Women in South Asian politics

I recently read an interesting article by The Economist on women in South Asian politics. The Economist points out that India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka have all elected women Prime Ministers (unlike the US!). Interestingly, Sri Lanka was the first country in the world to elect a female leader in 1960 and Bangladesh has had a female head of state for 22 out of the past 25 years.

However, The Economist asserts that women's success at the highest levels of government are highly misleading. For instance, India's parliament is constituted of only 12% women. Many female politicians in India feel obligated to "make a point of acting tough" in order to be respected by their male colleagues. Also, many female politicians do not marry because they claim to be married to the cause (sound familiar?).

This article prompted me to think about many issues regarding women in politics. Immediately after reading the article, I googled how many women were in Congress and in the Senate. In Congress women comprise 19.6% of the members, and in the Senate 21%. Although American female representation in politics is greater than in India (although one can argue not great enough), America's female representation pales in comparison to its Western counterparts. In England's Parliament, 32% of MP's are women. Why does America have such low female representation in Congress? Is it because America is fundamentally a really conservative nation that still suppresses women? Or is it because American politics is sexist and therefore women have chosen to enter other, less sexist fields?

This article also prompted me to think about why political empowerment comes before social empowerment in many countries. For example, I know of many powerful past and current female politicians in India (something to note: I am half Indian). Yet, Indian society still severely oppresses Indian women. In America, I would argue that the opposite phenomenon is true. Although American society is far from a gender equitable one, it has made great strides in getting rid of sexism. Yet, this is not reflected in American politics. America has yet to elect a female President--and when one women did come close to being elected, she was subject to astonishingly sexist criticism. What causes social empowerment and political empowerment for women to move at different speeds?

The full link to the article is below:

https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21717409-despite-many-prominent-female-politicians-big-sex-divide-endures-women-south-asian-politics 

The Fake Wokeness of the Boy Scouts

Here's an op-ed from the New York Times about the announcement that the Boy Scouts would allow girls to participate in Cub Scouts and eventually become Eagle Scouts. The authors views this move as an attack on the Girl Scouts, a group with very different values.  She writes:

"The Girl Scouts have long focused on social justice, diversity and inclusion in their activities. And as members of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, a global body, they have provided financial support to organizations such as Oxfam, Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders. Feminist icons routinely recall their Girl Scout days as a source of strength and confidence that launched them into lives of purpose."

I'm curious if any of you is a former Girl Scout, and if so, what you think of the decision by the Boy Scouts?

Women in the Workplace-2017 Study

In a a 2017 report that spanned 222 companies and over 70,000 employees completed a survey regarding gender and work-related opportunities. Even today, in the modern era, some of the findings are both disturbing but not at all surprising.

For instance, the expectations for gender equality are relatively low. Nearly, 50 percent of male respondents felt that women were already well-represented in the workplace. Also, 1/3 of female respondents agreed: (In 2017, one in ten women had a leadership role in the companies they worked for). It is interesting to see this disparity in what people believe v. reality. Men are more likely to see their workplaces as equitable and diverse whereas women are more likely to respond int he negative. 

In addition, an important topic is the intersection of race and gender. This study found that opportunities are less for women of color compared to white women. Also, the rate of women’s promotions across the board for women of color are under 8%.

This study includes a lot of numbers and raw data but how this data translates into ideas and psychology is incredibly telling. One such psychological factor is that women are less optimistic about reaching leadership positions at the top. Changing how women view themselves in regards to leadership opportunities is just as important as providing equal opportunities for both men and women.

I found this study interesting and incredibly informative. Women have made great strides since the 19th amendment but its important that this momentum does not stall. Having greater gender equity in the workplace is crucial in promoting women’s leadership both today and in the future.

https://womenintheworkplace.com/#key-findings

Harvey Weinstein and Sexual Harassment

As news this week spread about Harvey Weinstein and the various sexual harassment allegations against him, it was incredibly sad to hear about how so many women were abused before any actions had been taken to prevent further wrongdoing. How is it that perpetrators of sexual harassment can get away with so much before they get caught?

