Daily Links…

• The UN has a great report on the economic cost of descrimination against women in Asia-Pacific (UN):

“Discrimination against women has cost Asia-Pacific billions of dollars every year. The Economic and Social Survey for Asia and the Pacific 2007, launched on 18 April 2007 by the United Nations regional arms, has found that barriers to employment for women cost the region $42 billion to $47 billion annually.

A further $16-$30 billion a year is lost through gender gaps in education. When the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) decided to undertake research on the costs of gender inequality, the aim was to build a bridge between social and economic policies”

• Ms. Magazine writes about Amnesty’s recent report on the U.S.’s failure to properly protect Native American women from rape and to hold their attackers responsible (Ms. Magazine).

Authors of the report concluded that the high rate of rape results primarily from a lack of government funding, limited staffing, and confusion regarding tribal and county jurisdiction in cases of sexual assault.

Even when reported, many of these rape cases fail to be prosecuted because, even though over 86 percent of rapes against Native women are committed by non-Native men, tribal councils have no jurisdiction over non-Native offenders, the US Department of Justice reports.

• Are Women Being Chased out of the Blogosphere? That’s what the Wahsington Post asks in their report on online intimidation of female bloggers (Washington Post).

As women gain visibility in the blogosphere, they are targets of sexual harassment and threats. Men are harassed too, and lack of civility is an abiding problem on the Web. But women, who make up about half the online community, are singled out in more starkly sexually threatening terms — a trend that was first evident in chat rooms in the early 1990s and is now moving to the blogosphere, experts and bloggers said.

Canada’s First Female Supreme Court Judge Dead

I wanted to make sure to post today in memory of Bertha Wilson, Canada’s first female Supreme Court Judge. She died at age 83 in Ottawa. Says an article on her passing at Canada.com:

Bertha Wilson was known for her generosity of spirit and originality of thought,” said a news release from Beverley McLachlin, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Wilson, one of the most controversial judges ever appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, helped transform Canada’s legal landscape in the early years of the Charter of Rights.

A Trudeau appointee, Wilson sat on the court from 1982 to 1991, handing down watershed rulings on abortion, mandatory retirement, and battered wife syndrome.

Race/Class/Disability/Sexuality and Politics…

So, at Antigone we’re committed to talking about women and politics and to working towards the equal representation of women in politics. For this reason, I should be very happy about the new Quebec cabinet which is composed of 50% women right?

Well, first of all – women actually lost seats in the Quebec election. Quebec, which previous to the election lead provincial legislatures in the representation of women in politics with 30.84% fell to only 25%. Furthermore, let us close look at this picture:

Notice anything? Although there are a nice representation of women… there is a very paltry representation of any other minority groups. Here’s the problem then with the drive for more women in politics.

Although I am thrilled that people like Stephane Dion are taking women in politics seriously and making a concerted effort to increase women’s involvement – what about the other minority groups that aren’t being represented either? And what about women who belong to more than one of these minorities? Efforts to get women involved in politics that ignore other minority groups’ lack of power within the political arena are thus problematic. Why are women so special? What about visible minorities? People with disabilities? Immigrants? The GLTBQ community? And how can we have proper representation for average Canadians if the political sphere continues to be a classist organism, in which the majority of people who come to power are from the upper class or upper middle class?

While I don’t think that positionality necessarily means that you will represent the identity group that you belong to, many studies have shown that women, for example, on average vote differently than men and advance legislation with different values. This is less a product of the ‘inherent’ differences between men and women and more a product of life experiences. It helps when talking about reproductive rights to actually have someone with a uterus in the room. Similarly, when talking about immigration, it gives you a different perspective to have the opinion of an immigrant on the matter.

When I spoke with Kim Campbell, one thing that she said that struck me is that we have to figure out the type of person we want in politics and then work towards making politics accomodating to them. I think this is an important piece of the struggle. In order to get more minority groups active in politics and representative of the groups that they belong to, we have to first decide that it is worthwhile to do so and then the different parties must seek such candidates out.

