Women leaders demand equal rights on Women's Day eve

[bananas]

Source: AFP

MONROVIA (AFP) — More than 400 high-profile women, including two heads of state, pressed for equal rights for half the world's population as they gathered in Liberia on Saturday on the eve of International Women's Day.

Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Africa's first female head of state, saluted the distinguished gathering of political and business leaders, saying: "You motivate us, you inspire us, you encourage us to continue."

Sirleaf took power in the west African nation ravaged by 14 years of back-to-back civil wars, and her Finnish counterpart Tarja Holonen was quick to point out that women played a leading role in healing war wounds.

<snip>

Canadian Governor General Michaelle Jean, originally a Haitian refugee, echoed the theme that women were the best guarantors of peace.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jpqP8z0qmE1tOXOufjrv0YdcxVkw

[biopowertoday]

1. And it is past time the ERA was passed in the USA!!

[defendandprotect]

9. Is the ERA even in the Democratic Platform any more . . . ???

Certainly not in the Republican platform . . . !!!

Meanwhile, like Prop 8, the ERA was defeated by the Catholic Church and

Mormon Church in a campaign well-financed with tax-exempt dollars!!!

[biopowertoday]

10. I know Florida and (? ark or tenn) are actively

working on it. they need 3 more states before they can send it to congress. I do not know about the official national platform at the moment. I should but my mind is foggy.

[defendandprotect]

11. Me, too -- I keep intending to look up this year's Dem Platform . . .

but never seem to get around to it ---

sometime soon....!!!

[biopowertoday]

14. Here, I found this.........

yes, the Dems supported the ERA:-)

http://feministsforobama.org/DEM_REP_PLATFORM.pdf

[defendandprotect]

16. Thank you --- I've "faved" it after just a brief look... However. . .

I was always a big fan of Ellie Smeal and the Feminist Majority and either I'm

traveling in different circles or they have been very quiet?

Have you seen Ellie Smeal around anywhere of late? If she even still heads FFM?

It used to be that you could see these liberal organizations and women on C-span...

but then came the GOP takeover!!!

[biopowertoday]

21. you bet, and,,,,,,,

Unfortuately, the msm thinks women have shattered the glass ceiling. So, we get very little coverage. Yes, Emily is around and still heads the fem majority. I have not seen her lately either in the media.

but it also true that younger women think they have it all now also (not so).
But we have a ways to go yet as I am sure you know.

[defendandprotect]

22. Recently read this: "Never mistake good acting for cluelessness" ---

Imagine how much right-wing corporate-media fear what someone like Ellie Smeal

would say if she were given any opportunity on TV --- !!!

Love her --- !!!


PS: Just want to add this as a continuing major concern of mine . . .

Thinking of Ellie takes me also to Faye Wattleson, who you probably don't know.
I don't even know if she is still alive, but she was a sensational speaker for
women's issues - I think she was with Planned Parenthood? At any rate, she was
fabulous -- an obvious new leader with places to go. They coaxed her from her
position where she had prominence and you occasionally saw her and promised her
something like hosting a TV show on issues -- whatever. She was never heard from
again as far as I know! And, I'm saying this now with Randi Rhodes still on my
mind -- and the progression from what seems a mysterious accident, to the AAR
positon being pulled out from under her. Evidently, bankrupting AAR didn't work
quickly enough. Randi then went to NOVA where some event triggered her departure
and NOVA's looming financial troubles!!

From the highest perspective we've been kept leaderless over the past almost half-century
now. A population without a voice. They've ensured that no one -- from the highest
to the lowest succeeds the leaders they have killed and sidelined and otherwise
disappeared. Any new potential leader is quickly attacked -- and right now I'm thinking
of Howard Dean who I saw tonigh on Olbermann -- and who so rightly was pointing out that
if Obama moves to pass health care, the GOP will be permanently finished!!!

A great idea for us all to think about---!!!

[No Elephants]

31. Kudos to you for even knowing it is still pending. How many decades has it been?

[Seeking Serenity]

34. The Equal Rights Amendment submitted to the States in 1972 is not still pending.

It died for lack of ratification by a sufficient number of states within the deadline that Congress had set for its ratification, which was either 1979 (the original deadline) or 1982 (the congressionally approved extension, which at least one federal court ruled was unconstitutional).

