Why… why not?

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

This week has started with questions and more so than any other week of the year. And no this is not a PMS post or a pre-post-PMS post. Most people don’t know/care but the first biggest conclave of women’s rights has started in new york city this week. It brings together every year 100’s (in the past even 1000’s) of women (and some men – mostly as part of country delegations) to the big apple to talk about “A” subject matter that is of import to women’s well being in the world. It lasts 2 weeks and is a very busy hectic time for all those involved and here, its a networking event for women’s rights organizations, international NGOs and donors, government representatives and those select few who are representing the voice of the voiceless women in their countries who go about their daily lives with no knowledge of this meeting.

I have looked at this meeting with awe and despair. I go back and forth with everyone who cares to talk to me about why… why not. I can not find an answer in their reasons that satisfactorily answers why. I can not satisfactorily respond to their question on why not.

What I do know is that the status of women does not change significantly enough every year. What I do know is since everyone who comes to this is already working in changing the lives of women for the better it does no one any service if they continue to just talk to each other. What I do know is changes do not occur over a meeting in a closed room where a privileged few talk to a privileged few about how to help the unprivileged. What I do know is that this is not a celebration of women. What I do know is that there is no tooth when it comes to implementation of what we discuss and even if rarely agree on some recommendations. What I do know is that advocacy is an important strategy but advocating to the converted is a waste of resources. What I do know is that advocacy laced with political correctness is worse than no advocacy. What I do know is that this leaves us feeling that we did something meaningful when in reality we didn’t. What I do know is when we look around us we find others who are skeptics too but none of us have the courage to act to change the skepticism – and we are speaking of empowering women of the world here?

I do not think boycotting is the answer here. We need to engage and engage with reasonable periodicity that will allow us to meaningfully reflect and analyze. We need to engage to hold others to account, to ourselves to account. We need to allow people to say honestly the status of women today not to talk about fake realities that they have created for the sake of the meeting. We need to remember we are the privileged and when we speak on behalf of others (especially since they did not ask us to represent them) we bear a great deal of responsibility and accountability.

Changing social structures embedded in discourse

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

By and large media content reflects a masculine vision of the world and of what is important. From how we need to understand the state of affairs of our economy to how we perceive social issues and international affairs.  In the consumerist world of today with a growing middle class in most parts of the world this often means new stereotypes of women – whose ‘femaleness’ is always the core social context of the discourse. Images of the ‘new woman’ as an independent consumer whose femininity remains intact, or as a hard-headed individualist, whose feminine side must be sacrificed are the social constructs that dominate the popular discourse.

This some argue means that women’s portrayal in the media will not be improved by increasing the number of women journalists, or by getting rid of the worst excesses of sexism in advertising – because the construct within which this portrayal takes place is not engendered. What this requires, in my opinion, is a social and ideological transformation. Where in women’s right to communicate – are truly understood, respected and implemented both in society at large and within the media. In effect, whether or not the ‘critical mass’ of women (argument) working in the media can make an imprint on media content is a secondary question to the need for wider and deeper social change to getting rid of the worst excesses of sexism which have become norme de jure.  Problematizing this norme de jure is paramount to changing the social structures embedded within the discourse.

Now the advertisement I want to share today is for a nationalized banks’ home loan scheme. There are just so many things this advertisement should not be about but it is. peer pressure, being middle class, girl plays at home – boys play sports etc. But the one that to me underlying all of this is the assumption that the father is the one who solely makes financial decisions and the role of the women is to “worry” and “be relieved” that her husband has thought everything. Having been raised in family where my parents were true partners in financial decisions I cant see why the setting of this advertisement could not show that the parents are equal partners in making financial decisions for the family.