Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUNITED NATIONS - As the United Nations continues its two-week long discussions on the status of women worldwide, there is one nagging fact hovering around the conference rooms in the Secretariat: peacemaking is still largely in the hands of "men in suits, puffing on cigars".
This is primarily male-dominated territory, says Gina Torry, coordinator of the non-governmental Working Group on Women, Peace and Security.
As an example, she points out that there is no gender adviser to the ongoing peace talks on Darfur, Sudan, where women and children are the most victimised in what the United States calls "genocide".
"That was troubling because such experts could help women face challenges and overcome divisions," Torry adds.
Getting women's voices heard in the conference rooms would be a start, she adds, "but getting them to (positions of authority at the negotiating) table will show real progress."
However, that is still mostly in the realm of political fantasy, says the U.N. Fund for the Development of Women (UNIFEM)
A Security Council resolution (1325) adopted in 2000 called for equal participation by both men and women in maintaining and promoting peace and security. But that resolution "was a long way from being adequately implemented", says Anne Marie Goetz, UNIFEM's chief adviser on Governance, Peace and Security.
She told the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women -- which concludes its two-week session Friday -- that very few women participated in peace talks as official negotiators or observers.
"Disarmament, demobilisation and re-integration processes still rarely addressed the needs of women associated with fighting forces, and post-conflict planning and financing for women's recovery, remained weak," she added.
Goetz called for a gender-sensitive perspective on conflict resolution, peacemaking and rehabilitation.
On the positive side, UNIFEM has recently supported capacity-building of women's groups in Darfur and national peace consultations with women, while facilitating women's access to institutions involved in the peace process.
In northern Uganda, UNIFEM has joined hands with the Department of Political Affairs to appoint a gender adviser to the peace talks. At the same time, it has supported efforts to improve military and police tactics to prevent sexual gender-based violence in conflicts.
Assistant Secretary-General Carolyn McAskie, head of the U.N. Peacebuilding Support Office, points out that despite much rhetoric about women's roles in peacebuilding, women's contributions had rarely been fully recognised.
But both her office and UNIFEM have actively promoted women's groups to participate in the peacebuilding processes in two countries: Sierra Leone and Burundi.
The government of Sierra Leone and the U.N. Peacebuilding Commission have adopted a Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework that recognises gender equality as a cross-cutting peacebuilding issue with specific commitments to advance that goal.
These commitments include family support units, capacity-building of national gender institutions and implementing laws relating to domestic violence, inheritance and property rights.
In Burundi, McAskie said, women have participated in the peace process, integrating gender equality into democratic governance and the peacebuilding framework.
As a result of quotas spelled out in the peace agreement and Burundi's new constitution, women were now better represented in government, holding 30 percent of parliamentary seats and seven ministerial posts.
"Despite those significant achievements, much more must be done," McAskie told the Commission on the Status of Women last week.
"We have learned that our ability to affect real change in gender equality through peacebuilding greatly depends on how the international community establishes its priorities and uses its resources," she declared.
McAskie also said the much publicised Security Council resolution 1325 of eight years ago should be used as political leverage to ensure the presence of gender advisers in the planning stages of U.N. peacekeeping missions.
She said the Security Council should also ensure that Secretariat briefings include "gender impacts" on conflict situations.
At the same time, there should be more women in senior level decision-making positions who could raise the relevant issues.
"We all need to be speaking the same language," she added.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
18 Comments so far
Show AllWomen are their own worst enemy. Until women decide to learn how to form alliances and make the right ones, they stand little chance of gaining equity. Instead of waging a gender war, women need to get smart enough to understand how to build a strategy that will sustain their long term goals. It is not unusual though for any oppressed group to suffer the pangs of self loathing, which is the obvious wrong that needs correcting. You can't support organized Western religions - the origins of misogyny - and expect progress; you can't support ultra feminine role models and expect progress. Until women are willing to make the distinction, they will remain fodder for men.
First I must say that being female per se does not give people special qualities - look at Thatcher, Rice, Madame Nhu, my crazy neighbor etc. That being said...
Where are women represented in proportion to their numbers or abilities? Nowhere. Not even as authors of articles selected by Common Dreams, where it looks like they are approx 20%.
Just look at any deliberative body on TV or in a news photo: Man in suit, man in suit, man in suit. They stride together for camera like a group of arrogant penguins. In the mideast or other countries the men might be wearing their equivalent of a power suit.
If you see a group of executives, comedians, a pundit panel or deliberative body, or any other group where strength and build is irrelevant, here are the chances of it being all male if selection were unbiased:
1 male, no females - 50% probability
2 males, no females - 25% probability
3 males, no females - 12.5% probability
4 males, no females - 6.25% probability
5 males, no females - 3.125% probability
6 males, no females - 1.5 % probability
7 or more males, no females Totally improbable
Yet this is more common than not.
I think if one was to seriously contemplate those video's seriously one would see how Hillary Clinton is using the media to her advantage. It is kind of interesting really.
I happen to agree femme fatale, perhaps as women we are focusing our energy attaining things we do not want for ourselves rather than focusing on what we do want. I think there has been a few classic examples in the media in the last few years. Women might have gotten the media's attention but it didn't bring about the change that they wanted.
I think people need a few lessons in the universal law of attraction. http://www.abraham-hicks.com/YouTubeLOA.php
I was just remembering when Ms. Betty Williams, a Nobel Peace Laureate from Northern Ireland, came to speak at a Catholic Church in Orlando, FL. She talked about the process that finally brought the peace that had been so illusive for so many decades. She said it happened "one cup of tea at a time." It reminded me of what we women are so good at, besides nuclear science and curing incurable diseases, feeding a houseful of children on pocket change, and making sad, tired men believe in themselves again. We're good at flippin' everything, especially making peace. I don't know why we get so angry on these sites; it isn't worthy of us. Sometimes politics seem like a black hole, pulling us all in. But in reality, they're nothing, we're everything. Peace.
No one should be pessimistic about voting for a third party. Be happy you're finally seeing the Dems for what they are: Repukes. Read Walter Karp's The Politics of War and you will see this is part of a more than 200-yr old story. The mistake is you expect the Dems to be something they are not. They are playing their junior partner role in corporate government.
I do think Hillary's being a woman is clearly her prime advantage over Obama, but she did not play it. That's a bad move, but given the media's hex on her, i'm not sure it would matter. Perhaps. The bigger issue is they rolled Obama out as a product in spring 2007. He is literally a PR campaign the liberal clowns like the editors of this site have swallowed whole. He has LIED THE ENTIRE TIME about taking lobbyist money. Do you honestly think all those millions are coming from average Americans? NO, THEY ARE COMING FROM PARTNERS AT CORPORATE LAW FIRMS. Go check the stats.
Please read Pam Martens' work at Counterpunch on Obama's backing by Wall Street. He is the Wall Street candidate and all of you liberal fools are just walking into it, instead of seeing the OPPORTUNITY in voting for a third party person. Stop whining and build the goddamn third party -- or better yet launch a freaking women's party.
Obama is Oprah. Get it? You're Oprah voters.
More baldly, the fact is the political left only cares about race, which means mainly black men. It does not care a whit about women but pays lip service to abortion rights. (The feminists have ghettoized themselves, I think also but i don't know why that happened.) The political left would rather feel some sense of accomplishment or redemption from the corporate rollback of civil rights for black people. Electing a black president is the biggest farce there is. He's one man, backed by the very same people who just orchestrated the LARGEST TRANSFER OF WEALTH OUT OF BLACK COMMUNITIES. It's like taking a pill isn't it America? That's the only way we know how to fix things here.
Sorry for the rant, but you liberals deserve it. PLEASE DEFECT FROM THE DEMS and COME TOGETHER!!!
Women must create a new movement. The time is now. The movement must be global and American women have a responsibility to take initiative in their own country, while supporting other women in theirs.
Just got back on the computer since this morning. The last I checked, I am still a man. All I was saying earlier is that I would love to see a woman as president someday but I think Hillary may lean a bit (or more) toward big corps. Maybe I should have said something like man or woman, black or white, etc - none of that matters as long as they start caring for "we the people" instead of big business. If Hillary is the nominee, she willl still get my vote. She's 1000% better than bush or mccain.
"She told the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women — which concludes its two-week session Friday — that very few women participated in peace talks as official negotiators or observers."
Well of course "few" women participated in peace talks. As truthmonger (above) stated: "As long as billionaire white men are in charge of the world, women will be held back."
Truthmonger,
At one time it was "billionaire white men" who were in charge of the world. Now it's "billionaire" white men and men of color who are in charge of the world. Occasionally, we'll see a token woman like Bonnie Goldman (Goldman/Sachs) in possession of some of that power (heredity plays a role here), but it's the exception to the rule as it has always been.
If most men, like women, were inclined to work toward peace instead of power and control, the world would already know a peaceful existence. "Most" women would insist on negotiating peace for the sake of their children's lives, happiness and future; not through war but through the advancement of equality and fair play.
grumpyoldlady - I agree with you! So many people in this country foam at the mouth when you mention the Clintons that, if she were president, it would cause more division than unity. I think Obama has the ability to unite the country.
Of course, there's always the question - who in their right mind wants to be president?!?!
As far as the peace process is concerned, I think we women need to just go it alone. Have our own conferences. Come up with our own policies and ideas. Do what we need to do and don't depend on these testosterone-fueled idiots to take care of us and the world. I'm ready for some woman scientist to come up with a testosterone-canceling additive to beer to calm the world down!
I'm surely going to get in trouble for this comment, but oh well. It seems pointless to talk about putting women into the peace process in conflicts that are mainly between men who completely devalue women in their cultures and religions. And that, sadly, includes the U.S. While I abhor the subservience and utter dependence of Islamic women, I see so much of the same in my own culture that I wonder how on earth we will ever make progress. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw reported in the Times the comment of a poor black woman in Alabama who said she loved Hillary but the Bible says that a man is supposed to lead. Not only has Hillary been fighting a losing battle against gynophobes, but she has to deal with this kind of brain-washing of other women. I voted for her in Florida, not that it mattered, thanks to the Democratic machine's bull-crap, and I will surely vote for her if she makes it to the general election, in spite of the fact that I differ from her on so many issues. Why? Because we will only ever break out of the cellar we're in if we stick together and not let ourselves be pulled apart by the minute supposed differences between the candidates. And they are minute, whatever the rhetoric implies. If she doesn't get the nomination, I'll be voting for the best 3rd party option out there--and I have never done that before. Oh, and the media never presented Hillary as the presumptive winner; on the contrary, they made scornful reference to her presented herself as such, which I never saw. It's amazing how the media's lies and bias have bent some otherwise quite rational women's minds.
termite, you are right. Truthmonger could be a great man! But, having said that, I still think that all of this talk about the 'right" woman is full of something I frequently heard about the right African American or Asian American or any person considered a minority. I also have heard Obama supporters touting how different he is from Hillary. But, I have also read the few people who are willing to talk about his votes that fly in the face of his talk. (See Beyond Chron on the internet).
Look at the latest Time magazine with its focus on experience. Why didn't they do a companion piece on change? Look at CNN or MSNBC, I cannot remember which one, using Carl Bernstein, who visibly hates Hillary, and hate is not too strong a word, and tell me that the media is not swaying voters. Anyone who thinks the voters are so smart should harken back to the last election. And the one before that!
What's sad is that many of us will sit the next one out or vote for a third party. I have heard that Kucinish and Paul are talking. I would love to vote for them. Obama's rhetoric and mass rallies do not appeal to me. The canonization of a political candidate reminds me of the Bush and Reagan eras.
In nearly all religious sects, women are regarded as 'simple reproducers' and their opinion is petty at the most. Until organized religion no longer inflouences government, women will live in a shadow.
Sassysue,
Geez, girl, take it easy! No need to jump all over Truthmonger that way! It sounds to me like you are both on the same page for the most part. Truthmonger was merely pointing out a concern that a lot of voters have about Hillary Clinton.
