Interesting article about some recent comercials:
The Huffington Post Katherine Bindley
First Posted: 01/24/2012 9:13 am Updated: 01/24/2012 11:44 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/single-women-citibank-honda_n_1224780.html?ref=women
If you've watched primetime network TV in the last month or so, you might have come across a commercial for Citibank's "ThankYou Points," a rewards program for its credit card users. It's the one where you see a female rock climber scaling an insanely narrow and jagged rock formation. She plants her feet and stands alone at the top as her boyfriend smiles up at her from far below. Over the course of the ad, she explains,
"My boyfriend and I were going on vacation. We talked about getting a diamond, but with all the ThankYou Points I've been earning, I flew us to the rock I really had in mind."
Or perhaps you caught a similarly themed Honda CRV commercial, also airing this month, that begins with a woman being proposed to in the street. Her answer is, "Married? There were so many things I was going to do first." A montage of her "leap list" -- a list of things one intends to do before a major life milestone -- flashes in her head. "Okay," she eventually tells the man who proposed, "but we have a lot to get done first."
When the Citibank ad came out, it generated so much buzz on the Internet (Was the stunt real? Where was that incredible rock formation? And who was the hot actress?) that CNN did a segment on it. (Yes, it was real, filmed near Moab, Utah, and that's Katie Brown, a top professional climber who began competing as a teenager.)
The New York Times ran a whole article about how the CRV campaign is an example of marketers appealing to the ambitions of consumers in their 20s and 30s. Joe Baratelli, an advertising executive with RPA, said the ad reflects "the life change, the life transition, that Generation Y is going through."
What neither CNN nor the Times noted was the more surprising aspect of these ads: Both show young, attractive women not jumping at the chance to get engaged. The news outlets also failed to mention that these commercials came out just a few months after Kate Bolick's Atlantic Monthly cover article "All the Single Ladies," about women choosing to delay marriage and the stigma against single women fading, and virtually simultaneous to Janelle Nanos' January 2012 Boston Magazine cover story, "Single By Choice," which covered the rise of lifelong singlehood in both men and women.
At first glance, the journalists seem to have seized on what wasn't really news: As Hanna Rosin pointed out in "The End of Men," her 2010 Atlantic cover story, young, single women are more reproductively and financially independent than ever before. In February of 2010, female payroll employees outnumbered their male counterparts nationwide for the first time ever, according to a Labor Department report. A 2010 study by Reach Advisors, a strategy firm that analyzed data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, found that in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S, unmarried, childless women under 30 out-earned men by 8 percent on average. In some places the gap was even more striking; in New York City and San Diego, the study showed, women in their 20s were making 17 percent, and 15 percent more, respectively.
What gave this story new legs was a report released by the Pew Research Center in December of 2011 showing that U.S. marriage rates are at an all time low, and that women who are getting married are doing so later in life.
If the 2010 data showed that single women are working and earning more, the recent marriage data showed how many single women there are -- and that their numbers are likely to multiply in coming years.
The creators of the Citibank and CRV commercials seem to have come to that second conclusion even before the recent marriage data came out. The new commercials sell women the cars and financial products they can now afford by presenting those big ticket items as tools for celebrating their independence rather than attracting a husband.
What's slightly confusing about the Honda CRV campaign, however, is that it has aired during episodes of "The Bachelor" (in addition to the product appearing on the show). It seems paradoxical at first, pairing a campaign targeted at women delaying marriage with a show where women clamor for the chance to marry a man within hours of meeting him.
But as Emma Gray recently pointed out on The Huffington Post, smart, educated women who aren't desperate to get married love "The Bachelor." And if the 2010 Census survey is any indication, lots of those smart women must are likely to have degrees and high-earning jobs. In other words, Honda is reaching its target audience in precisely the right place.
As up to the moment as the Honda and Citibank ads seem, it's worth remembering that they had a very successful precursor. An award-winning 2003 De Beers campaign targeted the high-income 35+ single woman by informing her that she didn't need a man to buy her a solitaire -- she could purchase one on her own and even wear it on her ring finger -- the right one. "Ladies, raise your right hands," went the tagline. That campaign appealed to plenty of single women: in the year following, De Beers saw its non-bridal diamond sales increase by 15 percent.
