Feminicide

By Janaina Albuquerque

In March 9th 2015 a new law was sanctioned by Brazil’s President, Dilma Rousseff, that typifies feminicide^[1]. Not only this law changes brazilian’s Criminal Code, but it establishes feminicide as a heinous crime. It means that neither bail, grace, amnesty nor pardon can be granted.

           

There’s a fine line between what femicide and feminicide mean, even though many use both terms as synonyms. Femicide was firstly mentioned by Jill Radford and Diana Russel in “Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing”, when Feminicide, on the other hand, was evoked by a mexican anthropologist, Marcela Lagarde. Femicide regards the death of female subjects in a broader spectrum, while feminicide exceeds misogyny by creating a climate of terror, persecution, rape, torture, sexual harassment, physical and verbal abuse. Femicide is to kill a woman because she’s a female. Feminicide is what holds responsible not only the male perpetrator, but also the State and judicial structures that normalize misogyny^[2].

Why is it important to include feminicide as a crime in domestic legal systems? Does it empower women in anyway?

Well, most surely yes.

But in order to be able to answer the first question, one must be aware of the effects of gender inequality in society. “What is the difference between murder and feminicide?”, some may ask. “If everyone is equal, no murder should be more serious than any other”. This definitely isn’t the way to approach this subject.

In the Brazilian criminal system, a qualified murder causes the sentence to be increased because of futile reasons, the way it was perpetrated, the way of execution or its finality. Why isn’t gender a qualification? Why isn’t race and why isn’t sexual orientation? None of these examples provide futile reasons. They highlight the most obscure side of the scope of the law: it doesn’t effectively protect the people. It isn’t complete and that’s a problem because the law is the ultimate agreement between the government and the people.

The typification of feminicide isn’t a privilege. It’s a right. A Human Right. Any kind of violence motivated by intolerance should indeed be treated more seriously. Every woman murdered simply because she is a woman weakens our way to gender equality. Every person hurt because of the color of her skin penetrates racism each inch deeper into our habits. Anyone who has ever incited violence against homosexuals is not only taking away another person’s right to love, but making this person afraid of showing her feelings and being herself. So there’s an immense meaning behind killing a person because of something she was born with. She can’t help it. She can’t detach from it. She shouldn’t want to suppress it.

The feminicide law wasn’t made for giving advantage to women because they are weaker, even if it represents a way of empowerment. What would happen to honour killings if feminicide was implemented in these countries? How many women would stop being disfigured by acid? It may not seem much, but fighting for equality is an everyday struggle won by baby steps.

Society is making a statement by turning feminicide into a specific, most severe kind of murder. It means that it won’t be tolerated that women are killed every day because of who they are any second longer. Women who are stuck in abusive relationships, who are beaten and humiliated, have a reason to believe that, in some way, the law is looking out for them. Not only that, but many women believe that only because they are women, they have to obey and be submissive; when the truth is they are powerful and equally as capable as any other human being, deserving to be treated as such. Feminicide states once and for all, even if there are people who don’t see it, that women’s rights are violated, that women suffer from prejudice, and that women need legal support to protect themselves from the ultimate kind of violence.  

---

^[1] http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2015/Lei/L13104.htm

^[2] http://www.ghrc-usa.org/Programs/ForWomensRighttoLive/factsheet_femicide.pdf

WHERE ARE WE TODAY ABOUT GENDER EQUALITY?

By Ana Isabel

Investigating about gender. Searching, reading and deepening on the subject. I found the following infography. Sometimes we think, what is the current situation in relation to gender equality? Coincidence or causality of life, I found this very interesting infography:

http://beijing20.unwomen.org/es/infographic/beijing-at-20

Although we see progress in the comparative data hits see these figures today. Because there is still a significant inequality, more than we imagine or think, there is still much to do. A curious fact I commented recently that in Costa Rica only 30% of women own.