I, too, would love to be around to see the first woman president. But I've watched Mrs. Clinton's career closely since she became a senator and I lost my admiration for her a long time ago. It began with her support of Bush's invasion of Iraq and so-called "War on Terror" (the ultimate game of Wag the Dog), and continued with her votes on other important issues, such as her support for the anti-consumer bankruptcy bill and her saber-rattling against Iran. I have a real problem with the fact that she consistently supported the Iraq War right up until declaring her intention to run for president, when her position suddenly changed to reflect popular opinion. I'm disappointed in her failure to lead the fight against the Bush administration's systematic dismantling of our Constitutional protections. I have serious questions about her affiliation with big pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, and I think that her health care plan is disingenuous at best (forcing everyone to buy health insurance is NOT...I repeat, NOT..."universal health care!" It is only a wet dream come true for health insurance CEO's).
Woman or not, Mrs. Clinton's positions on issues I think are important just don't line up with mine, and I will not set all of that aside just to satisfy my sincere desire to see a woman hold the highest office in the land.
As for the media, it is what it is. They've been hot and cold on all of the candidates over the course of the primaries. Maybe I have a little more faith in the majority of voters. I think that most voters look further than the political ad's, staged debates and biased talking heads when considering which candidate they wish to support. In fact, the big media have been wrong in most of their predictions about this election cycle. A few months ago, Hillary was the "presumptive nominee" and Barack Obama's name was barely mentioned. If the media had the kind of control you imply, that would still be the case. Besides, all of these candidates have been around long enough to know that anyone running for president is going to get picked apart by the press sooner or later. Obama's turn will come. It's just par for the course.
It will be interesting to see how the primaries go today. If Mrs. Clinton fails to take all of the four states (my prediction is, she won't), I would hope that she will put the interests of Democratic voters ahead of her own ambitions and gracefully retire from the race.
How about a division of labor here?
Men seem suited to waging armed conflict, with their superior upper body strength.
Women might find their real strength in waging peace. For starters, let both sides of the negotiations for peace in Darfur, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel be presided over and staffed by women.
I think we can trust the world women's group (I've forgotten the name, sorry) to select the members of the peace negotiating task forces.
And no, I don't hate men. I don't just like them; I love them.
Sassysue,
What makes you so sure truthmonger is a woman?
Truthmonger,
You have got to be kidding! The right one would have no chance of ever getting elected president in this country, as evidenced by what is happening now. We have a qualified woman running for president and the press is trying its best to tear her apart right and left. No, the man who is running against her, does not have to criticize her! He can be a saint. The press will do the work for him!
The corporate press does not even want what some people on this website have called the corporate woman (and that is one of the least negative names I have seen her called). Read the latest edition of Time magazine that focused on experience and Hillary Clinton and used a sick reference to a study of two nurses to show that experience doesn't count. Why didn't they do a story on CHANGE! Perhaps they will do that when they have finished off Hillary and they have their two men set up.
Women got the right to vote years after African American men; it should have happened at the same time for women of all races. In fact, the right to vote should never have been constructed by the good ole boys for them to continue their power through violence, force, rape, and other forms of destruction. But, that is the system that seems to work in this world, keeping men in power. Women have to fit into their paradigm or else they don't get elected. If they try to be womanly, the men (along with other women like you) will squeeze them out, as evidenced by Barbara Boxer and Barbara Lee and countless other women.
You are waiting for the right one! Well, don't hold your breathe because a woman has no chance of being the leader of this country!
As long as billionaire white men are in charge of the world, women will be held back. We need a few more women in charge of things and perhaps we wouldn't be rushing into war like testosteronic hockey players looking for a fight. However, it must be the right one. Hillary and Condi may not set aside their boxing gloves that easily.
Hilllary is a war monger as was her husband. And Condi Rice is no better trying to overthrow Hamas. HOwever, to curb the violance toward women in this world,electing even Hillary would be better than voting for McCain who is just a cloned Bush. Hillary is a policitian and I don't approve of her voting record. But just to get one woman in power even if she's not the best woman in the world to lead the U.S. out of many of its problems with the degradation of women is a beginning. What we need are women who can battle the corporate heads while gaining aid and benefits to women in all areas of life. It will take centuries to topple the male dominated, penis addicted, power structures. So let's just begin with Hillary.