Citibank and Honda's messages are more subtle, so it remains to be seen whether they'll be as successful as De Beers with the newest batch of single ladies. What do you think? And have you seen any similar ads that we missed?
1/22/12
Is there a place for sex in politics?
As women and inherently political women at that we must be attentive to how our rights are questioned and sadly violated.
We all remember the recent Herman Cain scandal, but was he really unseated because of his poor-track record in his personal life, or because his personal life made him an untrustworthy candidate to be President (as well as his lack of political know-how).
At a recent debate Michelle Bachman was asked: “As president would you be submissive to your husband?” Again, are we trying to unearth some personal flaw or identify an inherent weakness that would have made her ineffective as a could-have-been potential President? It seems that when the question was posed, she had already made so many comments that negatively affected her campaign that Presidency was a far-fetched reality and the question was merely to hinder her personal gains.
At the recent South Carolina Presidential Debate, Newt Gingrich was the target for questioning personal relationships. The moderator posed the question about Gingrich’s marital relations and lack there of. The question originally steamed from the understanding that in the 90’s Gingrich himself was having an affair while he was admittedly staking grounds against President Clinton for his affair (Even then many questioned why the media cared so much about personal sexual relationships). During the debate, his response was that answering the question served no political gain. As stated by Rachel Maddow: “There is nothing inherently news worthy about someone’s sex life, marriage, former relationships, or private sexual behavior. It is not inherently news worthy…” Granted the point for asking the question in the first place is not to discover if Gingrich is a bad husband, for that – no one cares. However, if using his personal life and personal values to identify if he is a “hypocritical family political” would highlight intricacies that would be vital in the political realm. For example, in regards to his position on instating a same sex ban, Maddow posed the question: “How can you justify passing government judgment on other peoples marriages when your own marriage is the kind of ethical mess that was described by your second wife on ABC news today?”
The Political Debates have become their own form of reality television show with affairs, zingers, and tears. However, these are the Republican candidates that are vying for the opportunity to unseat President Obama and dictate our future. We, the tv watchers of America, need to begin to question the importance of these questions. Is putting a candidates’ sexual past on display at a public debate for the sake of our entertainment, or are we truly unearthing necessary values that will affect their political campaign?
We all remember the recent Herman Cain scandal, but was he really unseated because of his poor-track record in his personal life, or because his personal life made him an untrustworthy candidate to be President (as well as his lack of political know-how).
At a recent debate Michelle Bachman was asked: “As president would you be submissive to your husband?” Again, are we trying to unearth some personal flaw or identify an inherent weakness that would have made her ineffective as a could-have-been potential President? It seems that when the question was posed, she had already made so many comments that negatively affected her campaign that Presidency was a far-fetched reality and the question was merely to hinder her personal gains.
At the recent South Carolina Presidential Debate, Newt Gingrich was the target for questioning personal relationships. The moderator posed the question about Gingrich’s marital relations and lack there of. The question originally steamed from the understanding that in the 90’s Gingrich himself was having an affair while he was admittedly staking grounds against President Clinton for his affair (Even then many questioned why the media cared so much about personal sexual relationships). During the debate, his response was that answering the question served no political gain. As stated by Rachel Maddow: “There is nothing inherently news worthy about someone’s sex life, marriage, former relationships, or private sexual behavior. It is not inherently news worthy…” Granted the point for asking the question in the first place is not to discover if Gingrich is a bad husband, for that – no one cares. However, if using his personal life and personal values to identify if he is a “hypocritical family political” would highlight intricacies that would be vital in the political realm. For example, in regards to his position on instating a same sex ban, Maddow posed the question: “How can you justify passing government judgment on other peoples marriages when your own marriage is the kind of ethical mess that was described by your second wife on ABC news today?”
The Political Debates have become their own form of reality television show with affairs, zingers, and tears. However, these are the Republican candidates that are vying for the opportunity to unseat President Obama and dictate our future. We, the tv watchers of America, need to begin to question the importance of these questions. Is putting a candidates’ sexual past on display at a public debate for the sake of our entertainment, or are we truly unearthing necessary values that will affect their political campaign?
