Jun 022010
 

FPN member and Co-Founder of 34 Million Friends of the United Nations Population Fund Jane Roberts has penned an excellent piece on envisioning gender equality.  Here is an excerpt,

Envision a world where all female babies were welcomed as much as their male counterparts. This would mean an end to sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, and neglect of the girl child. This cultural shift would have enormous implications for both people and planet.

Envision a world where the education of all their citizens might be the first priority of governments. Universal education as encompassed by Millennium Development Goals two and three would affect many more girls and women than men and boys. The whole world is saying that girls’ education is crucial. Educated, literate girls value themselves, marry later, marry “better,” have fewer children, educate their children, and keep them healthy. They become educated women who participate in their communities and are empowered to earn both income and respect. Country-specific budgets must prioritize quality education for girls. If this is done for girls, boys will benefit, too.

She also includes this quote from,

the late Dr. Allan Rosenfield, a world-renowned champion of women: “It is not enough to know for the sake of knowing. We have the responsibility to act on what we know. Acting on knowledge is an imperative. And that imperative we can truly delight in.”

Many thanks to Jane for her wise vision and enabling call to action.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

Last weekend I finally got around to seeing the movie Alice In Wonderland.  While I haven’t quite fallen down the same rabbit hole as Alice did, in case you’re wondering where I’ve been for the last day or so, the answer is researching the implications for reproductive health of the gulf oil disaster. One of the problems with this topic is that what isn’t known is a lot more clear than what is known, so it is a daunting task, but one that I think needs to be addressed.

Earlier this week, the Boston Globe published a picture of a woman and her children using a hose to fill wading pools on the beach along the Gulf. Clearly she thought that would be safe since they were not actually going in the water.  But in reality, it probably wasn’t and while the loss of tourism is going to be a huge financial blow to the region, steps should be taken immediately to protect human health, particularly the most vulnerable. Via NRDC, here are some basic recommendations for children and pregnant women in the gulf area:

Are there risks to pregnant women?

Some of the volatile chemicals in oil have been linked to miscarriage, preterm birth and low birth weight, so it is a good idea for pregnant women to avoid the areas where there are elevated levels of VOCs in the air.  These are areas that include noticeable smells of oil or visible oil and also any areas where the EPA monitoring system detects elevated levels. The EPA air monitoring results are being updated regularly at www.epa.gov/bpspill. To be cautious, pregnant women may choose to avoid any areas directly along the waterfront and beachfront, even when oil is not visible.

What about risks to children?

Young children should not be allowed near the beach where they could come into direct contact with the oil. Other than this, recommendations for children are the same as for adults.

I will be addressing this topic in much greater detail in the next week, so if blogging is sparse in the meantime, that is the reason why.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

I no longer work in the visual arts, but I do remember what happens when you mix pink and green–the result isn’t pretty.  And when you mix green-washing with pink-washing, it is even uglier and that is exactly what the so called family values folks are doing with their new The Pill Kills campaign when they argue that the pill is bad for the environment so therefore you shouldn’t take it. Lisa Hymas eloquently explains the problem with that line of reasoning over at Grist so that I don’t have to:

It’s true — studies do show that the Pill has adverse effects on marine life, and that’s also worrying for those of us who drink water. It’s just one of many reasons why we need new and better birth-control options, as I’ve argued before.But what the “Pill Kills” site doesn’t make immediately clear is that the American Life League opposes all contraception of any kind (other than the good ol’ rhythm method). If the group gave a rat’s ass about the environment, it would acknowledge that unplanned pregnancies and resultant unplanned births ultimately lead to umpteen times more environmental degradation than the Pill.

I was going to include some of American Life’s talking points for your edification, but the link to them didn’t work when I tried to take a look-see, so just sit back and enjoy the irony of that, you can probably figure them out on your own anyhow.

