The Girl Effect

[Zerlina]

Came across this a while ago and it struck me as a really powerful video with a powerful message.

You can take a look at it here: http://www.girleffect.org/video it will then redirect you to the program's site.

It seems really unfortunate (and to be honest, infuriating) that when time after time its been proven that educating and investing in women/girls is one of the keys to creating sustainable futures for impoverished communities there hasn't really been effective, mass action taken. Educating girls has been proven to lead to lower populations, better overall health and nutrition, lower spread of disease, and higher unit incomes (without girls being forced into prostitution). And the cost of educating these girls vs. constantly slapping on a band-aid and throwing money at the problem makes it seem even financially irresponsible for governments not to help. Yet effective action is constantly subverted through cultural barriers, general indifference, bureaucracy, and on a more sinister level (and to be fair, this is open to opinion), an industrial motivation...if we keep populations poor we can continue to exploit their labour. We get to live better because we allow other people suffer.

I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about this issue (or related issues) especially after reading the Everything Sucks thread...

[drenrin2120]

I liked the video. I can't say I disagree with anything being said. But it does kind of make it seem like the solution is simple. Bigotry and ignorance isn't simple, but it can be fought. It's just kind of scary when you get into the "politics" of it all. Not sure how else to put it. But, when you start really wondering what is ethical and what is ethics. It's so easy to assume what you believe in and what is comfortable to you is morally good and the obvious right choice. I'm not saying 15 year old girls getting pregnant and becoming prostitutes is really a moral question. I wish I could word it better but "it's complicated" will have to do for now. =\

I just want to say, I made the Everything Sucks thread with a bit of humor in mind. I was merely saying the world is messed up. Messed up in a way a lot of people don't even realize. I don't have the answers for much of anything, really, and I'm terrible at articulating my opinions precisely, but I DO think there is hope for humanity. I've just discovered a lot of awful ways humanity could just fail and amount to nothing and in a lot of cases, already has.

[Valiere]

Are you talking about culture, Dren? Like whether or not we have a right to say what's "right" or "wrong" in a culture?

[Zerlina]

I agree with you Dren in that the situation is unbelievably complicated. On that note, I can't really say if we have a right to say what's right or wrong...it seems to be up to philosophical belief. But even if you disregard ethics and look at the situation from a strictly utilitarian view, helping these girls would help to create more sustainable communities, and lower the population- two things that would greatly reduce the need for financial assistance in the long term. Plus the human payoff. I just can't see a flaw in that (aside from the actual difficulties in actually implementing an effective strategy). Still if an NGO like Global Giving can do this much can you imagine what it (or a similar program) could do if it were given real support from the UN?

[drenrin2120]

No, no no! Blahhh, I suck at talking.

I guess what I mean is why people are ignorant. There's so many ways you can twist ideas to support your beliefs. And no matter how messed up they are, like thinking it's okay for a 15 year old girl to become a prostitute, people justify it and can become very attached and defensive of their beliefs. Womens rights isn't the complicated thing, it's actually changing a society that doesn't think women deserve rights.

[Zerlina]

It's true. But if the girls were educated at a young age and got respectable jobs, it could at least help to encourage some social change. If it wouldn't change people's private opinions, it would at least give women more money, and therefore more power. And with that power there'd be the possibility of having institutionalized gender discrimination reduced by the action and demands of the women themselves (just like here). Without the education it's almost impossible. How do you effectively advocate the potential of women, or even get those women behind you when an area's female population is made entirely up of pubescent housewives and prostitutes? I'm not trying to be overly simplistic, but it seems like so many of the people in power who can actually make a difference are cynical about effective action (although I supposed they could also be tied up in too much bureaucracy or self interest to actually get anything done).

[drenrin2120]

I agree something should be done. And you can only fight ignorance through education. And yeah, people suck by using bureaucracy to sidestep or just avoid problems. But I think a good level of cynicism can help build solid plans. It can also hinder plans, but those involved should find ways around that. And if people involved really do care and what to make this a global reality, then they'll find ways.

[Ace of Spades]

And if people involved really do care and what to make this a global reality, then they'll find ways.

In terms of government, the people involved only care about one thing: keeping their position. That's polisci 101. If doing something about this increases their chances in that regard then it'll be considered, but this issue actually is being brought to the attention of many countries, especially "LDCs." We talked about it quite a bit in one of my international relations courses, but it's still very much in the starting up phase and as we all know that's the worst one. And what dren said about the ethical issue of women's rights is a huge factor because a lot of countries still believe that isn't how things should be - but honestly, who are we or the UN to officially declare what's right or wrong for someone else. Regardless of it looking like a better outcome in a utilitarian perspective, isn't it kind of being ethnocentric? Globalization and one country's issues being considered and affected by another's is really changing the playing field for how politicians go about making these kind of decisions.

[SaiKar]

I am going to get slammed so hard for this. Oh God, I can already feel the beating.

Buuuut... in my experience, more girls than guys have a general disinterest in a higher education. They don't seem to believe it will improve their life, or they think that it's too hard or that they're not smart enough. There's a general contentment to leave that sort of thing for the guys. In my studies as an engineer I had very few female colleagues and most of the ones I did have admitted they didn't really care about the job so much as they just planned to do it for a few years, meet a rich guy they liked, and give it up for good. It's actually worked out that way a couple times. I was there when my best friend met her husband-to-be on campus, and as far as I know, she's planning on quitting being an engineer in the next few years even though she's not even 30 yet.