1/20/12
“A friend of mine has a trophy wife, but apparently it wasn't first place.”
(quote by Steven Wright)
Every so often, thanks to certain anonymous individuals who I love, I get roped into watching various incarnations of the “Real Housewives” reality TV series on the Bravo network. Let me tell you, despite the half-hour length of each episode, it really feels like I’m sitting there forever. When I watch one of these shows, I feel as though they are the absolute bane of my existence.
Let me be clear: I have no deep-seated qualms with movies, TV shows, and other forms of media that are generally regarded as for women just because they’re targeted to women. By virtue of having had girlfriends, I have seen my fair share of “chick flicks,” and I can honestly say that there are more than a couple of these that I have come away from liking very much. My problem with “Real Housewives” includes the sheer fakeness of everything in that show. Sure it’s called “reality TV,” but I think the only reason it deserves that label is because the people in it exist. In fact, I was a little bit disappointed to learn last year that one of the “real housewives” is from my hometown of Berlin, CT, who thankfully was overshadowed by the young actor (and my former high school tennis teammate) Austin Stowell, also from Berlin.
It seems to me that everything these women do on the show is part of a carefully controlled plan to have the perfect life. The only problem is, there’s really no such thing in my opinion. Even if there was, I highly doubt it would consist of being overly catty, dramatic, superficial, and submissive to sexist and unattainable gender roles such as being a trophy wife. I think it gives a bad name to women that these “real housewives” are watched (and legitimately enjoyed) by countless individuals. Even worse still, I’m sure tons of young girls in this country watch and get what I feel is the wrong idea about women.
I must clarify that my brand of feminism definitely leaves room for women to be free to choose how they want to live their lives. Because of this, I have no problem with the show existing in and of itself, nor do I have a problem with their choices to partake in this sort of lifestyle. However, in line with the theme of some of my past blog entries, my biggest point is simply to be aware that the choice exists for all women to be either a professional trophy wife with no other real purpose, or something more.
1/18/12
Beyond Tebowmania: Giving Women a Choice
Beyond Tebowmania: Giving Women a Choice
Published: January 17, 2012, NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/opinion/beyond-tebowmania-giving-women-a-choice.html?_r=1
In “He’s a Quarterback, He’s a Winner, He’s a TV Draw, He’s a Verb” (This Land column, front page, Jan. 14), Dan Barry writes about a 2010 Super Bowl commercial telling how Tim Tebow’s mother decided not to end a life-threatening pregnancy and he adds, “There was no tebowing that week in the halls of Planned Parenthood.”
That suggests that Planned Parenthood does not celebrate birth or a remarkable story like Mr. Tebow’s. In fact, the Tebow story exemplifies the health care environment that Planned Parenthood promotes — a world in which women and families are supported in the medical decisions they make for themselves and their families without government interference.
As a mother of three, I can attest that pregnancy can be a precious time in a woman’s life. But there are many stories of women around the world who did not have a choice, did not have a miraculous outcome, and lost their lives for lack of access and care. Planned Parenthood exists to give those women the chance to lead the wonderful lives they might not otherwise have.
One in five women in America have relied on Planned Parenthood for health care, and that includes women of all faiths and political backgrounds.
Planned Parenthood is not about judging women — their decisions or their faith — but caring for them.
CECILE RICHARDSPresident, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
New York, Jan. 15, 2012
Fear for the Women of Afghanistan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/fear-for-the-women-of-afg_b_1210190.html?ref=women
Posted: 1/17/12 09:35 AM ET
As the United States begins to tidy up its affairs in Afghanistan, I have a bad feeling about the women we'll leave behind.
We're already confronted with reports -- and horrific images -- of attacks on women and girls: noses and ears sliced off, acid-ravaged faces, beatings, whippings, honor killings. Just this month comes the story of 15-year-old Sahar Gul, tortured in a basement for months by her new husband and in-laws, apparently because she refused to become a prostitute.