[biopowertoday]

2. K and R thanks for posting.

[ensho]

3. I didn't know about this meeting - thanks much for posting and

more power to us women

the earth needs saving

the world's teens need saving

[Triana]

4. Women ARE the best guarantors of peace.

Maybe that's what the testosterone-laden, male-dominated governments around the world, and military-industrial complex are concerned about - and why women leaders still don't have equal rights - those industries would lose profit.

Women need to go from being casual afterthoughts of the ravages of war - to being key preventers of them. It only makes sense.

[Triana]

5. 2009 IWD Theme:

2009 Theme:

Women and men united to end violence against women and girls


MORE:

http://www.internationalwomensday.com/about.asp

_ _ _ _ _


And about the current economic crisis and women:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/03/07/international-womens-day-and-the-global-financial-crisis/


"As tax payers in the U.S. are aghast at upwards of $700 billion dollars going to “bail out” the financial system, little is said of the fact that this figure is also the approximate annual military budget of the U.S. Global military spending currently exceeds $1,204 billion dollars annually at 2006 prices. The combined budgets of the United Nations entities working on women’s issues amounts to approximately 0.005 percent of that.

The World Bank estimates the cost of interventions to promote gender equality under Millennium Development Goal 3 (universal access to education) to be $7-$13 per capita. The world’s military expenditure in 2006? $184 per capita. This is the financial crisis. That investing in weapons and war and creating human insecurity is prioritized over investing in peace, development and gender equality. This is what we should be questioning and working to change as we stand together on International Women’s Day. And if the governments and corporations of the world really want to show their support for this day, then ending militarism would be a good place to start."

[JerseygirlCT]

6. Good for them. Long past time. nt

[No Elephants]

7. As a woman who has waited all too long, I am all for equal rights for women in every nation, BUT

women are not the wowrld's best guarantors of peace. Just ask Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi and Margaret Thatcher, the women in the military of nations around the world, and many other women.

Statements like that are stereotyping, as much as calling weak people of any gender or orientation "women."

Stereotyping is the LAST thing that should be in an article about equality for women. Among other things, stereotyping women as peacemakers means we should not give women in the military equal rights.

Agreeing with stereotyping of women (or any group) is the LAST thing that should happen at DU.

Please, join me in 2009, y'awl.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

8. good points n/t

[defendandprotect]

12. Unfortunately, the women who have come to leadership are too often . . .

as much warmongers as the males --

I think you need at least 18% female participation to begin to effect the military or

any other organization -- and one-third to really influence patriachy.

We have had teaching as a mainly female profession --- not many complaints there!

Though, always males at the top of the hierarchy in schools.

Same with department stores --- the guys wear the flowers and have the higher positions.

The females run the stores.

Libraries --- always reliable female control --- and usually at the top, as well!

These are also almost almost always low paying jobs -- and sometimes volunteer positions.

[No Elephants]

17. Which decade/country are you writing about? Men in department stores wear flowers?

[defendandprotect]

20. It's an expression . . . you've never heard it before . .. ?

They USED to wear flowers --- floor managers, that is.

However, I'm sure in your lifetime, you've noticed that pretty much up to now

females run libraries --- ???

- there have been some changes in my library with males working there now ---

And with department stores generally being run by females -- presume you have

noticed that? But when it comes to appointing managers, usually is a male appointed.

Also, when did you last see a male in a department store vacuuming or dusting?

That's also a job for sales clerks now -- females, that is!

Same has been true of my experiences with schools -- generally females do the hard

work, with males in the topmost positions.

Also true in our now corporate-colleges and universities which have become more

military accessories and real estate investors than places of liberal education.

[No Elephants]

32. I know that men in department stores used to wear flowers. But I know that only

because I used to watch "Are You Being Served?" on PBS-and I'll be 66 soon. That's why I asked which decade/country you were writing about. But no, I never heard the expression.


Since my youth, more women are manage in department stores and more men teach. And we've made other gains as well. However, things are still far from equal. One only has to look at some of the genderist posts on DU to know that.

[Threedifferentones]

13. Thank you No Elephants

I completely agree, saying women are best at keeping peace is dangerously close to saying they are also best at "nurturing."

I believe this sort of logic was used often in 19th and 20th century America/Europe to justify publicly discriminating against women. IE, women are best at nurturing and bringing harmony, so they stay at home to keep everyone happy, while the men go out to face the big, bad world to keep "their" women safe from other men. Moreover, as history shows women who wish to rise to power have no qualms about using violence. So, like you said the opinions given in the OP are just stereotypes, which create a "slippery slope" if I ever saw one.

Such thinking does not advance gender EQUALITY. Following it, we either want a peaceful world, so we put women in charge, or we make do with a violent one, where men are in charge. That is not equality, it is the same old "men and women are opposite" line of thinking wrapped up in an apparently feminist package. Life is far more complicated than "if you want peace put women in charge."

[No Elephants]

18. You're welcome. Any time you look at a group as large as women and hang one personality on them,

you ought to take a breath.

And it does not matter if the stereotype is positive or negative. Stereotypes get no one anywhere worth going.

[defendandprotect]

24. Nature certainly thinks that women are best at "nurturing" . . .

Nature has put her faith in females -- and it's silly to suggest that isn't so.

Yes . . . males can nurture, without doubt.

But Nature selected females as having most of the responsibility for children.

Speaking about the women we have seen who "have no qualms to use violence" also

fails to acknowledge that those who bring these women along and support them are

those who most treasure violence -- male politicians.

Stereotyping is harmful -- and we are surrounded by it every day. But that should

not keep us from acknowledging reality.

As for peace -- we certainly have males delivering violence from the first to the last.

Yes, there are males who speak for peace -- Ralph Nader, for one.

Patriarchy is still heavily engaged in suppressing females -- not simply because they

think we have cooties --- but because we do hold fairly opposite views to patriarchy.

[Threedifferentones]

26. If every woman really held views opposite "patriarchy"

Then surely it would fall.

"The patriarchy" is IMO best conceived as the human will and social tendency to dominate and exploit. This tendency furthermore IMO is roughly equal in men and women. Because throughout 99.99% of human history domination required muscle power, men have been better at it, and our cultures evolved to take that for granted.

But this does not prove women that women are not generally abusive with power over others. You can't claim to think of women as equals and then blame their atrocities on male teachings. Women like Maggie Thatcher are just as accountable for their actions as men like GWB.

Male and female are different, but not opposites. So, the differences are hard to describe, and do not hold in individual cases. There were plenty of girl bullies at my schools, they were just less likely to be physically abusive and more likely to do damage with words.

I just don't see patriarchy as only, or even mostly, men dominating women. I see it as people exploiting people. Queen Elizabeth would never have been Queen were her dad to produce a brother, so in that sense the patriarchy of her day hindered her. However, her royal birth made her vastly more likely than 99.999% of her male peers to hold the throne. So, in that sense the patriarchy of her day helped her. My point is that gender/sex discrimination is merely one justification used to exploit people, and merely one facet of what I consider the patriarchy.

[defendandprotect]

27. Why . . . ? Patriarchy has been put in place thru violence and intimidation . . .

and that continues even today --

So why would you think that female values would win against violence?
Nothing wins against violence which is why patriarchy is suicidal and is taking all
of humanity and the planet with them!

I strongly disagree with you that either gender is naturally violent ---
As for the violence that does exist our problems are with male violence which goes
largely unacknowledged and unchallenged --

Certainly, females in our societies have not had power equal to male power from which
they could be judged! Where is he female equivalent of the RCC/the Vatican?
Where is the female equivalent of the male political power -- even male night-time
comic hosts? Is this because women aren't comical or because their comedic power is
feared?

Certainly males like Clarence Thomas are capable of betraying his own race ---
Just as Thatcher and other females are capable of being females with male values.
And those are the females selected by the male hierarchy to move up.
Do you think that Steele was selected because he is typical of African Americans . . .
or typical of Republicans?
I do agree with you, however, that Thomas, Thatcher and Steel are accountable for their
values/actions.

Since patriarchy has reigned for at least 50,000 years or more, it is difficult to point
to any display by females now which would argue for their holding higher values.
Additionally, I would also list the almost half century now of efforts to make all of
our societies more violent --- and to make females more violent. That's certainly been
an on-going effort -- TV and movies playing large roles in this.

But coming back to the opposite values, if you look at patriarchy their biggest enemy is
females because the values are different. Consider the imagine we always see of Eve
holding the Apple. Needless to say, it is good cause to think that the arguement was
indeed about the eating of an apple -- vs violence against animals. If you consider
animal life to be our brothers and sisters on the planet, then in eating animals you
are acting against the "tree of life." Notice also that the first Bibical instruction
is to eat that which GROWS in the garden.