Monday Links

• Women In Media Network’s guest blogger Ivonne Salazar talks about misogyny in hip hop and how Russell Simmon’s call to block out the words ‘ho’, ‘bitch’ and ‘nigger’ fails to address the underlying culture of misogyny within the industry. Very interesting read!(WIMN).
• An article about women in politics in Bath and how they’ve managed to come together despite their differences. It also talks about a Girls Day in the legislature in which young girls are asked to accompany their representatives for the day! Such a cool idea! I think Canada should make such an effort to encourage young people’s interest in politics!(Times Record News).
• THIS IS AN AWESOME ARTICLE! I had to say that… in caps. Boston University prof, Caryl Rivers talks about how the media manufactures stories (think the Mommy Wars, the Opt Out Revolution) in order to play of women’s anxiety. Great article. Can’t wait to read her forthcoming book: Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women (Common Dreams).

Race/Class/Disability/Sexuality and Politics…

So, at Antigone we’re committed to talking about women and politics and to working towards the equal representation of women in politics. For this reason, I should be very happy about the new Quebec cabinet which is composed of 50% women right?

Well, first of all – women actually lost seats in the Quebec election. Quebec, which previous to the election lead provincial legislatures in the representation of women in politics with 30.84% fell to only 25%. Furthermore, let us close look at this picture:

Notice anything? Although there are a nice representation of women… there is a very paltry representation of any other minority groups. Here’s the problem then with the drive for more women in politics.

Although I am thrilled that people like Stephane Dion are taking women in politics seriously and making a concerted effort to increase women’s involvement – what about the other minority groups that aren’t being represented either? And what about women who belong to more than one of these minorities? Efforts to get women involved in politics that ignore other minority groups’ lack of power within the political arena are thus problematic. Why are women so special? What about visible minorities? People with disabilities? Immigrants? The GLTBQ community? And how can we have proper representation for average Canadians if the political sphere continues to be a classist organism, in which the majority of people who come to power are from the upper class or upper middle class?

While I don’t think that positionality necessarily means that you will represent the identity group that you belong to, many studies have shown that women, for example, on average vote differently than men and advance legislation with different values. This is less a product of the ‘inherent’ differences between men and women and more a product of life experiences. It helps when talking about reproductive rights to actually have someone with a uterus in the room. Similarly, when talking about immigration, it gives you a different perspective to have the opinion of an immigrant on the matter.

When I spoke with Kim Campbell, one thing that she said that struck me is that we have to figure out the type of person we want in politics and then work towards making politics accomodating to them. I think this is an important piece of the struggle. In order to get more minority groups active in politics and representative of the groups that they belong to, we have to first decide that it is worthwhile to do so and then the different parties must seek such candidates out.

Female Politicians are ‘Women’ – Go Figure!

The Brisbane Times has a really interesting article called Behind Every Women Leader There’s a Struggle. It analyzes the ways in which female politicians (particularly Hillary Clinton and Segolene Royal) are embracing their ‘femininity’ and touting their roles as ‘mothers’ as relevant to their roles in public life. U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also sparked talk of this when she was sworn in surrounded by her grandchildren.

Breaking away from a Thatcher model (adopted by Merkel) of never explicitly drawing attention to the fact of one’s sex, Royal and Clinton have put the fact that they are women and mothers at the centres of their campaigns. It is a fascinating experiment.

“Because I am a woman, things will be different,” Royal declared. “The fact that I’m a woman and a mum is part of what I am,” Clinton announced

I think it is wonderful that these women are able to not only embrace their roles as mothers, which have been important experiences in their lives, but to do it in a way that suggests that the experiences that defined and drove their motherhood are valuable resources for their political careers. Far from emphasizing that these women are ‘only’ mothers, what this does is not only place distinct value on female experiences of motherhood (which are so often denigrated in our society and not seen as important qualifications for politics or anything) but it also suggests that women can be strong and ambitious and also ‘motherly’.

Motherhood is now offered by both candidates as a political asset – a form of authority and leadership.

In a politics driven by personality, motherhood offers some shortcuts. It helps humanise the politician, it can be used to project an emotional warmth and empathy in an age when the primary requirement of a political leader is that they “understand” the voter. Voters show in polling that they think motherhood makes women less driven by self-interest and more by the welfare of others. At a time when politicians are held in such low regard and there is pervasive political cynicism, the “mother nation” figure has some real emotional resonance in both electorates.