Injuries and mutilations that shocked even the battle-hardened military surgeons are punishments for any number of affronts to patriarchal sensibilities -- from fleeing an abusive husband to refusing a forced marriage to pursuing an education.
If these outrages continue to happen while we're there, what happens when we're not?
The brutalities that rivet world attention for a news cycle or two are extreme examples of a wide and ongoing problem. The rights organization Oxfam International reports that 87 percent of Afghan women have experienced physical, sexual or psychological violence, as well as forced marriage, which Amnesty International says account for 80 percent of all marriages. According to the UK-based charity, Womankind, more than half of all girls married are not yet 16.
The threat-level for females is elevated by a government that is pursuing a policy of reconciliation by courting of the same Taliban that waged a campaign of gender apartheid. President Hamid Karzai now calls them "our upset brothers."
There are early indications that the government -- even without the Taliban under roof -- is uprooting the tendrils of progress of the past ten years.
The new constitution may guarantee the rights of women. But it also says nothing can contradict the principles of Islamic law -- which is undefined and open to interpretation by whoever happens to be in power.
Abdul Hadi Arghandiwal, leader of the ideologically conservative Hizb-i-Islami faction, believes that women and men should not attend the same universities, and that women should not leave the home unless in the company of a male relative. A Time Magazine article quotes his feelings: "What we want in Afghanistan is Islamic rights, not Western rights." He also happens to be the Minister of the Economy.
Recently passed by a Parliament we hoped would enforce constitutional protections is a law that allows husbands to withhold money and food from wives who refuse sex, limits female inheritance, curtails female custody in divorce, and denies women freedom of movement unless sanctioned by their families. The mandated 25 percent of Parliament seats held by women could do nothing to stop it -- in part because many of the 68 women vote with the men who put them in power.
There are those who say that none of this means the days of wanton Taliban brutality and repression will return. The world is now watching.
As we toss the keys to a government duct taped together out of parts of convenience and already limiting female freedoms -- suppose the all-out cultural attack on women resumes. What exactly could the world do other than watch? Perhaps a strongly worded statement.
Women could be beaten in the streets on live TV, and their suffering would never give cause to a return to the $300 million America spends every day in Afghanistan not to mention the prospect of losing more American lives.
Recent history is a lesson in the relativity of women's rights. Russia's occupation was ugly. But life for women under the Communist government was a modern high point. Reforms provided real political roles, economic opportunity and social freedoms greater than women have today.
All of that was swept away by the Taliban in the five short years between 1996 and 2001. Then it was restored piecemeal by Western occupation and investment over the past ten.
The clear lesson is that the safety and dignity of the country's women are hostage to the beliefs of the men who carry the guns. We saw in Vietnam and, possibly in Iraq, the convenient futility of propping up a government and its military just long enough to get out of town. As we pack up our guns and go, who and what will pick up the ones we leave behind?
It's possible that guarantees for women in the Afghan constitution will withstand the power vacuum in the wake of our departure. It's possible that the Taliban as part of the government will think differently than the one that brutally repressed human rights, and was perfectly happy to sacrifice health, economy and modernity in the name of purity. It's possible that the new government will be strong enough -- and the army loyal enough -- to allow the Taliban to join the government without consuming it.
For the sake of the long-suffering Afghan woman, let's hope that all comes to pass -- because there is little we can do but watch in horror if it doesn't.
Posted: 1/17/12 09:35 AM ET
As the United States begins to tidy up its affairs in Afghanistan, I have a bad feeling about the women we'll leave behind.
We're already confronted with reports -- and horrific images -- of attacks on women and girls: noses and ears sliced off, acid-ravaged faces, beatings, whippings, honor killings. Just this month comes the story of 15-year-old Sahar Gul, tortured in a basement for months by her new husband and in-laws, apparently because she refused to become a prostitute.
Injuries and mutilations that shocked even the battle-hardened military surgeons are punishments for any number of affronts to patriarchal sensibilities -- from fleeing an abusive husband to refusing a forced marriage to pursuing an education.
If these outrages continue to happen while we're there, what happens when we're not?