As for infography

* 45% fewer deaths than in 1990, but still 800 women die every day from causes of preventable pregnancy. 800 deaths could be avoided, is a large sum even thinking that could be avoided if the media had.

* Between 1990 and 2010, 200 million people have gained access to clean water. Although there are women who spend a total of 16 million hours a day fetching water in 25 sub-Saharan countries. This figure shocked me. But it got me thinking about the importance of analyzing and adapting. That is, we noted that a draft women walking miles to fetch water. The project was a water well and avoid km. But for them it was the meeting point for communication and exchange. Is key to any project is in line with reality and real needs. Plenty to do but you have to see what is being done, learn from the successes and mistakes

* Still find differences in wages, women earn between 10% and 30% less. What would link with access to management positions, according to this infography represents only 5% of managers and directors. Add to reflect on the comments and social thoughts there when a man agrees to a managerial position and when it does a woman.

* Although gender parity in primary education is getting even find cases as in sub-Saharan Africa in higher education 64 girls per 100 boys. Not only have we tended to look at developing countries, because sometimes they are more developed in other important aspects that "developed" countries. Everywhere there is still work to be done, there are still children who have no access to basic education. We found that 60% of women are illiterate person.

* 1 in 3 women continues to suffer physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner mainly. For me this was one of the figures that impacted me, I believe the number is high, especially if we think of all the measures and actions that have been implemented. Will failing something or really effective actions are being carried out but time is concerned? What do you think?

I leave you to analyze the data, reflect on the figures. At what point do we believe? Are we moving? Have you had enough? What else can you do? ... Reflect

The Identity Crisis

The purpose of any individual’s life is probably to meet the two bridges called ‘potential’ and ‘present’. Every person strives to become better at something because he knows he is capable of making that difference. But what when you are made to believe that your sole purpose is to be a support system to someone else, that your potential lies in the well being of your husband and he is symbolic of your place in this society. What if you start believing that you are not somebody but somebody’s? It feels sad when an endless number of women who are fortunate to have the rightful resources to create their own destinies step 

back or in other words never step forward. The clear example of an opportunity missed!

There are so many women born in well to do families who are educated, smart, intelligent but the moment the time comes to explore and live their fairy like dreams they are slowly driven into the process of being a good caretaker and learning to live like a lady. So, what is wrong with that? The problem here is draped; it lies in the intentions behind the actions. It indirectly encourages patriarchy. These people often want good looking, well educated brides from a family holding status in society but some of them will never allow them to go out for a job or work on their own saying what is the need as if the only reason to work is to earn cash and the work in itself and a woman’s aspirations aren’t significant. That is the extent of how women suffer from the identity problem irrespective of the economic status she holds. 

The problem is huge not because so many potential action takers are deprived of making an independent life but because in many cases women themselves do not realize what is slowly being done to them until years later when a family member asks them not to speak in family decisions and matters because they don’t know enough and they do not bring anything on the table. That makes a woman vulnerable to living a life of fear and admission like a debater who has well laid arguments in his head but is never called on the stage because someone else is doing that job. It is important for every  woman to decide what her aims and objectives are, to realise her own dreams and admit that she holds an identity of her own no matter what strata of society 

does she come from. The way Charliotte Bronte (Jane Eyre) puts it :

 “I am no bird; and no net ensnares me: I am a free human being with an independent will.” source:cartanat.com
 

Mirror Mirror, on the wall: Gender based Perceptions

Being social animals all of us conduct ourselves in accordance with how we would like to be perceived by those around us and more often than not how we are actually perceived is a function of a lot of factors over and above just our own selves. The Harvard Business School once ran a study popularly known as the Heidi v/s Howard Syndrome that exhibited a live case of gender based perception by people. Briefly, when some information on a person called ‘Howard’ and his career was shared with a group of students, he came to be described as a catalyst, captain of industry and successful because of being likeable. When the group later reviewed details about ‘Heidi’ with a similar career path, she was perceived equally effective but less likeable and described as selfish. Interestingly, in reality Howard didn’t exist, it actually was Ms. Heidi Roizen- a real life entrepreneur from Silicon Valley. [Credit: Publicly available materials regarding the case study by Harvard Business School]

Most of us at some point in our lives have either experienced or witnessed perception of people based on gender. Some food for thought- Does impact of gender based perceptions restricts to the corporate corridors and while making career choices or is there more than what meets the eye?