Accusations of being “calculating”, “ambitious”, “cold” have dogged them from the starts of their campaigns. Such terms when applied to a male candidate would hardly be seen as a drawback – what president hasn’t been ambitious? – but it makes these mother politicians appear less motherly.

Its also important I think that these female candidates seem capable of being themselves. They are not being pushed into being ‘masculine’ in order to fit into the Old Boys Club of politics, and yet, I don’t believe they are embracing traditional conceptions of femininity either. Instead, they are redefining what being a ‘woman’ means, by negotiating their own balance between masculine and feminine gender traits, while still acknowledging that their embodied positionality within female identified and identifying bodies has contributed to their identities.

This strategy does, of course, have risks.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If their candidacies contribute to the election of loathed right-wing alternatives – in particular if Royal doesn’t get the socialists through to the second round – their failures will haunt, and be used to intimidate, women politicians for a generation.

Here’s the problem then. Women, especially when they present themselves as women are seen as WOMAN… and emcompass all women. I look forward to both Clinton’s and Royal’s campaigns… and I hope that if they lose, all the gians they have made for women just by running and believing themselves worthy to do so, are not erased.

Female Politicians are ‘Women’ – Go Figure!

The Brisbane Times has a really interesting article called Behind Every Women Leader There’s a Struggle. It analyzes the ways in which female politicians (particularly Hillary Clinton and Segolene Royal) are embracing their ‘femininity’ and touting their roles as ‘mothers’ as relevant to their roles in public life. U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also sparked talk of this when she was sworn in surrounded by her grandchildren.

Breaking away from a Thatcher model (adopted by Merkel) of never explicitly drawing attention to the fact of one’s sex, Royal and Clinton have put the fact that they are women and mothers at the centres of their campaigns. It is a fascinating experiment.

“Because I am a woman, things will be different,” Royal declared. “The fact that I’m a woman and a mum is part of what I am,” Clinton announced

I think it is wonderful that these women are able to not only embrace their roles as mothers, which have been important experiences in their lives, but to do it in a way that suggests that the experiences that defined and drove their motherhood are valuable resources for their political careers. Far from emphasizing that these women are ‘only’ mothers, what this does is not only place distinct value on female experiences of motherhood (which are so often denigrated in our society and not seen as important qualifications for politics or anything) but it also suggests that women can be strong and ambitious and also ‘motherly’.

Motherhood is now offered by both candidates as a political asset – a form of authority and leadership.

In a politics driven by personality, motherhood offers some shortcuts. It helps humanise the politician, it can be used to project an emotional warmth and empathy in an age when the primary requirement of a political leader is that they “understand” the voter. Voters show in polling that they think motherhood makes women less driven by self-interest and more by the welfare of others. At a time when politicians are held in such low regard and there is pervasive political cynicism, the “mother nation” figure has some real emotional resonance in both electorates.

Accusations of being “calculating”, “ambitious”, “cold” have dogged them from the starts of their campaigns. Such terms when applied to a male candidate would hardly be seen as a drawback – what president hasn’t been ambitious? – but it makes these mother politicians appear less motherly.

Its also important I think that these female candidates seem capable of being themselves. They are not being pushed into being ‘masculine’ in order to fit into the Old Boys Club of politics, and yet, I don’t believe they are embracing traditional conceptions of femininity either. Instead, they are redefining what being a ‘woman’ means, by negotiating their own balance between masculine and feminine gender traits, while still acknowledging that their embodied positionality within female identified and identifying bodies has contributed to their identities.

This strategy does, of course, have risks.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If their candidacies contribute to the election of loathed right-wing alternatives – in particular if Royal doesn’t get the socialists through to the second round – their failures will haunt, and be used to intimidate, women politicians for a generation.

Here’s the problem then. Women, especially when they present themselves as women are seen as WOMAN… and emcompass all women. I look forward to both Clinton’s and Royal’s campaigns… and I hope that if they lose, all the gians they have made for women just by running and believing themselves worthy to do so, are not erased.