The brutalities that rivet world attention for a news cycle or two are extreme examples of a wide and ongoing problem. The rights organization Oxfam International reports that 87 percent of Afghan women have experienced physical, sexual or psychological violence, as well as forced marriage, which Amnesty International says account for 80 percent of all marriages. According to the UK-based charity, Womankind, more than half of all girls married are not yet 16.
The threat-level for females is elevated by a government that is pursuing a policy of reconciliation by courting of the same Taliban that waged a campaign of gender apartheid. President Hamid Karzai now calls them "our upset brothers."
There are early indications that the government -- even without the Taliban under roof -- is uprooting the tendrils of progress of the past ten years.
The new constitution may guarantee the rights of women. But it also says nothing can contradict the principles of Islamic law -- which is undefined and open to interpretation by whoever happens to be in power.
Abdul Hadi Arghandiwal, leader of the ideologically conservative Hizb-i-Islami faction, believes that women and men should not attend the same universities, and that women should not leave the home unless in the company of a male relative. A Time Magazine article quotes his feelings: "What we want in Afghanistan is Islamic rights, not Western rights." He also happens to be the Minister of the Economy.
Recently passed by a Parliament we hoped would enforce constitutional protections is a law that allows husbands to withhold money and food from wives who refuse sex, limits female inheritance, curtails female custody in divorce, and denies women freedom of movement unless sanctioned by their families. The mandated 25 percent of Parliament seats held by women could do nothing to stop it -- in part because many of the 68 women vote with the men who put them in power.
There are those who say that none of this means the days of wanton Taliban brutality and repression will return. The world is now watching.
As we toss the keys to a government duct taped together out of parts of convenience and already limiting female freedoms -- suppose the all-out cultural attack on women resumes. What exactly could the world do other than watch? Perhaps a strongly worded statement.
Women could be beaten in the streets on live TV, and their suffering would never give cause to a return to the $300 million America spends every day in Afghanistan not to mention the prospect of losing more American lives.
Recent history is a lesson in the relativity of women's rights. Russia's occupation was ugly. But life for women under the Communist government was a modern high point. Reforms provided real political roles, economic opportunity and social freedoms greater than women have today.
All of that was swept away by the Taliban in the five short years between 1996 and 2001. Then it was restored piecemeal by Western occupation and investment over the past ten.
The clear lesson is that the safety and dignity of the country's women are hostage to the beliefs of the men who carry the guns. We saw in Vietnam and, possibly in Iraq, the convenient futility of propping up a government and its military just long enough to get out of town. As we pack up our guns and go, who and what will pick up the ones we leave behind?
It's possible that guarantees for women in the Afghan constitution will withstand the power vacuum in the wake of our departure. It's possible that the Taliban as part of the government will think differently than the one that brutally repressed human rights, and was perfectly happy to sacrifice health, economy and modernity in the name of purity. It's possible that the new government will be strong enough -- and the army loyal enough -- to allow the Taliban to join the government without consuming it.
For the sake of the long-suffering Afghan woman, let's hope that all comes to pass -- because there is little we can do but watch in horror if it doesn't.
1/17/12
'The Bachelor': Love it or Hate It?
While I don't watch ' The Bachelor', I am addicted to a few shows that I deny watching in conversations with just about everyone! I have asked myself, out loud at times, "why am I even watching this?" Yet every week I am back watching, drawn to the crazy, unrealistic drama that ensues before me. The below article takes a stab at trying to explain why women watch shows that we know consist of far more drama than real life scenarios.....
'The Bachelor': Why Smart Women Watch (and Love) It
Emma Gray, Assistant Editor, HuffPost Women & HuffPost Parents
'The Bachelor': Why Smart Women Watch (and Love) It
Emma Gray, Assistant Editor, HuffPost Women & HuffPost Parents
Confession time: I watched "The Bachelor" ... and I liked it. I've been hopelessly and unfortunately trapped in the series' web of tears, overly-earnest declarations of love and tacky dresses -- and I'm far from alone.
I'm a relatively new devotee to this cultural phenomenon, which first hit the small screen in 2002, and has spanned spin-offs "The Bachelorette" (2003) and "Bachelor Pad" (2010). After avoiding the franchise successfully for nine years, I was invited to a viewing party by some women that I worked with during Ashley Hebert's season of "The Bachelorette," last May. I was officially hooked, following Ashley through her engagement to JP Rosenbaum, watching all 18 "Bachelor Pad" contestants simultaneously self-destruct and now I'm knee deep in white wine tears on "The Bachelor" -- despite the glaring fact that each of the three series is objectively horrendous. (If you look up "trash television" in the dictionary, you'll probably find former contestant Jake Pavelka's beady eyes staring back at you.)
Most of my peers have a love-hate relationship with "The Bachelor" -- specifically, we hate that we love it. The underlying messages of the show are beyond terrible. We're essentially told that all women in their twenties should be desperately searching for a man to marry (most of the 30-something bachelorettes are portrayed as a particular breed of desperate), and that women are, in general, complete and utter nutjobs (see Melissa Schreiber, Vienna Girardi and of course blogger Jenna Burke). Although, of course, this only applies to white women, as people of color rarely -- if ever -- get cast. Every single one of this season's 25 finalists is white ... or spray tan orange.
Yet even knowing all of these things, season after season, droves of intelligent, successful women come back to ABC and host Chris Harrison for more. In the words of "Brokeback Mountain's" Jack: "I just can't quit you." So why do we do it to ourselves? Is it just pure masochism, or is there something else at play?
Everyone Loves A Good Train Wreck
I'm not proud of this, but there's just something inherently appealing about watching a human being get too drunk, burst into fake tears, and generally embody the term "hot mess." I think it's probably related to the morbid curiosity that impels people to slow down in the middle of the interstate to get a good long look. Watching the women of "The Bachelor" cry in bathroom stalls, discuss their burgeoning careers as VIP cocktail waitresses and dental consultants, and threaten to physically harm each other over a man they barely know, is alternately horrifying and captivating.
It's A Safe Outlet For Our Frustrations
Mondays are hard. Maybe you had a terrible weekend and are still feeling a little under the weather, maybe you had a crappy day at work, maybe your roommate is getting on your nerves or maybe you're just pissed off for no reason at all. Want a safe way to let out your anger without being hurtful to your loved ones? Enter "The Bachelor."
Last week I attended a "Bachelor"-viewing party (aka six women in a room drinking wine and ordering Indian food). Most of the women I've spoken with who watch the show also tend to watch with their female friends. "It's a bonding experience!" said my co-worker, Amanda. "My favorite thing about watching 'The Bachelor' is being able to talk about all the drama with friends during and after the episode." This bonding experience primarily consists of critiquing the contestants' outfits (far too many, too-tight, cut-out dresses), words (how many times in a two-hour period can key phrases "genuine," "journey," "real love" and "connection" be used?), and actions (so many tears and so much backstabbing).
Let me emphasize that most of the women I know are kind and thoughtful people who go out of their way to compliment their female friends, and are very hesitant to talk about other women behind their backs. But we all seem to have come to a tacit agreement that the fact that Ben Flajnik's prospects put themselves on national television makes them fair game. Former finalist Michelle Money, even admitted on "Ellen," "I think anyone is crazy who voluntarily goes on 'The Bachelor.'" Plus -- the women on the show are 10 times more awful to each other than we could ever be as viewers ("bitch," "slut," "clinger" and "cougar" are only a selection of names that the finalists threw at one another during the Jan. 9 episode). And lest you think that Bachelor Ben got off easy, he got his fair share of criticism as well. "He has a dumb-looking face," muttered a friend of mine as he came on-screen.
"Bachelor" Love Is So Fake (And Warped) That It Makes Us Grateful For The (Oft-Painful) Real Thing
Although most educated adults realize by now that "reality" television is highly constructed, that idea has never been more obvious than on a show that manufactures "true love." (My co-worker Jess even commented that "The Bachelor" was far less realistic than "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" -- and that says a lot.) In what world are we supposed to believe that 25 random girls would all fall madly in love with one dopey dude (and in a matter of hours)?