While there are a lot of factors that go into answering that question, it made me start to think about how well our interests as women are represented and protected by the government. How can we expect a male dominated government to fully protect our rights when they simply don't share the same interests? If there was a gender balance in government, how would this change the regulations, laws, social norms and customs of today? Would punishment for sexual harassment be harsher and taken more seriously by society? Would a woman's choice to have an abortion be considered a self-evident truth? And most importantly, if we lived in a world with a history of gender balance in government positions, would women today feel more inclined to speak up and protect their rights, engage in political discussions and run for office? 

It is sad that during the decade after women won the vote, women were not commonly elected into government positions. However, it is even more unfortunate that this reality still persists today. I believe that the history of women not being able to influence the laws, regulation and socially acceptable norms through elected positions has so many repercussions that most Americans are not even aware of. Maybe it could have even helped prevent someone like Harvey Weinstein from committing the incessant crimes towards the women that he did.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie-harvey-weinstein.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&src=trending&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article

Respect and the First Lady

It was interesting to read the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt in class the other day. I remember making a comment about a woman who asked the First Lady for clothes even though her office had already directed her to contact welfare programs. While I originally thought that that demand was beneath Roosevelt's title, I did not take into account the different time period. It's interesting to see how America respects and values the position of the First Lady over time. 

While listening to a Spotify music station the other day, the song “Bo$$,” by Fifth Harmony came on. For those have never heard the song, the chorus’ main lyrics are “Boss Michelle Obama, Purse so heavy gettin' Oprah dollas.”

I was immediately reminded of our discussion in class of how we value and respect the First Lady today. I can only wonder, how did Michelle Obama react when she first heard this song? While personally I think it’s empowering and flattering, it's an interesting question to ask, especially with the excessive influence of pop music today. In addition, what would Eleanor Roosevelt have thought about this song and its Michelle Obama reference? I presume she would have felt the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4JfPlry-iQ

Still "Breaking the Glass Ceiling" almost century later

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GICS2uUGvTE

I just stumbled upon this video that VICE News uploaded during the election last year interviewing three of the female Democratic senators (I believe 2 still currently serving) and Minority Leader Pelosi. What they are describing demonstrates that the prejudices against women in politics persisting today aren't even permutations of old-fashioned views, but instead literally the exact same overt arguments and perceptions. It is pretty remarkable to me that they have survived for so long and can be made so explicit without anyone blinking twice. And while ideas of this nature certainly are less vocalized than they were in the '20s, there are still instances where it is made very much public and explicit - I at least would expect that we would pretend to not be sexist by now...?

This video contains senators divulging stories of their colleagues calling them "just a pretty face" in election races, grabbing their waists from behind in the office, and suggesting them to "get on their knees" to push their bill through committee, yet it only has 58.5k views. These stories aren't even sensationalized.

To top it off, I did some searching, and when you lookup "female politicians of America" in YouTube, you'll notice the second video that comes up after VICE's: the same amount of time ago (a year ago), TheRichest.com uploaded a video titled "10 Of The Sexiest Women in Politics," which has since acquired almost 20 million views (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBOwWw7wlg8). Gah.

All The Way (Play about MLK, LBJ and Civil Rights)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uScE4ZH6mtk

This is a highlight reel from a recently successful Broadway play about MLK and LBJ. It tells the story of the fight for the civil rights act, and shows both MLK and LBJ in a complex, nuanced light. It portrays them sympathetically, but highlights their sexism, misogyny and promiscuity (it notes the prominent affairs of MLK, for example).

I thought about this play a lot during our conversation on MLK today, as it deals with themes of political change and the ways in which compromise often generates the progress that activists envision. On the other hand, it underscores the ideological disagreements and the political fractures that ruptured the civil rights movement. Many of the other civil rights leaders, for example, disagreed with the agreements between MLK and LBJ.

It also never fully engages in hero worship, as it highlights both of their remarkable flaws and accomplishments.

It also includes other civil rights leaders, such as Fannie Lou Hamer (my knowledge card!)

It's a really brilliant play starring Bryan Cranston from Breaking Bad. He won a Tony for the role, and it was recently made into an HBO film!