While the sophisticated society’s perceptions generally limits itself to gender based opinions on competency or efficiency, it is a trajectory of gender based perceptions of some sections of the society that have led to social acceptance of practices like discouraging education for girls, early or forced marriages, female circumcision etc....these rampant missions for survival of course are only for those girl children who don’t fall prey to feticide in the first place.

It seems like a classic Chicken and Hen story: crimes against women are more probable in sections of the society where gender based perception is strong and when there is a high rate of crimes against women, they further loose opportunities to rise above the perception.

Thankfully perceptions are just rigid, not permanent and can be dealt with at both micro and macro levels towards which we need to make constant efforts, for instance:

Individually one can lead by example by firstly freeing our own selves of believing in gender based stereotypes and by making efforts to minimize gender based inequality around us.

In the work place a lot of organizations these days aim to be equal opportunity employers, building zero-tolerance policies against discrimination and creating awareness amongst employees. 

Also society at large now lays focus on stringent laws to address crimes against women, encouraging education for girls by subsidizing the cost of education and encouraging participation of women in industries traditionally considered male dominated.

Media platforms also play a huge part in creating awareness, here are a few thought provoking examples:

1.         Very effective portrayal of the Heidi vs Howard syndrome: http://youtu.be/kOjNcZvwjxI#aid=P9RHE_R9TJg 

[Credit: Labels against women - ad campaign by Pantene Philippines]

2.         A compilation on gender based perception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NswJ4kO9uHc

[Credit: How the Media failed women in 2013 by the Representation Project]

3.         The 'Women should.....' campaign by UN Women based on real Google searches: Pictures and http://youtu.be/1GMTHdNCdnQ

[Credit :Memac Ogilvy & Mather, Dubai]

Every instance of discrimination addressed takes us a step closer to being better balanced society.

Written by Jotika C

Don't be that [Insert Gender]

This week in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, a radical men’s rights group called Men’s Rights Edmonton started a campaign entitled “Don’t be that Girl.” The campaign sprouted as a parody of the “Don’t be that Guy” message that was created to bring attention to the fact that sex without consent is rape.

See one of the campaign posters here:

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2013/07/09/li-poster.jpg

With this twist on the well-known original campaign, Men’s Rights Edmonton intended to shine a spotlight on women who report false rape/sexual assault allegations, highlighting that lying about sexual assault is a crime. I must speak to how greatly this organization has perverted the original message. The campaign has ground up the crucial message that non-consensual sex is rape and spit it out, turning it into a blame-game. It is an act of victim shaming and it is absolutely possible that this campaign will have a negative impact on the victims of sexual assault. I have no doubt that it will prevent many victims from coming forward and reporting this hideous crime.

In addition, according to Sean Armstrong of the Serious Crimes branch of the Edmonton Police Service, false accusations are not common: “I was a sexual assault detective for 4½ years and in that time I only dealt with one [false accusation], and I dealt with numerous files,” he states, “so they are very, very rare.”

Men’s Rights Edmonton writes on their website:

“Men’s Rights Edmonton believes the original “Don’t be that guy” campaign is hate speech. It specifically targets a gender and all members of that gender as perpetrators of rape. Sexual violations, including rape, can be committed by anyone. While a majority of reported sexual assaults are committed by men, associating or claiming all men are potential rapists is analogous to claiming all minorities will commit theft.”