While it's fun to watch all of the uber-cheesy, romance-laden dates unfold on television, the reality of sitting in an empty theater with a practical stranger watching my old baby videos (an actual date that occurred on last week's episode) sounds more uncomfortable than anything. Watching makes us glad we date off-screen, in a world where we will never meet a man by riding in on a white horse or get dumped on a glacier.
We also get to revel in the fact that none of us would go to such lengths to impress a man. Tell another woman you'll cut her face off? Nope. Leave your PhD program to move across the country to a small town? Not even if Ryan Gosling showed up in a limo holding a boom box over his head with two dozen roses and said "You're the one." (Well, maybe for Ryan Gosling ...)
Plus, if there were ever a reason to fully let go of the Prince Charming fantasy that shows like "The Bachelor" attempt to play upon, just look at the numbers. Of all of the couples "magically" brought together on the franchise, only three are still together -- one being Ashley and JP who have yet to reach the year mark of their engagement. Most of us would rather brave the uncomfortable waters of meeting people in bars, through friends or on OKCupid than cut down other women on national television, or snag a man and then be publicly dumped -- details of the whole messy affair splashed across the tabloids.
So instead of taking "The Bachelor" franchise too seriously or using it as any kind of model for our own conduct, we take from it exactly what it can give us -- an escape from our daily lives, a reason to appreciate our real, imperfect romances, and an excuse to drink wine on a Monday night ... sans tears.
1/15/12
The Worth of a Girl-Child
Worldwide, there is a collective movement to promote activism and advocacy for girl’s rights to education. Internationally, this tends to be an argument focused by developed countries on developing countries. However, there are girls living in poverty and denied access to education in every country worldwide. Additionally, the Convention on the Rights of the Child which promises girls the right to access quality education is notably not ratified by the United States of America; arguably the most vocal of the first world countries. Around the globe, girls are not able to overcome the barriers of poverty to consistently complete primary and secondary education. The economic constraints of poverty on families create situations that remove girls from education prior to completing secondary education. If the family is provided economic support to alleviate aspects of poverty that are directly correlated to the girls’ enrollment in school, there will be an increased period of attendance. The net gains include, but are not limited to, higher attendance rates, older age for marriage and maternity, decreased infant mortality, decreased HIV/AIDS, increased literacy and livelihood, and decreased generational poverty. The desired outcome is universal integration of a universal stipend program, which has been successfully implemented in several countries.
Girls are the best indicator of poverty as they are the most marginalized population, as such it is through the plight of girls that the global community has realized that poverty prohibits educational attainment. Access to education enables growth physically, mentally, and socially in ways that cannot be met through other avenues. The United Nations and participating State parties have nearly reached consensus to protect and work towards universal education as explicitly stated under the Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 28 paragraph 1 section (a): “Make primary education compulsory and available free to all. (OHCHR, 1989)”. While education is a right, it is not addressed under one universal mandate. The girl child needs the support of each government to commit to change policies to improve the educational system by addressing poverty.
A wide variety of global statistics display the plight and insurmountable barriers impeding girls from achieving their right to an education. It is estimated that 54% of the 72 million children out of school are girls (EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2010). While some communities need support for both sexes to attend school, gender parity would cut the number of girls out of school by over 6 million. In countless countries, girls that have not shown potential to their guardians by the time they complete primary education are pulled from school to work or marry. In sub-Saharan Africa, almost 12 million girls may never enroll in school. In Yemen, nearly 80% of girls out of school are unlikely ever to enroll, compared with 36% of boys. Turkey faces cultural barriers in addition to poverty that prevents 43% of Kurdish-speaking girls from receiving more than two years of education. Similarly, 97% of Hausa-speaking Nigerian girls from impoverished homes have less than two years’ education. As of 2006. Pakistani girls accounted for 60% of out-of school children (Global Campaign for Education, 2010).
