Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 4:24 AM
Thu Dec 3
63 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
Since women are primary caregivers of children they are most likely going to be concerned about more than themselves (and just buying beer and candy - which was what was said about the men), but it seemed that it was implied during the show that it always was better to help a woman.
I can certainly get behind the effort - and have made micro loans myself - with NO expectation of repayment or even thanks.
It just seemed to me that (again) an Oprah show wasn't telling an entire story entirely truthfully.
12/01/09
anyone off the hook and offering sound, logical alternative ways in which we should be approaching change and resolution.
Oprah was flustered. Kristoff was beet red. The audience was slack-jawed. Everyone was WIDE AWAKE!
I'm pushing rewind and play.
12/01/09
12/01/09
10/28/09
Angie looks great! #angelinajolie
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
I really recommend you read the article.
08/20/09
I see that, but I think of it a different way, not that women's rights becomes subservient to a larger goal of economic and geopolitical stability, but that it is seen as part and parcel of that larger goal.
Women's issues tend to be relegated to the "pink ghetto" of foreign policy, but this approach instead integrates them into a larger geopolitical framework that sees them not as secondary things to be handled after larger issues of poverty and war are resolved, but as essential aspects of battling those social ills. I prefer the way envisioned by the article, which says, "you know all that stuff world leaders and NGO officials are saying takes precedence over women's issues? Well, those won't go away until you give women's issues precedence." It's holistic and integrative.
I am not articulating myself well, which is frustrating to me. I hope my point is being understood.
08/20/09
Sure, we're spending the aid money based on our values. But how, exactly, are you supposed to NOT do that? Give it to everyone?
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
Yes, it is. I've seen it all too often in Africa that international donations that go to families and that are controlled solely by the head of the family (i.e. the MAN) ends up as alcohol, gambling, and prostitution.
It's not entirely their fault, these spending habits are also a symptom of poverty. But as long as the money stays in the hand of a category of people that are incapable of investing in health, education, and their own children, the problem will continue for sure.
08/20/09
I have issues with the "saving" part, it stinks of colonialistic undertones. How can you make the case for female empowerment in the Global South (because the "World's" apparently doesn't imply gender inequity in Western countries), but tie that empowerment to changing the behavior of the poor through Western interventions based on Western standards? After reading the article, I was bothered by nagging sense of the "white man's burden", especially with it's arguments and strong reliance on foreign aid (a somewhat controverisal topic in international development work/world).
Yes, as humans we have a social compact with to help one another, but in a way that culturally appropriate, culturally sensitive and gives credence to the ways and methods women in the Global South want to uplift and empower themselves.
08/20/09
Also, do you think that maybe you got the feeling that the authors are making this a "white man's burden" because the authors themselves are white? Just curious.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
We can't just keep putting off helping women just because we don't know what the "ends" will be, or that we're making them into some "ideal" that we want - how is it shaping an "ideal" when the goal is simply that children grow up healthy and educated, and women aren't subjected to abuse? The whole idea of relativism and not modifying other cultures from the outside only has so much merit, and becomes increasingly problematic when people's lives and livelihoods are at stake.
I find the idea of "is it our place to determine what spending is wise or unwise" intensely frustrating - it's pretty much the exact situation we have here going on with health care or environmental issues - those who want nothing but FREEDOM and CHOICE, even when their freedom and choice is extremely destructive. Sometimes, those in power have to say "enough is enough". Maybe we don't have to necessarily say "No, Mr. XYZ, you can't spend your money on alcohol," but that's why we need mechanisms in place to give women money - and hence, power - of their own.
Maybe if we followed what the authors of this article are suggesting, we would finally start seeing results in terms of women's equality and decreasing poverty and mortality all over the world.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09