I agree that their organization has a valid point in saying that not all perpetrators of rape are men. It is true that women have committed such acts as well as their male counterparts. However, I do not believe that spreading the message that non-consensual sex is rape is hate speech. I also find it difficult to believe that the original campaign targeted all men as potential rapists. The title of the original, “Don’t be that Guy” was targeted towards males as just as Men’s Rights Edmonton stated, the majority of reported sexual assaults are committed by men. It has been studied, however, that the majority of rapes are committed by men, but a small percentage of men who admit to repeated rapes.

At the end of the day, no, not all men are rapists, women can commit these heinous crimes and also falsely report them (albeit on an extremely rare basis), and yes, this is a crime. We are all aware of the illegality of falsely reporting a crime.  So, will someone please tell me what the point of this campaign is, aside from Men’s Rights Edmonton throwing an anti-feminist temper tantrum?

If you would like to find out more information on Men’s Rights Edmonton, you can find it here:

http://www.mensrightsedmonton.com/

Jennifer Andrews

The Saboteur

In today’s society, there is a great struggle for equality between the sexes. Feminists face challenges from every angle; at home, within their circles of friends, with their partners and in the media. But there is one unexpected threat - opposition or setback from within their own gender.

It is a large misconception that men and men alone perpetuate gender bias, sexism and promote rape culture (rape culture: A concept which links rape and sexual violence to the culture of a society, and in which prevalent attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape).  It is becoming apparent that women are playing a part in it as well.

As women, we grow up in a society which dictates what we are to wear, how to act, and how to think. From this conditioning, many of us are quick to judge others of the same sex if they do not conform to the “rules” that our largely misogynistic society has set in place. Many of us are guilty of contributing to a sexist, misogynistic and prejudiced way of thinking. Ask yourself if you have ever done any of the following:

·         Judged a woman/girl on appearance alone

·         Called a woman/girl a “slut”

·         Made an assumption about a woman’s sex life or sexual orientation based on her clothing

If you answered “yes” to any of the above, don’t feel bad. Many women have learned this behavior from friends and family, even their own mothers. I admit I am guilty of it myself, and it has taken much effort to realize the damage I cause to the fight for gender equality when I think or speak this way. When we allow ourselves to follow these imaginary rules and fall into the stereotypes, we are telling society, this is okay. Women should be treated as objects, assessed and criticized. We confirm the notion that a woman is a “certain way” and deserves a particular type of treatment due to her appearance, which inevitably contributes to society’s toleration and normalization of rape. We help rape culture continue to grow.

What can you do?

Think

It seems simple. Think before you speak. Think about the thoughts that enter your mind before they even get there – are they judgmental? Stop them in their tracks. We don’t have the right to make assumptions about anyone without knowing them. Remember that part of feminism is the freedom for women to choose who they want to be, what they want to wear and how they want to act without fear of persecution.

Speak Up!

Don’t be afraid to spread the word. If you witness this kind of stereotyping and prejudice, say something!

Get Active!

Contribute to Delta Women. Start your own blog. Tweet something, make pamphlets, educate – anything!

If we all do our part, no matter how difficult it may be, we will be successful. Only when we present a united front will we achieve true gender equality.

By Jennifer Andrews

Gender and Reparations: The Road to Effective Reparations for Women.

It is a widely acknowledged principle of international law that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form.[1] Thus when a violation is committed, reparations must be paid[2]. The term reparations can therefore be simply understood as redress provided for victims for the injury or harm that they have suffered. This principle applies in two instances; where the violation is committed by one state against another, or by a state against individuals.

Reparations aims to ‘wipe out [as far as possible] all the consequences of [an] illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed’[3].  Importantly, reparations are not restricted to compensation. The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (hereinafter “UN Principles on the Right to a Remedy”) distinguishes five broad categories of reparations which are;

•                    Restitution

•                    Compensation

•                    Rehabilitation

•                    Satisfaction

•                    Guarantees of non-repetition

The right to reparations includes access to justice, reparation for the harm suffered and access to information[4]. It is contained in most human rights and humanitarian rights conventions. In the context of serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the UN Principles on the Right to a Remedy provides fundamental principles and guidelines and a framework for construction of national reparation programmes. The importance of remedies has also been affirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in other instruments.