Now, it's probably very likely that this is sort of a social pressure thing, where woman feel that not pursuing a higher education is sort of implied most of the time. And of course having a kid seems to put all life plans on hold forever. But still. I get a general sense of just giving up from the fairer sex on stuff like this.

In terms of government, the people involved only care about one thing: keeping their position.

You know, I wonder about that. Pope John Paul II is pretty much one of my heroes for all the stuff he did during his lifetime. Seriously, go wiki the guy, it's pretty awesome. He had no worry about the next election or being impeached - you're pretty much pope for life. And while that sort of position lets bad people do bad without restriction, it also lets good people do good without opposition as well. I really question sometimes if frequent elections are a vital or even useful part of a free society, since it seems far far too much time and effort is spent winning the election than it is doing beneficial things with the position when won.

[Zerlina]

In terms of government, the people involved only care about one thing: keeping their position. That's polisci 101. If doing something about this increases their chances in that regard then it'll be considered, but this issue actually is being brought to the attention of many countries, especially "LDCs." We talked about it quite a bit in one of my international relations courses, but it's still very much in the starting up phase and as we all know that's the worst one. And what dren said about the ethical issue of women's rights is a huge factor because a lot of countries still believe that isn't how things should be - but honestly, who are we or the UN to officially declare what's right or wrong for someone else. Regardless of it looking like a better outcome in a utilitarian perspective, isn't it kind of being ethnocentric? Globalization and one country's issues being considered and affected by another's is really changing the playing field for how politicians go about making these kind of decisions.

It could be basic poli-sci, but it depends on how you look at it. If we are being realists (in the political sense), then yes, the sole purpose of office is maintain the status quo. For the most part that's how the world works right now, but that doesn't mean that it's right.

Also, it's not necessarily ethnocentric to say that women should have the same rights as men. The point is that when 51% of a population is being oppressed and exploited, someone has to do something.  I'm all for being PC, but "culture" is such a convoluted term, and defining what a "culture" wants is difficult. When you say "people" actually believe women want to be treated this way, you have to look at who you're actually referring to. A lot of the people making the noise and saying what their culture believes are the policy makers, who in a lot of countries are men- those who benefit the most from things staying the way they are. But the men aren't the whole population- 51% of the population probably doesn't want to be pregnant and prostituting, and dying of AIDS at 15.

Buuuut... in my experience, more girls than guys have a general disinterest in a higher education. They don't seem to believe it will improve their life, or they think that it's too hard or that they're not smart enough. There's a general contentment to leave that sort of thing for the guys. In my studies as an engineer I had very few female colleagues and most of the ones I did have admitted they didn't really care about the job so much as they just planned to do it for a few years, meet a rich guy they liked, and give it up for good. It's actually worked out that way a couple times. I was there when my best friend met her husband-to-be on campus, and as far as I know, she's planning on quitting being an engineer in the next few years even though she's not even 30 yet.

Now, it's probably very likely that this is sort of a social pressure thing, where woman feel that not pursuing a higher education is sort of implied most of the time. And of course having a kid seems to put all life plans on hold forever. But still. I get a general sense of just giving up from the fairer sex on stuff like this.
You know, I wonder about that. Pope John Paul II is pretty much one of my heroes for all the stuff he did during his lifetime. Seriously, go wiki the guy, it's pretty awesome. He had no worry about the next election or being impeached - you're pretty much pope for life. And while that sort of position lets bad people do bad without restriction, it also lets good people do good without opposition as well. I really question sometimes if frequent elections are a vital or even useful part of a free society, since it seems far far too much time and effort is spent winning the election than it is doing beneficial things with the position when won.

It's true that there are not a lot of girls in math or in the sciences in higher education, however, making a judgement based on that isn't quite fair, since there are a lot of social factors to consider in this. Young girls are often told that science and math are for boys, or that boys are better at math and science than girls. Also, it's a bit of a rash judgement to make... 80% of my program is female- does that mean men don't like to go to university? No...it means less men are interested in historical philosophy and culture.

Also, at least in Canada, there are more women than men in university. In the numbers of 3 women to every 2 men. Even globally- UNESCO did a study of 98 countries and found that in 78, more women were graduating with higher education degrees than men.

[Valiere]

Also, at least in Canada, there are more women than men in university. In the numbers of 3 women to every 2 men. Even globally- UNESCO did a study of 98 countries and found that in 78, more women were graduating with higher education degrees than men.

This is the case in the US as well.

I have to go to class, but I'll respond more to this when I get back. I'LL DEAL WITH YOU BOYS LATER.

[SaiKar]

Not a boy! See the avatar! Purple hair and a tiara thing! Don't hurt me! 

Damnit, why does gender confusion never work in my favor?

[Zerlina]

Because you touch yourself at night?

[SaiKar]

Fair.

[Valiere]

but honestly, who are we or the UN to officially declare what's right or wrong for someone else. Regardless of it looking like a better outcome in a utilitarian perspective, isn't it kind of being ethnocentric?

I was waiting for someone to say this so I could pounce on them.

So thanks.

It's all a matter of if you believe in "unalienable rights" or not. In a lot of cases, unalienable rights are incompatible with culture, especially when religion's involved. If you believe human beings have the right to pursue an education and earn a livelihood, this right is absent for women in parts of the Middle East -- for cultural reasons. If you believe human beings have the right to have intact body parts and to urinate or have sex without being in complete agony, then this right is incompatible with the cultural practice of female genital mutilation.

If you ask me, yes, human rights trump culture any day. I'll tolerate culture if it involves getting a day off from school and maybe a special holiday with music and brownies. But when it involves the invisible man in the sky telling you to snip off a 12-year-old's clitoris, well, I gotta draw that line.