International Women's Day

Today, March 8th, is the annual International Women's Day (IWD). "IWD is a global day celebrating the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future." This year's theme is "Women and Men United to End Violence Against Women and Girls".

IWD consistently provides the motivation and inspiration for the continuation of fighting for social and professional equality. This year it has sparked 400 "high profile women, including two heads of state" in Monrovia, Liberia to gather and collectively demand women's rights. Attention to women's rights and, at the very least, equality for women has significantly increased due to today's importance both in the UN and around the world. Yesterday Tunisia announced that they will be opening a "feminist university" to promote women's causes in north Africa. Realistically, this "university" will really be a forum for Africans to become educated and involved in women's rights/equality movements and campaigns. This is an incredibly important development in the name of women's equality, especially in Tunisia where it is estimated that 1 in 5 women is physically abused.

The photo below depicts a rally in Islamabad yesterday.

Invisible Children's Next Event

Hello! To all you readers: here's a video you might want to see.

Obedience vs. Autonomy

The above picture depicts an Iranian woman being stoned to death after being convicted of adultery. Sounds like something from centuries ago, right? No. This actually happened in the summer of 2008. Seriously. Naturally, I thought of this incident while reading Shahla Haeri's piece, "Obedience versus Autonomy: Women and Fundamentalism in Iran and Pakistan". Haeri discusses the relationship between the two concepts and how they fit into legal gender relations. Though "obedience is a cornerstone of the Islamic vision of a just social order", through it, a "wife cannot legally be autonomous" and therein lies the problem. Needless to say, many women's rights activists have become involved in campaigns to stop such brutal treatment against women and men. For example, Shadi Sadr has been leading a camapign in Iran since 2006 to stop stoning as a punishment.

Just some history for you..

“With the establishment of the [International Labor Organization] as a global organization with the mandate to set international standards, the women’s movement found a central target for its advocacy of the principle of equality...”
This quote, straight from Nitza Berkovitch’s chapter in Constructing World Culture, “The Emergence and Transformation of the International Women’s Movement”, pinpoints the major catalyst for the development of the international women’s movement in the 20th century. Her chapter, which traces this development, is pleasantly enlightening and historically rich. She explains that as the women's movement began to grow it (ironically) depended on other [male-dominated] international organizations such as the League of Nations and International Labor Organization.

Despite the debate concerning what legal action should be enacted for women (general equality vs. special protection in the workplace) seven resolutions were presented on womens behalf as early as the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. However, because of pre-existing prejudice and lack of power/jurisdiction, these resolutions were "ignored...for the most part".

Fortunately, the women's movement did make some headway in the 1970's beginning with the United Nation's Decade for Women which lasted from 1976 to 1985. This decade of "discourse and activity" led to an "intensification of world activity on women's issues that in turn had an enormous impact on nation-states". Finally, "women's issues became a state concern"!

Beware of Neo-Cons!

Okay. I have serious problems with David Henderson’s article, “The Case against ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’”. It almost seems to be a humorous article, if one appreciates sarcasm. I’m so stunned by his argument.
1. He says: The “notion of [corporate social responsibility (CSR)] is widely taken as well established but is in fact highly dubious”. I say: Uhh, what?? He describes CSR as a “threefold division into ‘economic’, ‘environmental’, and ‘social’ aspects” coupled with a “triple bottom line”. This means that corporations must concern themselves with the economic, environmental, and social implications that their business decisions will likely have. How is this dubious? Is this not the principal of basic business ethics? Is he implying that business ethics don’t/shouldn’t exist? He says this will impact profit by increasing costs, which he practically equates with the end of the world. God forbid that corporations treat workers like human beings! God forbid that corporations not dump chemicals into our drinking water! I mean, come on. Those costs are worth the money. I doubt that anyone with a soul would object to not dumping industrial waste into the natural commons or paying workers peanuts.
2. Literally, he says that “eco-efficiency” and “social justice” are “questionable objectives” that will “make everyone worse off”. Again: uhh, WHAT?? Is this sarcasm? How are these things questionable? Has he not read the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Even if you keep your head buried under the ground and totally don’t care nor believe in global climate change you have to admit that “social justice” is at least necessary. Perhaps I wouldn’t be so steamed about this if he had actually provided an adequate defense of his opinion. However, his reasoning, once again, falls entirely short. He explains that focusing on “eco-efficiency” “social justice” and “society’s expectations” will lead to “higher costs and lower profits”; thus “this effect of such enforced conformity is to limit competition and hence to worsen performance across the economy as a whole.” Wow. I’m so heartbroken that it’s a possibility that shareholders of enormous multinational enterprises (MNE) won’t be making enough money to wallpaper their mansions, only hand over fist.
PLEASE, David Henderson, don’t ever put yourself in a position where you are making decisions.

"Modern Griot"

In his article, “Strategic Inauthenticity”, Timothy Taylor analyzes globalization by writing about the singer Youssou N’Dour. Taylor describes N’Dour and his contribution to his native country, Senegal, as being a positive force of modernization. His music is neither religious or traditional yet it is “informed by a strong sense of right and wrong” coupled with “African popular musics” which have spread around the world (such as Afrobeat, reggae, soukous, and soul).Instead of taking the typical music-artist-from-Africa path of American style hip hop, N’Dour infuses “propriety” in his songs; a propriety “which exhort youths to behave respectfully toward their parents, caution the west to behave respectfully toward its former colonies, and ask tourists to treat his country well”. He also has provided a way for other aspiring African musicians to catch a break; his newly opened recording studio in Dakar called Xippi is keeping its “eyes open” (Xippi’s meaning in Wolof) for “local concerns” like “joblessness” for dreaming youths. It is refreshing to see a positive and socially responsible artist rise to the top and experience the success he deserves. Also, his music is incredible and he is one of my favorite artists. Check out his awesome song played live, Wake Up (Africa Calling):

"Universal Interdependence of Nations"

In terms of empowered movements, one cannot touch on the subject without thinking of our new, global economy. A dream for some, it remains a nightmare for others.

150 years ago Karl Marx predicted that globalization would result in "...a constantely expanding market...[that] must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere." So, "in place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations." In their article, "The Hidden Promise: Liberty Renewed", John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge argue the process of globalization is "delivering the liberal dream" which will, eventually, lead to greater global prosperity.

Now, when I hear the argument that Micklethwait and Wooldridge present I think two words: trickle down. A theory as unreliable and unpredictable as weather: it's beautiful in Los Angeles, but it's probably not too comfortable in Siberia.

Though Micklethwait and Wooldridge do acknowledge that globalization "leaves some people behind" they are truly understating the problem. Our globalized economy gives way to cyclical poverty that impoverished areas of the world are unable to escape from. Multinational corporations, as anyone can see from the slightly biased yet still factual documentary, The Corporation, take advantage of laws in developing countries and, therefore, the impoverished people living there. One example from this film is the story of one clothing factory that pays such meager wages as $.08 per garment made (despite its retail price). At that rate, how is anyone supposed to buy their way out of being undereducated and underfed? Even the Salvation Army is cashing in.

Almost 300 million children around the world never make it to secondary school, 1/3 of those never make it to school at all. Even those that find a way to attend school in impoverished areas can't possibly be working at their potential, considering a good portion of them only eat one meal per day.

Fortunately, this predicament can be easily fixed; this can be a win/win situation! If corporations want cheap labor, they can still have it. Even if they doubled the wages they pay to factory workers in developing countries it would be "cheap" considering the labor options in developed nations. So, why not double wages? Why not sponsor the building of a school? Why not give workers a mid-day meal and basic health care? Social responsibility must be part of globalization, or else it will fail.

It is imperative that, should we want to move forth as a global community, we refuse to "leave some people behind". That option is unacceptable. We have the resources, we have the power. So, click here to help. If you can read this, you probably can make a difference.

This doesn't relate to Global Empowerment, but it's enjoyable nonetheless!

via videosift.com

New American Fascism?

Though the West is considered a predominantly Judeo-Christian society, in recent years we have seen an overwhelming rise of 'Eastern' spirituality. Typically non-Western religions are now growing in popularity with Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism all in the top five most prevalent religions in America. Other spiritual practices taken from Eastern spirituality are also hugely popular, even trendy. From yoga (Hinduism), to vegetarianism (associated with Jainism) what began with the New Age movement in the '70's has now saturated Western society. So, what is the "New Age Movement"? Well, it's "a collection of Eastern-influenced metaphysical thought systems, a conglomeration of theologies, hopes, and expectations held together with an eclectic teaching of salvation, of "correct thinking," and "correct knowledge." It is a theology of "feel-goodism," "universal tolerance," and "moral relativism." " Has this been good for America? Dr. Carl Raschke says no. He describes the New Age Movement as "the marketing end of the political packaging of occultism...a breeding ground for a new American form of fascism." I think it's easy to find fault with Raschke's argument: how does religious choice (for New Age-ers are encouraged to 'shop around' for the religious practices most comfortable for them) equate with fascism? Perhaps Dr. Raschke should look at the other end of the spectrum (namely, the Christian conservatives who condemn this religious movement as satanic) whose "political packaging" was virtually declaring war on an entire religion. A religion which happens to include almost a billion people by some estimations.
Ultimately, who wants to say no to "feel-goodism"?

Pyramid of Capitalism

Wafa Sultan

The desire for freedom: a sentiment felt among many Islamic women living in the Middle East & Africa.
"I wanted the freedom to express my thoughts and idea,
to fight the idealogy of hate."
This is a quote from Wafa Sultan, a well-known secular activist. Though Sultan's beliefs are radical (she faults Islam as a whole for the 'clash of civilizations'), she symbolizes an important figure for women of an Islamic background. Her determination to voice her opinions, without serious regard to any cultural backlash, is inspiring. She is well known for being extremely pro-Western in a debate on Al Jazeera in 2006.

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Welcome! My current topic of interest is the growing feminist movement in the Middle East. This blog will accompany me as I study this topic and will eventually be filled up with my learnings about the impact of Islam on gender relations in the Middle East & Africa. I will also be posting on global empowerment movements (ex. of a particular religion, country, ethnic group, or political party).