Gender and Reparations

Generally, women and girls suffer distinct injuries and human rights violations, thus the need to deal with these violations uniquely. A Statement by Rashida Manjoo[5], the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences[6] provides an account of the distinctive nature of violations suffered by women. It says that;

“Women and girls are victimized under authoritarian regimes and during violent conflict in multiple ways. They suffer from operations randomly or strategically targeting and terrorizing the civilian population, but also from summary and extrajudicial executions, imprisonment, torture, rape and sexual mutilations for fighting in resistance movements, engaging in the search for and defence of their loved ones or for coming from communities suspected of collaboration. […]Some forms of violence that women are subject to are similar to those suffered by men; others are more specific to women and girls, subjecting them to systematic patterns of sexual or reproductive violence or to different forms of domestic enslavement […]More importantly, even when women are subjected to the same violations as men, their pre-existing socio- economic and legal status and the cultural meanings surrounding the construction of the male and the female in patriarchal societies may cause different ensuing harms for men and women”.

For a long time, women and girls have been subjected to sexual and gender based violence without the hope of any form of redress or reparation. But the need for reparation programmes specifically dealing with violations against women cannot be gainsaid. Until recently, there has been no emphasis on gender and reparations and on the distinctive role on reparations for women. However, in its 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the General Assembly requested States to ‘exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and in accordance with national legislation punish acts of violence against women whether those actions are perpetrated by the State or private persons[7].’ It also called for states to develop legislation aimed to punish and redress wrongs caused to women.

The Nairobi Declaration on Women’s and Girls’ Right to a Remedy and Reparation adopted in 2007 is the best manifestation of the growing concern to provide women and girls with adequate reparations. In its preamble it takes into consideration ‘the unimaginable brutality of crimes and violations committed against women and girls in conflict situations, and the disproportionate effects of these crimes and violations on women and girls, their families and their communities. The Declaration seeks to;

·         Empower women and girls

·         Promote gender equality and post-conflict transformation through reparations by shaping the lives of women and girls.

·         Highlight the particular circumstances of violation of women’s rights and the specific approaches based on their needs.

·         Advocate for the full participation of women and girls victims in every stage of the reparations process.

·         Emphasize the importance of truth telling in order to positively reparation measures and to help women and girls to rebuild their lives.

In addition, the Declaration pays specific attention to victims of sexual and gender based violence.

Asides from the Nairobi Declaration, the recent reparation order by the International Criminal Court in The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo case provides a watershed in women reparations. Some of the principles established by the trial chamber provide important ideologies in the gender -reparations discourse. The chamber emphasized that reparations should be accessible to all victims and where appropriate takes the gender of the victims into account. In addition, it stressed that reparation measures should take into account sexual and gender based violence that victims may have suffered[8]. In welcoming this order, the UN Women’s Deputy Executive Director, Lakshmi Puri, said that “As a mechanism of justice, reparations are of particular importance for women victims of conflict,” and that “[r]eparations have the potential to provide recognition of women’s rights as equal citizens, acknowledgement of the harm suffered, as well as a concrete contribution towards victim’s recovery,” Consequently, reparations play an important role in rebuilding lives of victims.

These approaches play a significant role in allowing women victims to access justice. States therefore as the primary entities vested with the responsibility to provide reparations should ensure that the needs of women are met in any reparation measures. This can be done either through enactment of gender sensitive reparation policies or through inclusion of gender/ non-discriminatory clauses in constitutive instruments of Truth Commissions which usually recommend reparations in their final reports.