Pay Equity (a reprise)

Well,

According to recent statistics women in the United States are now earning not 77% but 88% of the man’s average salary. To this end, one article in the New York Sun states that these statistics, of course, make mass demonstrations completely pointless and ineffective… Not so.

I’m not going to address the statistics because I am ill equipped to do so, and furthermore, statistics can be used to prove just about darn well anything. What I will say, however, is just what sorts of jobs are these statistics referring to? It seems to me that any woman in an ‘executive’ position (should she get there) is still underpaid and under appreciated next to her male colleagues.
What this article does illustrate is the danger in promoting a policy of ‘comparable worth’ as it inherently assumes women are weaker. What we (as North Americans) still do need, however, is legislation around equal pay for work of equal value. ‘Comparable worth’ returns Americans to the persons debate and makes one wonder if women ever actually became persons in the eyes of some.

Another, more interesting, article raises some very scary points:

“A report released this week by the American Association of University Women found that women across the country earn 80 percent of what their male counterparts make one year after graduating from college. Ten years later, they are earning 69 percent of men’s pay. Even after considering career choice, parenthood and other factors, a quarter of the wage gap is unexplained and likely a result of discrimination, the report says.”

The article itself discusses the implementation of some bills to legislate Pay Equity–labelled (go figure) “feel good liberal legislation” by one senator. I don’t disagree that affirmative action isn’t always the best path–indeed, it can lead, as Amanda rightly points out, to very unfair hiring practices. I do think, though, that we have to start somewhere; as much as North Americans like to pretend we live in a meritocracy, in truth we live in a meritocracy for the already privileged…

A third article addresses only too “the transparent glass ceiling” faced by women.
This article points out that the statistics around the enduring wage gap can be attributed, in part to the fact that
“Women gravitate into lower-paying professions such as education and psychology. Many go to work for non-profit organizations. Men take a disproportionate number of the jobs in engineering and business.”

While this is true, it only serves reinforces the gravity of the larger societal problem: the socialization and gender coding around certain jobs and the failure of some professions to work around the caregiver role. It does also illuminate an interesting tendency of women in the working world; that is, the disproportionate number of women who chose the types of jobs which tend to lend themselves to ‘community’ based issues. Women, it seems, gravitate toward changing their environment in the most immediate way possible (as teachers or non-profit sector workers). Why is this?

Sadly the article continues:

But, as study co-author Catherine Hill told a congressional committee Tuesday, those decisions [to enter into lower paying professions] do not account entirely for the pay gaps.

She controlled for factors such as education, occupation, hours, and children. A 5 percent difference in pay remained for women one year after graduation — before child-rearing even becomes an issue. The controls whittled the spread after a decade at work to 12 percent.

Over a lifetime, those disparities snowball into total incomes $500,000 less than men, lower Social Security, lower social security for children and families.

Our society punishes mothers, rewards fathers.

No wonder there is concern around the declining birth rates in North America. As women choose more and more to enter into demanding professions, child rearing becomes a difficult choice. Hear this legislators: legislate that all jobs become more accommodating to child rearing (for both sexes) and maybe that 1.5 children per couple statistic might rise…

Pay Equity (a reprise)

Well,

According to recent statistics women in the United States are now earning not 77% but 88% of the man’s average salary. To this end, one article in the New York Sun states that these statistics, of course, make mass demonstrations completely pointless and ineffective… Not so.

I’m not going to address the statistics because I am ill equipped to do so, and furthermore, statistics can be used to prove just about darn well anything. What I will say, however, is just what sorts of jobs are these statistics referring to? It seems to me that any woman in an ‘executive’ position (should she get there) is still underpaid and under appreciated next to her male colleagues.
What this article does illustrate is the danger in promoting a policy of ‘comparable worth’ as it inherently assumes women are weaker. What we (as North Americans) still do need, however, is legislation around equal pay for work of equal value. ‘Comparable worth’ returns Americans to the persons debate and makes one wonder if women ever actually became persons in the eyes of some.

Another, more interesting, article raises some very scary points:

“A report released this week by the American Association of University Women found that women across the country earn 80 percent of what their male counterparts make one year after graduating from college. Ten years later, they are earning 69 percent of men’s pay. Even after considering career choice, parenthood and other factors, a quarter of the wage gap is unexplained and likely a result of discrimination, the report says.”

The article itself discusses the implementation of some bills to legislate Pay Equity–labelled (go figure) “feel good liberal legislation” by one senator. I don’t disagree that affirmative action isn’t always the best path–indeed, it can lead, as Amanda rightly points out, to very unfair hiring practices. I do think, though, that we have to start somewhere; as much as North Americans like to pretend we live in a meritocracy, in truth we live in a meritocracy for the already privileged…

A third article addresses only too “the transparent glass ceiling” faced by women.
This article points out that the statistics around the enduring wage gap can be attributed, in part to the fact that
“Women gravitate into lower-paying professions such as education and psychology. Many go to work for non-profit organizations. Men take a disproportionate number of the jobs in engineering and business.”

While this is true, it only serves reinforces the gravity of the larger societal problem: the socialization and gender coding around certain jobs and the failure of some professions to work around the caregiver role. It does also illuminate an interesting tendency of women in the working world; that is, the disproportionate number of women who chose the types of jobs which tend to lend themselves to ‘community’ based issues. Women, it seems, gravitate toward changing their environment in the most immediate way possible (as teachers or non-profit sector workers). Why is this?

Sadly the article continues:

But, as study co-author Catherine Hill told a congressional committee Tuesday, those decisions [to enter into lower paying professions] do not account entirely for the pay gaps.

She controlled for factors such as education, occupation, hours, and children. A 5 percent difference in pay remained for women one year after graduation — before child-rearing even becomes an issue. The controls whittled the spread after a decade at work to 12 percent.

Over a lifetime, those disparities snowball into total incomes $500,000 less than men, lower Social Security, lower social security for children and families.

Our society punishes mothers, rewards fathers.

No wonder there is concern around the declining birth rates in North America. As women choose more and more to enter into demanding professions, child rearing becomes a difficult choice. Hear this legislators: legislate that all jobs become more accommodating to child rearing (for both sexes) and maybe that 1.5 children per couple statistic might rise…

Violence Against Women

The Abbotsford News has an interesting article about Violence, particularly against women. It presents some scary statistics.

Here are just a few facts on violence against women culled from the provincial government’s Women’s Services website:

• Male-against-female violence is the most common, representing 46.5 per cent of all violent crime in Canada.
• Women are more at risk from a man they know than from a stranger; in 76.8 per cent of reported cases of violence, the women knew their assailant; in 28.9 per cent of the reports, the woman was assaulted by her spouse or ex-spouse.
• Dating can be dangerous, especially for young women: Nearly 30 per cent of single women between the ages of 25 and 34 reported being assaulted by a date in a Violence Against Women Survey; and 35 per cent of girls between Grades 7 and 12 reported being sexually and or physically abused in a McCreary Adolescent Health Survey.

I do have a problem however, with this part of the article that seems to suggest that the way to stop violence if for women to be ‘safe’:

Women who take responsibility for their personal safety are taking charge of their lives and refusing the label of “victim.”

But there’s more to being safe than taking a martial arts course or keeping to well-lit streets after the dinner hour.

A safe woman is one who assesses risks and takes action to reduce them. A safe woman is someone who is armed with knowledge, not just bear spray.

While I understand that there are certain actions that a woman should take to help ensure her safety, I always have a problem when the responsibility is put solely on women to be ‘safe.’ As a woman, I am often very concerned about safety when walking around at night – I have the typical narrative running thought my head ‘Is that guy following me. Am I alone on this street? What would I do if… Can I get to my bear spray, my cell phone?” I guess my point is that… really, it shouldn’t be so incumbent on me to stay safe! There’s a problem when women cannot walk alone at night without fear. More should be done to deal with the root of the problem, instead of putting the responsibility on women.

In part, it also suggests that anyone who is assaulted has done something ‘unsafe’. What was she wearing? Where was she walking? At what time? This obfuscates the real problem. This woman was assaulted and no matter what she was doing she shouldn’t have been. It was not in any way her fault. Thus, by trying to take away the word ‘victim’ how do we then ensure that we don’t then project blame onto women who really just aren’t as lucky as those of us who get through the night untouched.