It is not frivolous to invest in girls when it is proven that educated women are more influential to their communities. Illiteracy is directly correlated to unemployment, in addressing issues of unemployment worldwide, two thirds of the 759 million adults that are illiterate are women. Women aged 25-34 in Bangladesh have illiteracy rates 32% higher than men in the same age group. In Afghanistan, 87% of women were illiterate in 2000. In Chad, Ethiopia and Mali, women are 1.5 times more likely than men to be illiterate. In Iran, unemployment rates among women aged 20 to 24 are twice the level of men the same age group (Global Campaign for Education, 2010). Millions of women that are not living to their fullest potential and cannot contribute their optimum amount to their community. Learning needs to start with children to improve the lives of adults, and it is our responsibility to provide the tools for success.
Several countries have implemented local and federal policies that have improved girl’s access to education. Established federally in 2003, Brazil established Bolsa Familia, also referred to as Bolsa Escola or the family grant. This federal welfare program provides financial aid to families living in poverty with children of age to attend primary or secondary education on the condition children have consistent attendance in school and are up to date on vaccines.
Similarly, Mexico established Oportunidades, a program that provides a cash transfer directly to families living in poverty with children. The funds are to be used to supplement the cost of food, vaccines, and dietary needs. By 2006, the program was responsible for aiding one-quarter of Mexico’s population. Bangladesh established the Food for Education Program in 1993 which targeted the enrollment rate and consistent attendance of children. The program provided landless and very poor children with a monthly allocation of wheat or rice for their family for regular attendance. In addition, the Primary Education Stipend Program introduced bank-mediated disbursement procedures fit to cover over 5.5 million students (Tietjen, 2003).
It is a priority of the United Nation’s mission to promote academic programs addressing girl’s rights to access primary and secondary education for it is directly correlated to all eight Millennium Development Goals. Within the MDGs is goal number two, achievement of universal primary education. Mr. Anthony Lake, executive director of UNICEF, stated that “Universal primary education cannot be achieved without extending schooling to those currently excluded, the poorest and the most marginalized children (UNICEF, 2010).” Expenditure by the state party to appropriately implement the policy is reliant on true and thorough assessment and allocation of an appropriate budget based on analysis of poverty specific to the country. There is a positive correlation between supporting school attendance and successful employment. Education should be geared to the development of potential and to equipping the individual with skills needed for employment. Decent work and supportive income are the best means for enabling families to move out of poverty. Girls are young women who will grow up to be mothers of children, and leaders of the community, corporations, and countries. It is our right as adults, caretakers, educators, government officials, presidents, and friends to help girls develop to their full potential. Girls who are not counted do not count. It is our duty to account for every girl.
If you are dedicated to the rights of women and children and can get to New York, come to the Commission on the Status of Women
If you are dedicated to the rights of women and children and can get to New York, come to the Commission on the Status of Women
References
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
Duffy, G. (25 May 2010) Family friendly: Brazil's scheme to tackle poverty. BBC News. Education for All Global Monitoring Report. (2010) reaching the marginalized. Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.org/en/efareport/reports/2010-marginalization/
Global Campaign for Education. (2010). Today is international women’s day: Facts & Figures. Retrieved from: http://www.campaignforeducation.org/en/today-is-international-womens-day
Khandker, S., M. Pitt and N. Fuwa, The World Bank (March 2003). Subsidy to Promote Girls’ Secondary Education: The Female Stipend Program in Bangladesh. Retrieved from: http://www.h.chiba-u.ac.jp/mkt/revised%20fssap%20paper9b.pdf
Tietjen, K. 2003. “The Bangladesh Primary Education Stipend Project: A Descriptive Analysis. Retrieved from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099080014368/BangladeshStipend.pdf
United Nations (n.d.) We can end poverty 2015 Millennium Development Goals; A gateway to the UN system’s work on the MDGs. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml
UNICEF (7 September 2010) Focus on world’s disadvantaged children can save millions of lives. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35832&Cr=UNICEF&Cr1=
World Bank. (November 2002) Bangladesh, improving governance for reducing poverty. Retrieved from: http://library.bracu.ac.bd/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=5381&shelfbrowse_itemnumber=5242
World Bank (n.d.) Shanghai Poverty Conference: Case Study Summary. Mexico’s Oportunidades Program. Retrieved from: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/reducingpoverty/case/119/summary/MexicoOportunidades%20Summary.pdf
** re-cited/formatted from academic posting at IASSW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)