Yes, patriarchy is about exploitation -- first of nature and animal-life which seem to
suggest that women were the defenders of same. Additionally, "Manifest Destiny" also
extends to exploitation of other human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

Women are the victims of those myths, as have been Africans, Jews, homosexuals -- and
children. Indeed, imperialism is simply exploitation.

Queen Elizabeth's father did produce a son -- he died early on.
And, that also brings us to the reality that males are the weaker sex.
More males are lost in miscarriages and more males die up to the age of two.
Males also die earlier.

Since the majority of the people on the planet are female -- at least 52-54% of
every population, despite killing them regularly . . . then the majority dominated
or oppressed by patriachy are females. In fact, it looks like save for the murders
of females, the female populations would be more like 57% to 43%. The DNA passed
on to a child is 57% from the female/Mitochondria included -- and 43% from the male.

Male violence often seems to begin with their war on nature, perhaps in recognition
of not being nature's favorite???

[Threedifferentones]

28. I don't understand you, defend

You admit that since patriarchy has stood for so long it is nigh impossible to prove that women were substantially more peaceful than men before civilization...and then you proceed to take that for granted as fact in all your other points. Which is it? If women hold such higher values, show the evidence...

And yes, if women really believed as you say, they could overthrow patriarchy. These days violence is done with machines, and women are just as capable of picking up a rifle or driving a tank. 54% of the population ought to be able to subdue 46%, or at least force some big negotiations. The reality, though, is that as talent, work and wealth become ever more important and maleness and physical power become things of the past, more and more women are eagerly taking advantage of the patriarchy. If there ever was a time where women were clearly more peaceful by nature than men, it is long past and unknowable. So my advice to you is to get off the idea.

As far as your last statement on male violence and nature, I just don't understand what you mean. Nature does not play favorites, and people have never tried to kill nature, but rather inadvertently harm it while trying to make something new. It is silly, and frankly a little offensive to me, to see everything negative about people as male, and everything positive as female.

Why do you think you could be a sound, fair ruler if you feel you are nature's favorite and I am not? That sounds little different than some asshole insisting God and Nature want men to lead and women to follow.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

30. QE II Had a brother?

Wondering, have not seen that anywhere.

I assume you are talking about QE II (the present Queen ELizabeth),
NOT QE I.

I thought there was only Elizabeth and Margaret.

[No Elephants]

33. Stereotyping is not reality. It's the opposite. It's a mind blinder.

[LeftishBrit]

15. Good points

Or, earlier, ask Boadicea, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I, or Catherine the Great. There were 'women presidents' by inheritance, centuries before there were any by election - and not all were pacifists by any means!

At any rate, let us support equal rights for half of the human race - still kept down completely in so many countries of the world, and fully equal in none.

[No Elephants]

19. I absolutely support equal rights for EVERYone, but stereotypes of the group

seeming equal rights never lead there.

[defendandprotect]

25. You'll note that the Queens usually had male advisors . . . and supported

organized patriarchal religions -- in the case of Bloody Mary pretty much acting as
a Crusading Pope --- and/or oligarchy ---

Boudica --- Boudica's husband, Prasutagus, an Icenian king who had ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome, left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and the Roman Emperor in his will. However, when he died his will was ignored. The kingdom was annexed as if conquered, Boudica was flogged and her daughters raped, and Roman financiers called in their loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica

Bloody Mary -- Mary became queen only after a faction of Protestant nobles tried to put Lady Jane Grey, or the "nine day queen," on the throne. Mary's overwhelming support by the powerful averted a serious civil war. Only a handful of executions followed, including Lady Jane.

Mary immediately went to work bringing the Roman Catholic faith back to England. She initially did this by rescinding the religious proclamations of Edward VI, and replacing them with old English la s enforcing heresy against the Church. In carrying out the last action, Mary earned hernickname, "Bloody Mary," because during her reign, she had more than 300 persons burned at the stake for heresy. Among them was the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. Chiefly because of her support of the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church, she was never really able to gain the support of nobles and most of her countrymen.

Elizabeth 1 -- Elizabeth set out to rule by good counsel,<1> and she depended heavily on a group of trusted advisers led by William Cecil, Baron Burghley.