Meanwhile, the right’s newest wingnut, Rand Paul, fresh after getting his ass whipped after putting his foot in his racist mouth on The Rachel Maddow Show, stepped in it again,

“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’” Rand said in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”

And the less than six degrees of separation between these two items is this–One of the issues that has barely been discussed as the Gulf oil catastrophe unfolds is the impact on human health, especially on reproductive health and for children whose smaller still developing systems are particularly vulnerable.  Via of all places Fox, based on what we know about the impact of the Exxon Valdez catastrophe,

Will this oil spill affect our health?The short answer is, yes. There are well-documented analyses on the effects of environmental pollution of previous oil spills — some which have occurred inland and certainly the Exxon Valdez spill in the Alaskan waters of the Prince William Sound in 1989. You have to remember that it only takes about a quart of crude oil to pollute 150,000 gallons of water. Crude oil contains substances such as benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that have been proven to cause severe reactions in humans — some mild, such as nausea, vomiting and fatigue. But studies have also linked exposure to these compounds to more serious conditions like leukemia and certain types of cancers.

Another negative health effect that could come from this massive environmental catastrophe is the potential for exposure to heavy metals, such as lead — which we know can be very detrimental to the health of an unborn child — resulting in low birth weight, developmental delays, miscarriage and even stillbirth. So pregnant women are especially vulnerable to these heavy metals.

And marine biologist Dr.Riki Ott reports that,

Fishermen responders who are working BP’s giant uncontrolled slick in the Gulf are reporting bad headaches, hacking coughs, stuffy sinuses, sore throats, and other symptoms. The Material Safety Data Sheets for crude oil and the chemical products being used to disperse and break up the slick — underwater and on the surface — list these very illnesses as symptoms of overexposure to volatile organic carbons (VOCs), hydrogen sulfide, and other chemicals boiling off the slick.

When the fishermen come home, they find their families hacking, snuffling, and complaining of sore throats and headaches, too. There is a good reason for the outbreak of illnesses sweeping across this area.

Last weekend, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted its air quality monitoring data from the greater Venice, Louisiana, area. The data showed federal standards were being exceeded by 100- to 1,000-fold for VOCs, and hydrogen sulfide, among others–and that was on shore. These high levels could certainly explain the illnesses and were certainly a cause for alarm in the coastal communities.

Ott goes on to report that it appears that little is being done to protect residents of the area and fisherman who are helping to clean up the disaster from these dangerous chemicals.

But in Tea Party and Family Values wing-nut land, we should be worrying about the chemical impact of taking the pill and not questioning BP’s right to poison water, air and land or their right to kill off sea life or to damage human health because that is the American way and God’s word all rolled into one.

As has been pointed out on the Feminist Peace Network blog many times, adverse impacts to the environment, regardless of cause have a gendered impact.  We will continue to monitor and share information regarding that impact in regard to this latest assault on the planet by the oil companies.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

As long-time FPN members and  blog readers know, when FPN began, our focus was on the impact militarism had on women’s lives.  Within a short time that expanded to include a definition of all violence against women as terrorism and over the years the lens has expanded to include the full range of women’s human rights and the myriad of ways in which they are violated.

Jane Roberts, co-founder of 34 Million Friends of UNFPA and a member of FPN has an excellent piece out that looks at the need to use a broad brush when discussing gender based violence that amplifies much of what we address on this blog and her piece is a very important read. Here is an few excerpt:

Whether there is an epidemic of gender based violence now, which seems to be the prevailing view among knowledgeable people committed to its curtailment, or whether it has always been just as prevalent but without the communications technology to holler it to the world is debatable. I suppose it really doesn’t matter. What matters is how broadly we define it now, and depending on that definition how we deal with it.

The web site of the United Nations Population Fund lists 16 forms of gender based violence. “Violence against women takes many forms: sexual assault,  child marriage, incest, wife beating, prostitution, female genital mutilation, dowry-related violence, trafficking, sexual violence during wars, femicide, sexual harassment, ‘honour’ killings, forced sterilization, date rape, pornography and bride kidnapping.  Violence against women may also take many forms of psychological abuse, intimidation and harassment. All are unacceptable violations of human rights. Together they form a huge obstacle to gender equality and genuine human progress.”

My view is that psychological abuse, intimidation and harassment are as equally unacceptable as physical violence. In fact they may in some cases be worse. I believe there is a huge opening for scholarly research into the effects of the psychological  abuse of women and of the psychological effects of gender inequality on women and on men.

I would like to expand the definition of gender based violence. Maternal mortality, dying in the process of giving birth, is the ultimate gender based violence. This should not happen in the 21st century. It is just a question of priorities.