---

[1] Permanent Court of Arbitration, Chorzow Factory Case (Ger. V. Pol.), (1928) P.C.I.J., Sr. A, No.17 at 29.

[2] Chorzow Factory Case (n 1 above) at 21.

[3] Chrorzow Factory Case (n 1 above) at 47.

[4] Principle 11, UN Principles on the Right to a Remedy.

[5] On the 65th session of the General Assembly Third Committee on 11 October 2010 at New York.

[6] Available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/documents/ga65/vaw.pdf (accessed on 28/08/2012)

[7] Article 4(c) of the Declaration.

[8] Cited in http://www.vrwg.org/home/home/post/36-lubanga-case---q--a-on-icc-landmark-decision-on-reparations-for-victims (accessed on 28/08/2012).

By Brenda Mwale

ATTITUDE MATTERS

The patriarchal society prevailing in large parts of the world is the cause for all discrimination being faced by women across the world. The reason is simple - As efforts have been on to dismantle the patriarchal system, it is apparent that there is a tremendous degree of resistance to the fact that we cannot give space to women in society. Legal steps have been initiated in the international community and yet it is apparent that the will is lacking as far as implementing the same on ground is concerned. 


The age old discrimination being faced by the woman is so blatant and obvious that any action initiated is bound to meet with resistance at all steps of changes visualized in the proposed law of the land. These discriminatory acts start in the most basic of family and society affairs and then keep on piling up to add to the woes of the world woman population.

It is imperative that such changes are enunciated at the family level and it is only then it will be possible for the woman to have their rightful place in the society that had been denied to them since time immemorial. In the family it is the mother who can be the true harbinger of change in the attitude that one desires in the society. Who else but a mother who can well understand the blatant infringement of rights being faced by the women fraternity? Thus it should be the endeavor of all   concerned in the governance of nations to target the mother by all available means to implement this attitudinal change.

It is going to be a very slow process yet it can show results in years to come. Since today’s attitudes have got crystallized in years of propaganda and lack of awareness hence the same will get dismantled in the same time frame. yet we have to pledge ourselves that we will not give up our fight to  see these attitudes going into oblivion.


By Rajiv Tewari

When Gender Interferes with Work

When Roli Ekakite (not her real name) reported for her first day at her new job, it was with mixed feelings of trepidation and unease about what the day would be bringing her that overcast Monday morning. Almost five months before, she’d been given this job offer after she had successfully scaled through the whole gamut of the recruitment process, including the mandatory employment medicals. And then, surprisingly, at the end of it all, she had been asked to await confirmation of the date she’d be notified to resume. As the weeks of waiting turned to months, Roli naturally had to go on with her own personal life and aspirations. She got married to her longstanding sweetheart and before you knew it, in came the first early clues of her pregnancy.

Roli’s trepidation on this fateful first day at work arose from her being mindful that as she made to open the door to her new boss’ office, her tummy gave enough hint of her four months pregnancy. Knowing that within the industry in which she was resuming for work the unspoken policy appeared to be not to employ a pregnant woman and knowing also the content of her employment letter which specified a six months probationary period before possible confirmation could be given, Roli, with the thought that she was starting on the wrong footing feared for the worse. And the worse did come. Within moments of her encounter with her new boss, she got a call from Human Resources at her organisation’s head office concerning termination of her appointment.  

Roli’s situation is not an uncommon employment story in many sectors of the Nigerian economy, particularly in the financial sector where prospective employees must undertake the mandatory medicals that are instituted mainly with the view to discovering whether the prospective (female) employee is pregnant or not. Where pregnancy is discovered the female’s recruitment process will be cut short abruptly and she will not be given an employment letter.

It really becomes a jungle out there, especially for the woman who wishes to become the guinea pig to test the weight of the company policy concerning her right to childbearing as a worker within the organisation.

According to the Nigerian labour law, women in government employment and those in the private sector employment are entitled to 12 weeks (now 16 weeks for government workers) maternity leave with at least 50% pay. And more and more organisations especially those in the regulated sectors try to comply with this law. However, the law’s application becomes extremely hazy and subjective when the now commonly practiced “probation period” is thrown into the mix. The laws governing how a company will implement maternity during a woman’s probationary period becomes a really very tricky issue and oftentimes organisations will take the easy route, as happened with Roli, of simply terminating the employment of the female involved.

That it is a workforce dominated by male policy makers, has no doubt skewed policy enactment to disfavour consideration of many of the real circumstances facing the female folk. The male will never find himself in a situation where a decision has to be made about losing or keeping his job based on pregnancy, quite unlike his female counterpart who may have resumed work with him on the same day.

In the case of Roli she got a bit lucky. After several weeks of emotional turmoil caused by the letdown, a very influential relation of hers got to discover what had happened and caused a major uproar at the very top of the organisation. As a result she got reinstated, but only with the condition that she would have unpaid maternity leave and an extension of her probation period by the length of time she spent on maternity leave. For that organisation, it, going forward, became the policy for subsequent employees in the same scenario.

While this resolution to Roli’s situation is better than what used to be in place, the question has to be asked whether this is good enough. Should the womenfolk suffer unpaid wages because they cannot help but be the conduit or progenitor for the human race?

Written By Okechuku Kanu

Girlz can Science 2!

And soon they’ll realize they should ditch those trendy sunglasses for equally trendy safety goggles. And they get to work on make up, just like every girls dream! And really, they get to spend most of their time dancing with their friends while the one smart girl does all confusing mathy stuff.

At least that’s what the European Comission thought would get the attention of its girls in their recent advertisement “Science: It’s a Girl Thing”. The 30 second commercial is an effort by the EC to bolster the number of female students entering in the sciences. It hasn’t really been met with any hostility, but instead with a sly grin and a condescending pat on the head. I get what they’re trying to do, teenage girls DO care about make-up, and their friends, and having fun, but the commercial is way over the top, and pigeonholes the girls it is trying to convince to join the ranks of the science world.

While the commercial is 30 seconds of pure ridiculousness, the rest campaign seems to be pretty solid. The website, http://science-girl-thing.eu/, gives teenage girls a chance to explore their prospects in what is becoming a more and more lucrative field. There’s a photo contest where teenage girls can express what science is to them, there’s a quiz to help the girls figure out which aspects of science they might be interested in, there’s fun facts and dream job descriptions, and all of this is done on a slick and accessible website.

Thanks to efforts like this, the ratio of men to women is skewed, but it’s getting better. In 2007 three men received a science degree for every two women. The women that did get science degrees tended to lean towards more knowledge based sciences such as biology and psychology, and avoid more mathematical subjects such as engineering, physics and computer science. One of the main causes of this concentration is, of course, society’s misinformed belief that men are better at math, but a more poignant reason is that young women who join these science departments will likely be surrounded by males. The problem has become self-perpetuating. Women don’t want to join the physics department because they’ll be the only female, and because there are no women, the next set of potential female physicists don’t join either.

The “Science: It’s a Girl Thing” campaign is working hard to get young women to join, but they are faced with another significant problem commonly referred to as the leaky pipeline. Little girls love science, but as they move to high school less become interested (for whatever reasons). As they move into university even more drop off, and so on through masters and PHD degrees, with the smallest amount finally ending up working in academia. Every step of the way a significant amount more women move away from the sciences; to start working, to raise families, to join alternate fields; than men. If this trend is to stop, the campaign will need to evolve. It will need to find ways to keep women interested in the sciences that they join.

The campaigns intentions are good, even if the execution was a bit bumbling. An influx of women into a generally male dominated field will be advantageous and is a necessity if I am ever to get my chance to jump around in space.  

Check out the video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g032MPrSjFA

And the “Science: It’s a Girl Thing” website here

http://science-girl-thing.eu/

Also, this one’s pretty interesting.

http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf

By Matthew Ariss

A Critical Assessment of Feminist Equality Why Men and Women will never be Equal (but should keep trying anyway)

            Although feminists will probably come to burn down my house for writing this post, I think this is an important issue to discuss about. However, instead of giving facts regarding the various issues of inequality that may or may not be fixed, I would like to frame this argument completely in terms of critical theory, showing that although men and women may never be truly equal in all experiences, this does not deny that we should continue to fight for equal rights.

            Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the examination and critique of society and culture, identifying the flaws in current society compared to a perceived ideal. Although these critiques are not created necessarily to improve society but merely identify the flaws endemic within, critical theory essentially attempts to identify inequalities and injustices within a system. Taken in the context of feminism, critical theory would imply that not only are there current injustices and inequalities within the system between men and women but that there will always be inequalities no matter how much society improves toward the feminist ideal for equality.

            Thus, if we follow a critical theory perspective for feminine equality, we will learn that no matter how hard we try and no matter how hard we work to improve gender equality, there will always be flaws in the resulting society that will prevent true equality among the sexes. This can range from a variety of issues such as paternity leave that will inevitably favor single men over women and married men in the work place given the fact that companies would not need to provided paid paternity leave for single men, that due to innate biological differences between men and women, there will always be differences that prevent men and women from experiencing true equality in society.

            This is a pretty dark picture to paint given the fact that what this article is essentially saying is that no matter how hard we try to improve society to promote equality, it will never be truly perfect and thus, men and women will never experience true equality. This may result in us asking then what is the point, if we will never reach a point in time when both men and women will be truly equal then why continue to fight for equality. Should we instead try to outline some basic rights that men and women want to achieve and after achieving those goals, remain satisfied with our achievements and move onto other injustices in society? Even if we choose to accept this frame of mind, society will then need to determine what targets they need to achieve for an “acceptable” level of equality which would be undermined by the fact that not only will there be differing opinions of “acceptable” equality but that critical theory will strike again, critical theorists identifying the flaws in society that show that we failed to meet these targets.

            Given the difficulties of achieving equality and the inevitability of never achieving equality according to critical theorists, many supporters of equality may question why they should continue fighting. I would like to support this argument with a simple log graph.

            This is a simple log x graph which I would like to use to depict the progression of gender equality, thus showing why despite the inevitability of equality we should keep fighting. For this graph let us assume that the x-axis is the time while the y-axis represents the level of equality between men and women, 1 being the point where men and women are completely equal while the line defines the current level of equality between men and women. According to this log graph, no matter how large x becomes, the line will never reach, let alone pass 1. Similar to the critical theorist’s argument, no matter how much time passes, the line will never reach 1.

            However, as seen with the log graph, assuming people continue to work toward gender equality, gender equality increases over time and gets closer toward 1. Thus, as long as people continue to promote gender equality, the line representing the level of equality approaches its goal. As shown in the graph, the rate of growth decreases over time which means that the gains made in gender equality from women’s suffrage in the late 19^th Century will always outweigh the gains made in modern times from issues such as equal incomes for corresponding jobs. However, as shown with the graph, although the fight for equality may never end, the fight will always bring improvements in equality over time. Thus, although critical theorists may be correct in that no matter how hard we try to achieve equality we never will, their theory does not deny the fact that as long as we continue to attempt to improve gender equality, we will make gains as a society toward gender equality.

            Critical theory is not the bane of gender equality because it outlines the flaws all current and future societies. On the contrary, critical theory is necessary for social improvement since critical theory identifies the flaws and thus the improvements that need to be made to improve society beyond its current framework. Thus, it is true that under critical theory, no matter how hard we try, we will never achieve gender equality. However, critical theory allows us to identify the flaws that result in gender inequality and thus, the longer we work on gender equality, the more gains we make to achieve a more equal and fair society.