In government, Elizabeth was more moderate than her father and siblings.<2> One of her mottoes was "video et taceo" ("I see, and say nothing").<3> This strategy, viewed with impatience by her counsellors, often saved her from political and marital misalliances. Though Elizabeth was cautious in foreign affairs and only half-heartedly supported a number of ineffective, poorly resourced military campaigns in the Netherlands, France and Ireland, the defeat of the Spanish armada in 1588 associated her name forever with what is popularly viewed as one of the greatest victories in English history. Within 20 years of her death, she was being celebrated as the ruler of a golden age, an image that retains its hold on the English people. Elizabeth's reign is known as the Elizabethan era, famous above all for the flourishing of English drama, led by playwrights such as William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, and for the seafaring prowess of English adventurers such as Francis Drake, John Hawkins and Walter Raleigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England

Catherine the Great-- During her reign, Catherine the Great expanded Russia's borders to the Black Sea and into central Europe. She promoted westernization and modernization though within the context of her autocratic control over Russia and increasing the control of landed gentry over serfs. Catherine the Great promoted education and the Enlightenment among the elite. She kept up a correspondence with many figures of the Enlightenment in Europe.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/catherinegreat/p/catherinegreat.htm
http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/marytudor.html

She took power after a conspiracy deposed her husband, Peter III (1728–1762), and her reign saw the high point of the Russian nobility. Peter III, under pressure from the nobility, had already augmented the authority of the great landed proprietors over their muzhiks and serfs. In spite of the duties imposed on the nobles by the first "modernizer" of Russia, Tsar Peter I (1672–1725), and despite Catherine's friendships with the western European thinkers of the Enlightenment, in particular Denis Diderot, Voltaire and Montesquieu; Catherine found it impractical to improve the lot of her poorest subjects, who continued to suffer (for example) military conscription. The distinctions between peasant rights on votchina and pomestie estates virtually disappeared in law as well as in practice during her reign.

In 1785 Catherine conferred on the nobility the Charter to the Nobility, increasing further the power of the landed oligarchs. Nobles in each district elected a Marshal of the Nobility who spoke on their behalf to the monarch on issues of concern to them — mainly economic ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_II_of_Russia

At the time of her accession, the government was controlled by the Whig Party, which had been in power, except for brief intervals, since 1830. The Whig Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, at once became a powerful influence in the life of the politically inexperienced Queen, who relied on him for advice—some even referred to Victoria as "Mrs. Melbourne".<8> However, the Melbourne ministry would not stay in power for long; it was growing unpopular and, moreover, faced considerable difficulty in governing the British colonies, especially during the Rebellions of 1837. In 1839, Lord Melbourne resigned after the Radicals and the Tories (both of whom Victoria detested at that time) joined together to block a Bill before the House of Commons that would have suspended the Constitution of Jamaica.<9>

Queen Victoria -- Victoria's principal adviser was her uncle King Leopold I of Belgium (her mother's brother, and the widower of Victoria's cousin, Princess Charlotte). Queen Victoria's cousins, through Leopold, were King Leopold II of Belgium and Empress Carlota of Mexico.<8>

The Queen then commissioned Sir Robert Peel, a Tory, to form a new ministry, but was faced with a débâcle known as the Bedchamber Crisis. At the time, it was customary for appointments to the Royal Household to be based on the patronage system (that is, for the Prime Minister to appoint members of the Royal Household on the basis of their party loyalties). Many of the Queen's Ladies of the Bedchamber were wives of Whigs, but Sir Robert Peel expected to replace them with wives of Tories. Victoria strongly objected to the removal of these ladies, whom she regarded as close friends rather than as members of a ceremonial institution. Sir Robert Peel felt that he could not govern under the restrictions imposed by the Queen, and consequently resigned his commission, allowing Melbourne to return to office.<8>

Marriage of Victoria and Albert by Sir George HayterThe Queen married her first cousin, Prince Albert, on 10 February 1840, in the Chapel Royal of St. James's Palace, London.<10> Albert became not only the Queen's companion, but an important political advisor, replacing Lord Melbourne as the dominant figure in the first half of her life following Melbourne's death.<11>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_of_the_United_Kingdom

[JerseygirlCT]

29. I think we could say in general terms, however

that a more equal distribution of women throughout leadership positions in the world might very well relate to a more equitable approach to many issues that we all face.

I think we've been living with a bit of a one-sided view of geopolitics for a very long time. Including the other half of the population can't help but improve on that.

[defendandprotect]

23. K&R