Gender inequality where the male model is preferred to the female is a form of violence. To hazard a guess I would say that perhaps sixty-five percent of pro-creating couples would prefer a boy baby at least for the first born.  Is this psychological preference a form of gender-based violence?  Yes, because when the girl baby appears, at least at first, the parents have a feeling of let-down. At some level, this must have an effect on the baby. And then think of the psychological and cultural ambiance that has made both parents prefer the son first.

We all know that there are 1 billion hungry people in the world today.  Joan Holmes, the former head of The Hunger Project has stated: “In much of the developing world, a little girl eats last and least.  She is up to three times more likely than boys to suffer malnutrition.”

Now, I ask you, isn’t this gender-based violence?

With the world’s present balance of decision making power, if men could get pregnant, family planning would be universally available and abortion would be legal and safe everywhere.  The present system is violence personified.

I have never in my life been aware of militant pro-lifers admonishing men to prevent abortion by the most obvious means.  Men share equal responsibility with  women for abortions that result from “not wanting a baby at this time.”  Only  women are screamed at, prosecuted, prayed for, and blamed. It was Eve who ate the apple. Only she is the embodiment of sin.

There is so much more to this  article–usually it is easy to pick out an  excerpt that really stands out–that was not the case here, the whole article, particularly  Jane’s conclusions, difficult as they are to read in their truth-telling, is a must read.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
Mar 312010
 

Prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, we were told by President Bush that one reason it was important to send troops was to liberate Afghan women from the the Taliban.  We know now that was only a shameful excuse to justify an unjustifiable war.  But unfathomably, we continue to use women as pawns of war in Afghanistan.  Kathy Kelly reports that on February 12, 2010,

U.S. and Afghan forces raided a home during a party and killed five people, including a local district attorney, a local police commander two pregnant mothers and a teen-aged girl engaged to be married.  Neither Commander Dawood, shot in the doorway of his home while pleading for calm waving his badge, nor the teen-aged Gulalai, died immediately, but the gunmen refused to allow relatives to take them to the hospital. Instead, they forced them to wait for hours barefoot in the winter cold outside.

Despite crowds of witnesses on the scene, the NATO report insisted that the two pregnant women at the party had been found bound and gagged, murdered by the male victims in an honor killing.  A March 16, 2010 U.N. report, following on further reporting by Starkey, exposed the deception, to meager American press attention.

It was a lie in 2001 that ‘liberating’ women was a priority, and not only is it still a lie now, but we are also lying shamefully about our own guilt in the barbaric murder of innocent, pregnant women with the shameful complicity of our media.

At the same time, the New York Times reports that the CIA is proposing that Afghan women should be sent to European countries to explain why expected steep French and German casualties this summer are acceptable,

French voters could be made to feel guilty about abandoning civilians and refugees, while both nations’ electorates are reluctant to “disappoint” Barack Obama, it concludes.

Afghan women are “ideal messengers in humanizing the [international coalition] role” and should be put in front of European media for their “ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory.”

Afghan women are not only losing their lives and human rights because of U.S. military actions but now we are asking them to support these ‘humanizing’ atrocities. Kelly also points to a Save The Children report that came out in early March reporting that,

“The world is ignoring the daily deaths of more than 850 Afghan children from treatable diseases like diarrhea and pneumonia, focusing on fighting the insurgency rather than providing humanitarian aid.” The report notes that a quarter of all children born in the country die before the age of five, while nearly 60 percent of children are malnourished and suffer physical or mental problems. The UN Human Development Index in 2009 says that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, second only to Niger in sub-Saharan Africa.

The proposed US defense budget will cost the U.S. public two billion dollars per day. President Obama’s administration is seeking a 33 billion dollar supplemental to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile in this country we dither on how to afford healthcare and what to do about the economy. And we liberate Afghans by killing them with our bombs and standing by while their children die, unnecessarily, before the age of five.

We call that fighting terrorism and defending the homeland.  But we are not safer, and Afghani women and their children are not liberated. They are dead, wounded, and malnourished.  To  echo the words of Cindy Sheehan, what noble cause?

Our actions are an expensive, damaging lie and have become the embodiment of failed democracy.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare