “Why have so many stopped fighting for women’s rights?”

If there is any actual evidence that this has happened, the essay doesn’t cite it, nor do either you or the author do anything to show that “concern for women’s rights fails to be on par….” with other concerns. The fact that you and he believe it doesn’t mean a thing to me.

You also write, “Nowhere in this article does the author mention that we should abandon our other goals. Nor does he attempt to force a choice between animal or human rights and women's rights.”

You are correct, he doesn’t literally say that. But there’s only so much time in a day, and if people who are passionately devoted to causes like animal rights or freedom of speech are already doing as much as they can, to ask them to take on the cause of women’s rights is by implication to ask them to give up some of their work on the other causes. Someone writing an essay can’t “force” anyone to do anything, but the essay is nothing if not a passionate plea for people to devote time to the cause of women’s rights, with the repeated implication that other causes are not as important.

You write that “it would seem that Tauriq's point is to show that working for human rights and freedom of speech etc has in fact *not* improved the plight of some women.” This is another assertion that is not only unsupported but unsupportable. For all we know, the plight of many women would be worse than it is today if there weren’t people working for human rights and freedom of speech. But again, it can’t be proven either way. We can’t know what the present would be like if the past had been different.

Again, you are right that the essay doesn’t literally say that we should abandon other goals. But the general tone is condescending and not very friendly to people with other goals, or people in general:

“Whilst I am critical of the blind obedience that is Oprah’s Book Club”: That is an unpleasant and condescending judgment to be passing on the (mostly?) women who participate in Oprah’s Book Club.

“groups lobby and defend, almost diabolically and with much vitriol, the rights of “animals” (species that are not human)”: One might almost be tempted to say that the description of animal rights groups is itself vitriolic.

“A lot of feminist views, philosophy and political goals truly deserve scorn, since they replace one tyranny with another; are subject to faith-based, dogmatic adherence rather than calculated sex equality.”: Scornfulness is not a way to “win friends and influence people” among potential allies. Or are feminists not sufficiently devoted to the cause of women’s rights?

Posted by: JanieM | Jul 6, 2010 5:08:42 PM


Tauriq Moosa,

Many suggestions and critiques have been offered to you. I have only one:

Keep telling this story. Protecting and liberating women and children protects and liberates us all.

Posted by: Norman Costa | Jul 7, 2010 12:53:19 PM

The comments about feminism working against gender equality are especially resonant in light of recent talk about "the end of men" coming from overzealous gender warriors... In societies like America where we are farther along the path to women's rights, we can already begin to see that the road to equality doesn't simply level out as women reach social parity. Bumps continue to slow us down, and certain attitudes held by western women are more and more becoming issues in themselves. While prejudice against women stemming from ingrained notions of femininity is rightly on the decline, the same cannot be said of the culture of casual emasculation that today thrives among younger women. To single out a woman professionally for lack of femininity is social suicide, while a man who is undominant or too "emotional" remains the definition of fair game, all too often at the hands of women.

My comments in no way detract from my steadfast concurrence with the author's goals; in fact I readily recognize that the absurdity of being raped for being raped is exponentially worse than anything I've mentioned. I simply wish to note that the playing field of oppression is fine-grained, built on discrete instances of human pain.

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 7, 2010 6:23:55 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

seth edenbaum on The case against empathy

Dredd on Mortify Our Wolves

Max on Here’s how to change the world

Rohana on Mortify Our Wolves

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

Elatia Harris on Here’s how to change the world

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Thursday Poem

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Jim Sanders on the hudson review

Ian Kaplan on Stephen Wolfram: Dropping In on Gottfried Leibniz

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

sjg on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

billy on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

Raza Husain on How do Finnish kids excel without rote learning and standardized testing?

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

DAS on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

czrpb on The case against empathy

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed