SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gender equality
The Second World Summit for Social Development: Mind the (Equality) Gap
Putting wind in the sails of the flagging UN Sustainable Development Goals
Nov 05, 2025
Building on the legacy of the first summit held in Copenhagen in 1995, the primary goal of the second World Summit for Social Development is to advance global social development and bolster much-needed momentum for the Sustainable Development Goals set out in the 2030 Agenda. This high-stakes event will be held November 4-6, 2025 in Doha, Qatar, and Better World Info has carried out thorough research on the event.
With just five years to go, the recent United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Progress Report revealed that we are on track to meet only 35% of targets by 2030. Progress on 50% of the targets is weak, and 18% are actually in reverse.
The 2025 UN World Social Report revealed a "global social crisis" characterized by insecurity, inequality, crumbling social cohesion, and diminishing trust.
Recognizing this mammoth task, the Second World Summit for Social Development (WSSD2) is a vital opportunity to assess the biggest challenges; identify omissions; and recommit to inclusivity, equity, social protection, and sustainability. The event is organized by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), which will collaborate with various stakeholders to facilitate the crucial discussions. WSSD2 will attract over 8,000 participants.
This WSSD2, let's strengthen global partnerships, implement effective policies, foster international cooperation, set concrete proposals, and make it another historic leap for social development.
As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, "True development is not about prosperity for the few. It is about opportunities for the many, grounded in social justice, full employment, and human dignity.”
The WSSD2 takes place during the same month as the COP30 climate conference. Both summits share the common goals of creating a more just and sustainable world for everyone. Climate change threatens the foundations of our lives; without concrete action, our efforts to enhance social protections are futile. Progress in education, poverty reduction, and social justice will be undermined if we cannot bring global warming under control.
WSSD2: Three Decades in the Making
The first summit brought together 186 countries and was a landmark moment in global efforts to address critical social challenges, including poverty, unemployment, public health, and social exclusion.
Its ambitious agenda concluded with the adoption of the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action, which outlined several targets and initiatives, and became a foundation for future policies worldwide. Although the summit was, at the time, a historic moment for global progress, many of the hopes and expectations of the declaration were not realised.
More than 30 years have passed since the first summit. A lack of urgency and budget has left the WSSD2 long overdue, as the United Nations' attention has been diverted to Climate and Biodiversity summits (COP Conferences), of which there have been many.
This summit is an essential part of the United Nations' work in an area that has been overlooked for too long. Organized by civil society organisations, the World Social Forum is the only other event which addresses the planet's social needs and alternative visions of globalization.
As UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock said, "Without social justice there will never be long-lasting peace and security."
(Photo by Statista/CC BY-ND 4.0)
This year's summit will be co-facilitated by Philippe Kridelka, Belgium's permanent representative to the UN, and Omar Hilale, Morocco's permanent representative. With mounting global tensions and spiraling humanitarian crises worldwide, this conference must go beyond other United Nations summits.
The Doha Political Declaration, which was negotiated well in advance of the summit, does not contain any new or binding indicators, nor obligations for monitoring. This lack of concrete measures and quantifiable goals leaves implementation simply to the goodwill of nations. As we have seen with various climate and biodiversity goals, this does not work.
Even before the summit, the effectiveness of the WSSD2 has drawn sharp criticism from hundreds of NGOs, who have labelled the pre-negotiated declaration insufficient.
Increasing militarization, decreasing effectiveness of multilateralism, widening inequalities, the potential for future pandemics, and a right-wing shift in many influential nations have led to the redirection of vital resources away from our planet's most pressing societal needs.
Instead of ensuring the well-being, safety, and prospects of society, money is siphoned into the production of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear programs, military bases, and the promotion and justification of wars around the world.
The State of the Planet: WSSD2 Key Priorities
The WSSD2 will focus on the weakest performing Sustainable Development Goals.
No Poverty: Over 2.8 billion people, more than one-third of the world's population, live in extreme poverty. Since the last summit, 35% of the people who exited poverty have relapsed back into it.
Zero Hunger: Rates of hunger and food insecurity have increased alarmingly since 2015. Two billion people worldwide lack regular access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food. In 2024, 23% of children had stunted growth, and 6% of those under the age of 5 were affected by wasting.
Gender Equality: If the 2023 rate of progress remains, it would take an estimated 300 years to end child marriage, 286 years to remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in workplace leadership roles, and 47 years for equal representation in national politics.
Clean Water and Sanitation: In 2024, 2.2 billion people lacked access to safe drinking water, 3.4 billion people lacked safely managed sanitation, and 1.7 billion people did not have basic hygiene services at home.
Affordable and Clean Energy: In 2024, 645 million people lacked access to electricity. Almost 2 billion people are still using polluting fuels for cooking, exposing them to severe health risks.
Decent Work and Economic Growth: Informal employment remains stubbornly at an estimated 2 billion people, accounting for 58% of the world's employed population. Approximately 65% of the world's population lives in countries where income inequality is widening. There are still 160 million children involved in child labor.
Climate Action: The year 2024 was confirmed as the hottest year ever on record. A recent report by the UN revealed that current policies put the planet on track to reach a catastrophic 3.1°C warming by 2100. This scenario would expose 600 million people to flooding, reduce food yields by half, cause severe water shortages, lead to insurmountable habitat and biodiversity loss, create month-long brutal heatwaves and wildfires, heighten the risks of insect-borne diseases, and profoundly deepen inequalities.
Life Below Water: In 2019, 35% of global fish stocks were overfished. An estimated 5-12 million metric tons of plastic enters the ocean each year, costing the global economy $19 billion every single year. Record-breaking global coral bleaching began in 2023, affecting 84% of global reefs across more than 80 countries. Marine life populations have declined by 49% between 1970 and 2012. One-third of shark and ray species are now threatened with extinction. Goal 14 is the least funded of all the Sustainable Development Goals.
Life on Land: One million animal and plant species are currently threatened with extinction. Habitat loss and land degradation have led to a staggering 73% decline in wildlife populations between 1970 and 2020. Deforestation destroys around 10 million hectares of forest every single year. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aimed to protect 30% of land by 2030, but progress has stagnated since 2015.
Turning Summits into Action
We need to start building a society where people can thrive, rather than merely survive. With 60% of the planet struggling and 12% suffering, many, unsurprisingly, believe that life is worse now than it was 50 years ago.
Looking back at various climate, biodiversity, and economic summits, it is easy to imagine another lackluster fanfare of fake promises, greenwashing, and corporate lobbying. The stalled progress after the 1995 WSSD and the lack of other social development-focused initiatives puts huge pressure on this year's event in Doha to be a conference of action.
Social development progress has been seriously hindered by underinvestment, a lack of regulation and legality, greenwashing, outdated policies, and a lack of political will. Multiple global crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic, conflict, the climate crisis, and economic downturns, have exacerbated many existing global issues.
Ageing populations reshaping society, a right-wing shift in the political arena, increasing polarization, and international pressure to fund military alliances add additional challenges. The financing gap must be closed. Binding targets have to be set. Nations must be held accountable for inaction.
This WSSD2, let's strengthen global partnerships, implement effective policies, foster international cooperation, set concrete proposals, and make it another historic leap for social development.
As Baerbock said, "Social development is not only a matter of principle, it is also the smartest investment we can make."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Black Community Can't Let 2024's Betrayal Keep It From the Anti-Trump Fight
If we don't join together in this current crisis and the battles to come but sit on the sidelines licking our wounds, continuing to feel offended and betrayed, then the forces of oppression win.
Apr 26, 2025
Significant numbers in the Black community feel betrayed by our so-called allies who ignored the warnings of Black people regarding the election, its political rhetoric, and the history of racism and white supremacy in the country. So, in response to feelings of betrayal a Black preacher in Chicago recently framed the sentiment on social media, writing, "Nope, I turned out in November; they didn't!"
This feeling is pervasive within the Black community as people articulate the frustrations felt because of the outcome of the presidential elections last November. When asking people to turn out for the "Hands Off" rallies, the Gaza and pro-Palestinian demonstrations, or even to protest the roundup of immigrants, there is a post-November 2024 pushback which is derived from a sense of betrayal because the people now asking for our participation and support did not stand with the Black community in the 2024 elections. In barbershops, beauty shops, nail salons, social clubs, fraternities, and sororities discussions have been animated expressing various theories in America's rejection of a Black person for President, and particularly in this case, a Black woman. The underlying feelings is that of betrayal and desertion.
Sure, there are all kinds of justifications for the rejection of the Harris-Walz ticket ranging from the Biden-Harris support of the genocide in Gaza, "She was a prosecutor who contributed to mass incarceration", to "I will not vote for the lesser of two evils." There were also the economic arguments citing inflation, and the failure of the Biden administration to deal with the cost of going to the grocery store. There were also the clandestine discussions laced with misogyny and race offering that a woman was unable to lead, and a Black woman was even worse than a Black man. Race and gender hatred are strong undercurrents of the Harris rejection, which is confirmed by the Trump-MAGA obsession with attacking and dismantling all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.
We have been played, and it is important for us to remember that the political game of fascism will have its way with us if we decide to sit out the various movements that attempt to resist this currently hostile order.
The dog whistle to white America is that DEI led to the election of a Black president in 2008, the increasing visibility of other Black faces, the prominence of people of color and different kinds of people in government and leadership, as well as advancing the sensibilities of gender equality. The anti-DEI framework also believes that immigrants have been welcomed and coddled by offering sanctuary and protection, multiplying their numbers, which dilutes the white population and poses a serious threat to the powers of white supremacy and the white ability to rule. Indeed, we are seeing and witnessing currently an aggressive clutch for power and the reassertion of white supremacy.
The Black community had seen all this before and can still hear the ghostly chains of enslavement synchronized to the racist tropes of old. The Black community largely was not fooled by the appeals of grocery store affordability or removing immigrants to make way for "Black" jobs, or the other empty promises of MAGA-Trump. We had seen it all, and it is difficult for us to believe that others could not see what we saw. Likewise, it is difficult and unbelievable to hear people now state that "it is worse than I imagined." We knew what would happen, and we feel betrayed by so-called allies who did not listen to our counsel and should have understood the racist history of America better and heeded the violence planned against people because of race, immigration, gender, or belonging to the LGBTQIA community. Instead of heeding all our warnings and alarms, significant enough numbers of white women, Latinos, and even some Black folks chose to drink the Kool-Aid of a sanitized racism sweetened with appeals of bringing jobs home, cheaper eggs, and making America first in the world.
There are all kinds of justifications for the Trump victory in 2024. Economic grievances, the lesser of two evils argument, objections resulting from the Gaza genocide, concern over former Vice President Kamala Harris' legal career and governmental service, and the secret handshakes and winks expressing real disdain for a Black woman led to Harris' defeat. But the latter three arguments or justifications were not persuasive to the Black community because the choices offered in this political system have always been between the lesser of two evils, and race history in America has taught us of the precariousness of life and that we always live under threat of a massacre or genocide.
We have never experienced a benevolent government. Though some governments and candidates have been better than others, the very structure of governance has never been benevolent. The system is not a system that is just or fair, but it has always been a system where fights have had to be waged for justice and fairness. We have always had to weigh who would be better on race, and who would be worse. We have had to weigh who would be better to fight against versus who would be worse. We have had to analyze and understand what sources of money and forces of political power were behind a candidate and what that ultimately meant for the safety of the Black community and our advancement. The lesser of the worst argument has always been the Black reality, and we have understood historically that the system is malicious in character, racially unjust, and unfair. There has been a constant fight to go forward, and a continuous struggle against being pushed back.
We said to the immigrant community that the assault on race was real, that the immigrant community would be hunted and hounded like Black folks were before and after passage of the Fugitive Slave Act or stopped and arrested like scores of people "driving while Black," but we were not heard or understood. Portions of the Latino community were pulled to the right and voted against their own interest despite the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Trump-MAGA campaign. A segment of the Latino community did not realize at the time that the rhetoric would criminalize and endanger all the Latino community. A resident of Prince Georges County, Maryland, Kílmar Abrego García, was disappeared to El Salvador. According to the administration his arrest and deportation were a mistake, but it is a mistake that the administration obstinately refuses to correct. There are also numbers of Latinos being stopped and arrested by masked goons and swept away. It is reported that the administration is scouring through social media and legal documents gleaning any kind of justification for the cancelling of student visas and the deportation of immigrants (documented and undocumented). Yet, 43% of the Latino community voted for U.S. President Donald Trump! This represented an increase of 8% more Latino votes going to Trump than in the previous presidential elections. When we hear this statistic, we are rightfully alarmed, yet we cannot lose sight that this also means that 57% of the Latino community understood the struggle in America and took seriously the alarm cited by the Black community.
We were further alarmed by women who seem unable to hear the warnings of misogyny that have been experienced throughout the Black sojourn in America. The struggle to have autonomy over being, health, and existence have been all too real in the Black experience. Therefore, the Black community felt that women would surely hear, understand, and mobilize around the assaults on reproductive freedom, healthcare, and body autonomy. So, it was a surprise to know that 53% of white women voted for Trump. Similar majorities of white women have backed Republican presidential nominees in every election since 2004. But we have also forgotten, because of the ways statistics are sensationalized, that a majority of "ALL" women voted for the Harris-Walz ticket. They rejected the narrow and racist perspectives of the right-wing agenda in this election and in previous elections as well.
We can emotionally understand the Arab-Muslim-Pro-Palestine base not voting for Harris. By any stretch of the imagination, it would have been a steep climb to expect them to simply vote for the supporters of the Netanyahu-Zionist genocide in Gaza. So, this bloc of voters in protest either voted for Trump, a third-party candidate, or sat out the elections as punishment for the Biden-Harris blind support of Israel and its occupation and genocide. But not voting for the lesser of two evils in this case was to cast a vote for the victor—Trump. The protest vote, whether for Trump, a third-party candidate, or to sit out the election had the effect of turning loose and unmuzzling the monster of America's original sin—racism and white supremacy. The deserved punishment of Harris meant rewarding the deeply entrenched agenda of whiteness and unleashing a ferocious and unapologetic form of hatred that will require extreme and Herculean measures to resist.
Yet even the Black community is not immune from its own contradictions rooted in sexism and racial self-hatred. We are infected with all the gender bias that exists in the larger community, as well as our own struggles against one another—self-hatred. For example, though Harris won 80% of the Black vote, that however represented a 10% drop from former President Joe Biden in 2020. This means that 90% of the Black community would vote for a white man versus only 80% for a Black woman. Biden received 81 million votes in 2020 and Harris only 75 million in 2024. Six million voters either stayed home or voted for a third-party candidate. It was not necessarily that Biden was a better candidate over Harris, but he was white and male!
The Trump-MAGA forces exploited the gender and race biases within the Black, Latino, and white (male and female) communities. The political right offered and framed news stories and opinions promoting the gender crisis for Harris among Black males in an effort to give permission to Black males to desert a Black woman. There is also the psychological damage of being Black in a white world where the culture has conditioned people to think that white is better than Black, and white male is far better than Black female!
The impurity and contradictions of the American political system have always placed before us choices of evil. The Black perspective however had always had to discern which evil is more entrenched and enshrined in the callous and sub-human hatred of old. One evil represents a historical cloth that produced the Trail of Tears, protected slavery, removed Indigenous people from lands at home and abroad, and celebrated white supremacy and power and theologically called it Manifest Destiny. The other is a liberal appearing form of evil. It speaks in terms of the rule of law and democracy but lacks in each. It forms alliances internationally with other flawed liberal-appearing democracies, if those governments are aligned financially and politically with its interests. It is permissive toward racism and white supremacy at home and abroad as evidenced by the massive urban "renewal" (removal) programs of the 1960s and 70s, mass incarceration that fell disproportionately on Blacks, and its support of the old racially segregated regime in South Africa or apartheid Israel today. It speaks to Blacks and other politically oppressed people in patronizing and paternalistic terms. It offers empty solutions to real problems to present themselves as magnanimous and sincere while not threatening or giving away their own grip on power. We have had to constantly organize against and challenge this evil, endeavoring to bend it toward justice or break it. One evil is clothed in the hatred and imperialism of old, and the other, though bad, was the lesser of evils that represented a dynamic that the Black community always had to live and struggle with. Again, people did not and could not hear our counsel to stand and fight another day rather than to lose and have it all taken away by madmen unapologetically bent on a white agenda in a white world.
We recognized who and what the Trump-MAGA movement is and what it meant for the safety of the Black community. We also knew intuitively that the safety of the Black community also meant the safety of all our allies, whether those allies were real or not. Black people could see the writing on the walls because we have heard all the rhetoric before lingering in the air and echoing through the cobwebbed hallways of racial struggle that unfortunately is not only of the past but in the present.
We are startled to think that people are still deluded by myths of democracy and think the system is well-meaning. People believe in the kindness of the system only because the legacies of enslavement, exploitation, and genocide are ignored along with the continuing effects of those legacies. The banning of books, the discarding of photographs showing images of Black people and women, the erasing of history, and the castigation of Critical Race Theory are calculated programs to further sanitize the foul odors of the country's past and present. Given all those factors it should be no surprise that Trump was able to declare victory because of a combination of arguments and reasons that were woven from the torn mythologized fabric of America's illusion of democracy and its altruism. We were surprised and shocked by what appeared to be a betrayal by people and movements that we considered to be part of the wall guarding against the re-entrenchment of racism, misogyny, hatred, xenophobia, and white supremacy. We were surprised, in shock, bewildered, and astonished by people who did not recognize the historical language of racism or the vicious actions that would ensue from it. The feelings of betrayal are real but are also shallow and misguided.
The sense of betrayal and alienation plays into the hands of the forces dismantling DEI, deporting immigrants, curbing First Amendment rights, and flagrantly violating the rule of law. They were able to get elected because they fostered spears of division that separated us over gender, race, and economics. Their strategy worked superbly. Our unity is our strength. If we don't join together in this current crisis and the battles to come but sit on the sidelines licking our wounds, continuing to feel offended and betrayed, then the forces of oppression win.
Let's admit that we have all been played, and their agenda was to play us against one another, fracturing votes over one issue or another and splintering one constituency group from the other until the numbers secured their victory. We have been played, and it is important for us to remember that the political game of fascism will have its way with us if we decide to sit out the various movements that attempt to resist this currently hostile order. Let's get over it and get back to work. This means that we must support one another from federal workers to Palestine, from Black Lives and reparations to LGBTQIA Rights, from immigrants to the rights of foreign students to study and speak out. All the issues are mine. And all the issues must be ours. We must support one another and join together so that no one is left out or behind. As Fannie Lou Hamer, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Emma Lazarus said similarly, "No one is free until everyone is free."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Fight for Abortion Care Is a Fight for Equality
Women’s History Month exists because, for centuries, women’s contributions were erased, dismissed, or outright stolen. Today, we see that same erasure in real-time when lawmakers craft policies that disregard the needs and realities of half the population.
Mar 29, 2025
Every March, we celebrate Women’s History Month—a time to honor the trailblazers who fought for our rights and recognize how far we have come. But it is also a time to take stock of the battles we’re still fighting, and one of the most urgent is the fight for abortion care.
Abortion access isn’t just about healthcare; it’s about power, equality, and dignity. It’s about recognizing that pregnant people should have the same autonomy, agency, and opportunities as anyone else. Yet, time and time again, legislation is used as a weapon to strip us of our rights, rendering us invisible in the eyes of those who hold power.
When abortion rights are restricted, the effects ripple far beyond the individual. The economic consequences are devastating. Studies have shown that being denied an abortion drastically increases the likelihood of a person living in poverty. The landmark Turnaway Study found that people who were unable to access an abortion were four times more likely to experience financial insecurity, struggle with housing instability, and be trapped in cycles of domestic violence.
In a system where half the population can be denied life-saving medical care, how can we claim to value equality?
This is not just a coincidence—it’s by design. Anti-abortion legislation is not about “life”; it’s about control. It’s about keeping people, especially women and those who can become pregnant, economically vulnerable and dependent. It’s about ensuring that the structures of power remain unchallenged, forcing people to carry pregnancies they cannot afford while denying them the resources to escape poverty.
The hypocrisy is staggering. Many of the same politicians who push for abortion bans are the ones gutting social safety nets—cutting funding for childcare, slashing paid family leave, refusing to raise the minimum wage, and the list goes on. They claim to care about “life” while making it impossible for parents to provide for their children. This is not pro-life; it is anti-equality.
The United States already has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations, and the numbers are even more alarming for Black and Indigenous people, who die at three to four times the rate of their white counterparts during childbirth. When states restrict abortion access, they force more people into dangerous pregnancies, increasing these mortality rates even further.
The recent surge of abortion bans and restrictions has created a healthcare crisis. Patients experiencing pregnancy complications—such as miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies—are being turned away from hospitals or left to suffer until their lives are at imminent risk. Doctors fear prosecution for providing necessary care, and pregnant people are treated as legal liabilities rather than human beings.
In a system where half the population can be denied life-saving medical care, how can we claim to value equality?
Women’s History Month exists because, for centuries, women’s contributions were erased, dismissed, or outright stolen. Today, we see that same erasure in real-time when lawmakers craft policies that disregard the needs and realities of half the population.
Look at how abortion laws are written—by men who will never face the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, let alone a dangerous one. Look at how reproductive healthcare is treated as an afterthought, even though it is central to economic stability, personal freedom, and public health.
Every time a law is passed that strips away abortion access, it is another message that we do not matter. That our health, our futures, our choices are secondary. That we are expected to sacrifice our bodies and our well-being to maintain a system that was never built for us in the first place.
This isn’t just an attack on reproductive rights; it’s an attack on gender equality itself.
Abortion access is not a fringe issue—it is fundamental to equality. If we want a world where women and pregnant people are not just tolerated but truly valued, we must fight for policies that recognize our full humanity.
That means protecting abortion access at every level—through legislation, through the courts, through elections, and through supporting each other. It means funding organizations that help people get the care they need, regardless of where they live—organizations like WRRAP. It means holding politicians accountable and refusing to let them silence us.
Women’s History Month is a reminder that progress is not given—it is won. The right to vote, the right to work, the right to own property, the right to make decisions about our own bodies—none of these rights were freely handed to us. They were fought for, tooth and nail, by those who refused to be invisible.
Now, it is our turn. The battle for abortion justice is the battle for equality itself, and we cannot afford to lose.
This op-ed was distributed by American Forum.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Certify the ERA: Biden’s Historic Chance to Cement Gender Equality in the Constitution
Recognizing the ERA honors the constitutional amendment process and sets a precedent for advancing democratic principles. By certifying it, President Biden would reaffirm the Constitution as a living document.
Dec 07, 2024
For a century, the Equal Rights Amendment—or ERA—has symbolized hope and justice. Drafted in 1923, the ERA declares, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Approved by Congress in 1972 and ratified by the requisite three-fourths of states—culminating with Virginia in 2020—it has met all constitutional requirements to become the 28th Amendment. Yet its certification has been unjustly delayed.
President Donald Trump ignored it, and President Joe Biden now has the opportunity to address this injustice and reaffirm his commitment to equality and the rule of law by giving notice of its passage to National Archivist Colleen Shogan to publish the ERA.
The Constitution evolves to reflect America’s progress and values. Certifying the ERA would mark a historic step in rectifying the foundational omission of gender equality. Opponents argue that Congress’ seven-year ratification deadline and rescissions by six states invalidate the ERA. However, the American Bar Association (ABA), representing over 400,000 legal professionals, rejected these claims in a 2023 resolution. The ABA asserts that Article V of the Constitution prohibits Congress from imposing deadlines or states from revoking ratifications.
The Equal Rights Amendment is more than legislation—it promises that America values all citizens equally.
Recognizing the ERA honors the constitutional amendment process and sets a precedent for advancing democratic principles. By certifying it, President Biden would reaffirm the Constitution as a living document and uphold the rule of law.
Although the United States is seen as a global leader, it lags behind 76% of countries that guarantee gender equality in their constitutions. Enshrining the ERA would signal America’s commitment to justice and human rights. A 2016 ERA Coalition survey found that 94% of Americans support a constitutional amendment ensuring gender equality, highlighting the widespread public mandate for this change.
President Biden has long championed equality, from his work on the Violence Against Women Act to advancing gender equity through executive actions. Certifying the ERA would cement his legacy as a president who expanded civil rights and upheld fundamental freedoms.
Current federal and state laws against sex discrimination are inconsistent and subject to change. Recent Supreme Court decisions embracing originalism threaten decades of progress in gender equality. By enshrining the ERA in the Constitution, President Biden can ensure permanent protections that surpass the vulnerabilities of statutory laws.
Certification would fortify gender equality as an unassailable right and inspire progress in other areas of civil rights. The ERA offers a foundation for broader justice, creating a ripple effect across communities.
Current federal and state laws addressing gender discrimination, pay disparities, violence against women, and discrimination against pregnant individuals are inconsistent and vulnerable to shifts in political and judicial interpretation, with recent Supreme Court decisions embracing originalism threatening decades of progress. By certifying the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as part of the Constitution, President Biden can establish permanent, unassailable protections against such injustices, ensuring that gender equality is enshrined at the highest legal level. This action would safeguard the progress made and provide a foundation for advancing broader civil rights, creating a ripple effect of justice and equity across communities.
The Equal Rights Amendment is more than legislation—it promises that America values all citizens equally. As we celebrate 100 years since its inception, the time has come to fulfill that promise. The ERA has met all constitutional requirements, and the American people overwhelmingly support its inclusion in the Constitution.
President Biden must seize this moment to notify the National Archivist, ensuring the ERA’s certification as the 28th Amendment. This is not just a legal or political issue but a moral imperative. Certifying the ERA would reaffirm America’s dedication to equality, justice, and the rule of law.
By taking this bold step, President Biden would inspire future generations, honor those who fought tirelessly for equality, and secure a brighter, fairer future for all. Let this act of leadership define his presidency and the nation’s commitment to its highest ideals.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Intolerable and Alarming': Proportion of Women Killed in War Doubled in 2023
"Women continue to pay the price of the wars of men," said one U.N. official.
Oct 23, 2024
The proportion of women killed in wars doubled last year compared with 2022 figures, with women comprising 4 out of every 10 conflict zone deaths around the world, according to a report published Tuesday by the United Nations.
U.N. Women, the agency behind the report, also found that cases of conflict-related sexual violence verified by the world body increased by 50% in 2023.
"These increases in deaths during war and in violence against women are taking place against a backdrop of increasing blatant disregard of international law designed to protect women and children during war," U.N. Women said.
"For example," the agency continued, "women in war zones are also increasingly suffering from restricted access to healthcare. Every day, 500 women and girls in conflict-affected countries die from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth. By the end of 2023, 180 women were giving birth every day in war-torn Gaza—most without necessities or medical care."
Earlier this year, the U.N. Security Council released a report estimating that 33,433 civilians including at least 13,337 women were killed in conflict zones around the world in 2023, a 72% increase from the previous year.
The vast bulk of these deaths occurred in Gaza, from which Hamas launched the deadliest-ever attack on a single day against Israel on October 7, 2023. The report states Hamas militants killed at least 280 women that day while abducting at least 90 other women and 36 children. The publication does not say how many Israeli women or children were killed by so-called "friendly fire" that day or under Israel's Hannibal Directive, which authorizes fratricide to prevent Israelis from falling into enemy hands.
Since October 7, more than 152,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed or wounded, including more than 10,000 people who are missing and believed to be dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed-out buildings. According to Gaza and international officials, more than 5,000 women and 10,000 children were killed in the embattled coastal enclave between October 7 and the end of 2023.
Israel is on trial for alleged acts of genocide at the International Court of Justice over its conduct in Gaza.
The report details the dire situation in Sudan, "which already had one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world before the outbreak of the armed conflict in April 2023," and where "2.64 million women and girls of reproductive age are now in need of urgent assistance, including 260,000 pregnant women."
"Amid reports of widespread sexual violence, most victims were unable to access the necessary medical care during the first 72 hours after being raped, including post-exposure prophylaxis or emergency contraception, and the United Nations received reports of victims of rape having been denied an abortion because it was outside of the timeline allowed for by law," the publication notes.
The new report also notes "a lack of overall progress on women's full, equal, and meaningful participation in peace processes."
"Preliminary data from the analysis of over 50 processes indicate that in 2023, on average, women made up only 9.6% of negotiators, 13.7% of mediators, and 26.6% of signatories to peace agreements and cease-fire agreements," the publication states. "The data show little progress over the past decade. None of the peace agreements reached in 2023 included a women's group or representative as a signatory."
U.N. Women Executive Director Sima Bahous lamented that "women continue to pay the price of the wars of men."
"This is happening in the context of a larger war on women," she continued. "The deliberate targeting of women's rights is not unique to conflict-affected countries but is even more lethal in those settings."
"We are witnessing the weaponization of gender equality on many fronts," Bahous added. "If we do not stand up and demand change, the consequences will be felt for decades, and peace will remain elusive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tens of Thousands of Women Strike in Iceland Over Pay Gap, Gender-Based Violence
"An 'equality paradise' should not have a 21% wage gap and 40% of women experiencing gender-based or sexual violence in their lifetime," said one organizer.
Oct 24, 2023
Schools, health systems, and television broadcasters in Iceland were among the businesses that said they would have to close or reduce services on Tuesday due to the country's first full-day women's strike in nearly 50 years—potentially helping to prove the point that tens of thousands of women and non-binary workers are hoping to make by demonstrating that their labor is vital and must be paid accordingly.
Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir is among the women taking part in the "kvennafrí," or "women's day off," and told reporters she expects women in her cabinet to strike as well, as organizers push to close Iceland's gender pay gap and end gender-based violence.
While Iceland has been recognized for 14 straight years as having the smallest gap in gender equality among the countries in the World Economic Forum's annual rankings, strike organizer Freyja Steingrímsdóttir told The Guardian it is hardly an "equality paradise," and women are demanding greater action from the government to ensure true parity.
On average, Icelandic women still earn about 10% less than men, and as much as 21% less in some professions. Forty percent of women report experiencing gender-based violence.
"An 'equality paradise' should not have a 21% wage gap and 40% of women experiencing gender-based or sexual violence in their lifetime," said Steingrímsdóttir, communications director for the Icelandic Federation for Public Workers. "That's not what women around the world are striving for."
Taking place 48 years after the last full-day women's strike, in which 25,000 people rallied in Reykjavík and 90% of women staged a work stoppage affecting paid and unpaid labor, this year's protest has adopted the slogan, "Kallarðu þetta jafnrétti?" or "You call this equality?"
Icelandic President Gudni Th. Johannesson expressed his support for the strike, saying women's "activism for equality has changed Icelandic society for the better and continues to do so today."
The country's trade unions—which count 90% of Icelandic workers as members—are key organizers of the action and are calling on women and nonbinary workers to join the strike.
The 1975 action was tied to passage of an equal rights law the following year and the election of the country's first female president—the first woman to be democratically elected president in any country—in 1980. Other successes have followed in recent years, such as the passage of a law that requires some companies to prove they're paying people of different genders equally for equal work.
Former Climate Minister Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir told The Guardian that men continue to fail to take responsibility for domestic labor, leaving unpaid work such as childcare to women who are also attempting to succeed in the workplace.
"If you look at it economically women seem to be punished for taking these extra burdens, which is not righteous," Halldórsdóttir told the outlet. "It's something that we need to look into and need to change."
Organizers are calling for the wages of workers in female-dominated professions to be made public and for the federal government to take greater action against gender-based violence, ensuring perpetrators are held accountable. One 2018 University of Iceland study found that only 12% of survivors of sexual assault press charges, and those who do have their cases dismissed nearly 75% of the time. Women told researchers they feared the "shame, guilt, and condemnation" that would come with having their cases tried in the justice system.
"We are now trying to connect the dots, saying that violence against women and undervalued work of women in the labor market are two sides of the same coin and have an effect on each other," Drífa Snædal, spokesperson for Stígamót, an anti-sexual violence group, told The Guardian.
Kate Jarman, a director of corporate affairs at a National Health Service hospital in the United Kingdom, said a similar women's strike in the U.K. would force numerous workplaces with majority-female staff to "recognize our worth."
The Left in the European Parliament also expressed support for the action.
" Solidarity with the strikers," the progressive political party said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heartbreaking': Court Reinstates Tennessee Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
"We want all the transgender youth of Tennessee to know this fight is far from over and we will continue to challenge this law until it is permanently defeated and Tennessee is made a safer place to raise every family," legal advocates said.
Jul 09, 2023
A 2-1 split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled Saturday that Tennessee can enforce its ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors—reversing a lower court's preliminary injunction, ignoring the guidance of every major medical organization in the United States, and delivering a crushing blow to trans youth and their supporters.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson found that S.B. 1—which prohibits doctors from providing puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and other forms of gender-affirming care to minors and requires trans youth currently receiving such care to stop within nine months—discriminates on the basis of sex and is therefore unconstitutional, siding with plaintiffs who sued Tennessee. The Trump administration appointee blocked large swaths of the law, which was set to take effect on July 1, from being implemented.
Saturday's decision, which came in response to an emergency appeal from Republican Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, temporarily lifts Richardson's order and allows S.B. 1 to take immediate effect while the lawsuit proceeds.
Skrmetti applauded the appeals court, saying, "The case is far from over, but this is a big win." The panel plans to reach a final verdict by September 30, at which point the law could be struck down or upheld.
"This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors, and their families," the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP said in a joint statement. "As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all the transgender youth of Tennessee to know this fight is far from over and we will continue to challenge this law until it is permanently defeated and Tennessee is made a safer place to raise every family."
The U.S. Justice Department in April filed a separate lawsuit against the Tennessee law.
"This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors, and their families."
Two of the three judges on the Sixth Circuit panel argued that the plaintiffs "have not shown that a right to new medical treatments is 'deeply rooted in our history and traditions,' and thus beyond the democratic process to regulate"—echoing language used by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito when he wrote the majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and suggesting that transgender rights should be left to the discretion of state lawmakers. Notably, they are the first two federal judges in the country to allow a prohibition on gender-affirming care to fully take hold.
As part of their broader attack on LGBTQ+ people, Republican-controlled legislatures have approved bans or restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors in at least 20 states since 2021, forcing many families and doctors to move or consider relocating. The federal judiciary, which has repeatedly blocked such laws from being enforced, had been a key source of reprieve until Saturday.
In addition to Richardson in Tennessee, judges in five other states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, and Kentucky—have determined that trans youth healthcare bans are unconstitutional or likely unconstitutional.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld U.S. District Judge Jay Moody's preliminary injunction against Arkansas' ban. Last month, in what was the first ruling on the merits of such a law, Moody concluded the state had violated the U.S. Constitution—namely the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses as well as First Amendment rights—and issued a permanent injunction. Republican Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said he plans to appeal the ruling, though it will be heard by the same court that already backed Moody in 2022.
At his Law Dork blog, journalist Chris Geidner explained the shoddy reasoning behind and dangerous implications of Saturday's 17-page ruling—written by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and endorsed by Judge Amul Thapar, who, like Richardson, was picked by former President Donald Trump.
After Sutton cited the aforementioned series of decisions halting multiple gender-affirming care bans around the country, he wrote: "We appreciate their perspectives, and they give us pause. But they do not eliminate our doubts about the ultimate strength of the challengers' claims."
Despite being the only court to dismiss plaintiffs' constitutional arguments, Geidner noted, "Sutton still attempted to claim the mantle of judicial modesty, stating that these are just 'initial views,' and adding: 'We may be wrong. It may be that the one week we have had to resolve this motion does not suffice to see our own mistakes.'"
"Nonetheless," Geidner pointed out, "Sutton was okay with his court being the sole one in the nation to allow such restrictions to be enforced."
Dissenting Judge Helene White said that she would have limited Richardson's statewide injunction so that it applied only to the plaintiffs and the Vanderbilt University Medical Center where they sought care. But unlike Sutton and Thapar, White sided with the many judges who have ruled in similar cases, writing that "the law discriminates based on sex" and "is likely unconstitutional."
Geidner went on to describe how Saturday's ruling "alters the legal landscape for these bans, at least temporarily."
As discussed at the outset, Tennessee is now allowed to enforce S.B. 1, barring any further court orders.
"The untenable position that adolescents, their caregivers, and their doctors have been put in is not only illegal, but also deeply unethical and dangerous."
Chase Strangio—a prominent ACLU lawyer working on several challenges to anti-trans laws nationwide, including Tennessee's—told Geidner that "things are moving quickly and for many families, waiting for legal relief is not an option. The untenable position that adolescents, their caregivers, and their doctors have been put in is not only illegal, but also deeply unethical and dangerous."
Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice within the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, said that the ACLU "will continue to aggressively litigate these cases in Tennessee and across the country."
When asked whether the challengers would try to get the stay lifted, either by the full Sixth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, Strangio stated, "We are still evaluating all our options with our primary concern of course being how can we help ensure that people in Tennessee are not cut off from the care they need."
Sutton's self-imposed deadline to resolve the case is September 30.
Meanwhile, Kentucky falls within the Sixth Circuit. In a Saturday court filing, Republican Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron cited the panel's ruling as a reason why U.S. District Judge David Hale should "immediately" issue a stay of his June 28 decision granting a preliminary injunction.
According to Geidner, "The Sixth Circuit also consolidated Cameron's appeal of the Kentucky injunction in a separate order Saturday, which not only brings that case on the same schedule as the Tennessee appeal but also essentially confirms that Sixth Circuit would almost certainly issue a stay of the Kentucky injunction if the district court does not do so."
He continued:
Finally, the new, if tentative, lack of unanimity itself matters for two reasons—one rhetorical and one practical. Obviously, having unanimity is its own argument against the constitutionality of these bans. Additionally, although only at the stay request posture, the ruling increases the likelihood that a "circuit split" on these bans will develop—a factor that greatly increases the chances of the U.S. Supreme Court taking up one of these cases.
Few people know that better than Sutton.
It was, after all, Sutton's 2014 decision in the marriage cases out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee that prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue of same-sex couples' constitutional right to marriage equality. Less than two months before Sutton's decision in those cases, the Supreme Court denied other states' requests to hear similar appeals when the federal appeals courts were in unanimity on the issue. After Sutton's decision created a circuit split, however, the Supreme Court took up the issue.
Geidner's argument dovetails with one put forth last week by The Intercept's Natasha Lennard, who warned that the GOP is poised to replicate its anti-abortion strategy—pushing the issue up the judicial ladder until it reaches a potentially favorable audience among the high court's reactionary majority—to destroy LGBTQ+ rights.
"Republicans have made clear that they plan to brute force their eliminationist assault on trans people into legal reality," Lennard wrote. "The far right knows how to bend legal paradigms to their will through tireless and well-funded campaigns, working through the minority rule of Republican-led statehouses until eventually reaching the Supreme Court. The same playbook hacked away at abortion access until an established right was wholly overturned, and settled law was ripped to shreds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Decade of Stagnation': UN Report Shows 9 in 10 People Still Hold Biases Against Women
"This is truly alarming and explains why the world is completely off track in achieving gender equality by 2030," an Oxfam Great Britain researcher said.
Jun 12, 2023
A United Nations report revealed Monday that despite "powerful" global movements such as #MeToo, Ni Una Menos, Time's Up, and Un Violador en Tu Camino, about 9 in 10 people worldwide still hold biases against women.
The new Gender Social Norms Index report covers 85% of the world's population and incorporates data from 2017-22. It follows the 2020 edition, which covered over 80% of the global population and relied on data through 2014.
According to the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), which produced both publications, the latest report shows "a decade of stagnation" across four dimensions explored by researchers: political, educational, economic, and physical integrity.
"Nearly half the world's people believe that men make better political leaders than women do, and two of five people believe that men make better business executives than women do," the publication states, highlighting how few women hold roles in both areas.
"Only 11% of heads of state and 9% of heads of government are women, and women hold only 22% of ministerial posts," while "in the paid economy women hold only 28% of managerial positions," the document details. "Even when women reach leadership positions, gender biases lead to unequal treatment and judgment."
"All biased gender social norms are potentially harmful, but perhaps none has a more direct impact on women's agency and well-being than those leading to violence against women and girls," the report stresses. Over a quarter of people "believe that it is justifiable for a man to beat his wife," and a similar share of women and girls over age 15 have endured intimate partner violence.
The document also warns that "the world is not on track to achieve gender equality by 2030," which is among the 17 sustainable development goals adopted by the U.N. in 2015. Targets of the gender equality goal include ending all forms of discrimination against women and girls, including violence and harmful practices such as forced marriage, ensuring access to economic resources and reproductive healthcare, recognizing underpaid domestic work, and boosting female leadership in politics and beyond.
Anam Parvez, head of research at Oxfam Great Britain, responded with alarm to the new UNDP report's key figures.
"This is truly alarming and explains why the world is completely off track in achieving gender equality by 2030," she told The Guardian. "In 2021, 1 in 5 women were married before they turn 18, 1.7 billion women and girls live on less than $5.50 a day, and women continue to take on three times as much unpaid care and domestic work as men around the world."
"At the current rate of progress it will take 186 years to close gaps in legal protections," Parvez pointed out. "It also explains why, while there has been some progress on enacting laws that advance women's rights, social norms continue to be deeply entrenched and pervasive."
The report says that "the gender-based biases we carry into voting booths, board meetings, interview panels, and assemblies present barriers to women's ability to fulfill their full potential. Policies to achieve comprehensive gender equality have to be designed and implemented to address biased gender social norms."
Raquel Lagunas, director of UNDP's Gender Team, explained that "an important place to start is recognizing the economic value of unpaid care work. This can be a very effective way of challenging gender norms around how care work is viewed."
"In countries with the highest levels of gender biases against women," Lagunas noted, "it is estimated that women spend over six times as much time as men on unpaid care work."
Pedro Conceição, head of UNDP’s Human Development Report Office, emphasized that "social norms that impair women's rights are also detrimental to society more broadly, dampening the expansion of human development."
"In fact, lack of progress on gender social norms is unfolding against a human development crisis: The global Human Development Index (HDI) declined in 2020 for the first time on record—and again the following year," he said. "Everyone stands to gain from ensuring freedom and agency for women."
The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bush, Pressley to Co-Chair New Congressional Equal Rights Amendment Caucus
"It has been 100 years since the Equal Rights Amendment was first drafted and introduced in Congress," noted Rep. Cori Bush. "That is far too long... and we refuse to wait any longer."
Mar 28, 2023
A coalition of Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Reps. Cori Bush and Ayanna Pressley on Tuesday announced the launch of a new caucus aimed at realizing the centurylong goal of adding an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
"It has been 100 years since the Equal Rights Amendment was first drafted and introduced in Congress, and more than a half century since both chambers passed it," Bush (D-Mo.) said in a statement announcing the founding of the Congressional Equal Rights Amendment Caucus. "That is far too long for women, Black and Brown folks, LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalized groups to wait for constitutional gender equality—and we refuse to wait any longer."
Pressley (D-Mass.) said: "I am proud to launch the ERA Caucus with my sister-in-service Congresswoman Bush to affirm the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, establish gender equality as a national priority, and center our most vulnerable and marginalized communities, who stand to benefit the most."
Caucus member Rep. Summer Lee (D-Penn.) said that "it's not shocking that when the Constitution was first drafted, women, Black, Brown, queer, and marginalized folks were intentionally written out. What is shocking is that in 2023, our Constitution still does not include equal rights regardless of sex—meaning our Constitution still does not reflect or protect all people."
"To the right-wing politicians and judges waging a full-on assault on the rights of women and queer youth, we're not afraid and we won't be silenced," Lee added. "We're organized and mobilized to make equal rights the law of the land."
After passing the House in 1971 and the Senate the following year, the ERA was submitted to the states for ratification. Congress set a March 1979 deadline for ratification; only 35 of the requisite 38 states approved the proposal by that time. Although the deadline was extended until 1982, no more states ratified the amendment and several state legislatures voted to rescind their ratifications.
A 21st-century effort to revive the ERA saw Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia approve the measure in recent years. Supporters say 38 states have now backed the ERA, although there is uncertainty over the expired deadlines and rescinded ratifications.
Pressley's office said that in addition to affirming the ERA, the new congressional caucus will "raise awareness in Congress to establish constitutional gender equality as a national priority; partner with an inclusive intergenerational, multiracial coalition of advocates, activists, scholars, organizers, and public figures; and center the people who stand to benefit the most from gender equality, including Black and Brown women, LGBTQ+ people, people seeking abortion care, and other marginalized groups."
In a Tuesday interview with The Hill, Pressley said she was "thinking a lot about my 14-year-old daughter, Cora, and how I do not want her to continue to live in a country in a world where we have so conflated and normalized the disparate treatment and outcomes and disparate access and the second-class status it is to be a woman in this society."
"I look forward to the day when calendars will say and on this day in history, the ERA caucus was established," she added, "but I really look forward to the day when our calendars will say on this day in history, the ERA was passed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Woman in the Presidency Is Simply Not Enough
Feb 19, 2016
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tried to issue a mea culpa in The New York Times last week for her recent remarks suggesting that women who are not planning to vote for her friend Hillary Clinton should be condemned to hell. Although it was "the wrong context and the wrong time to use that line," Albright wrote, "I so firmly believe that even today, women have an obligation to help one another."
She added:
The battle for gender equality is still being waged, and it will be easier if we have a woman who prioritizes these issues in the Oval Office and if the gender balance among elected officials reflects that of our country. When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits. They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or oppose.
Of course, the more women make decisions, the more likely it is that women-centered policies will emerge. However, having female politicians in office does not ensure that feminism, progressive values, or compassion are priorities. To assume so is sexist.
Women like Albright and Clinton--who have climbed the ladders of the political establishment--are to be strongly commended for the chauvinist barriers they have undoubtedly faced and overcome. But in breaking through the glass ceiling, they have conducted themselves first and foremost as skillful politicians rather than as progressive women.
Reading Albright's op-ed reminded me of Afghanistan, a different arena in which the same dynamic has played out.
Remember that the war in Afghanistan was supported by liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans alike. After a GOP president started the war, a Democratic president continued it. Rebuilding a post-Taliban Afghanistan that was friendly to women was touted as one of the outstanding post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy achievements--except that it didn't work. Today, Afghanistan is such a hostile place for women that they might as well be living under the Taliban, as the horrific fatal beating of a young woman by a mob showed last year.
In the aftermath of the Taliban's fall in 2001, women in Washington often spoke about rebuilding the country in a way that ensured that "women had a seat at the table." Indeed, this language has become so ubiquitous that it is now shorthand for women's equality and human rights. The image of a sizeable diplomatic roundtable bringing together all the "stakeholders" (another favored term)--armed warlords and Taliban as well as "women" (any women will do)--conjures up an idealistic vision of democracy and peace. It is a vision that has proved to be empty.
As Afghanistan demonstrated, any woman that the country's myriad fundamentalist armed commanders (most of whom have at some point been beneficiaries of U.S. largesse) would accept would be a woman who would not challenge their power. Clinton (along with Laura Bush) upheld such intellectually bankrupt notions of women's rights through her work with the U.S.-Afghan Women's Council. Educated and well-placed liberal Afghan women were trained to speak with the media and thrust into positions of power as placeholders to demonstrate that women's rights had been achieved. Yet it turns out that most Afghan women in the country's new parliament are "sisters and wives of warlords or tribal leaders chosen merely to fill the required quota of women."
One notable exception was Malalai Joya, the fiery young feminist activist who was legitimately elected to parliament by her community and who spoke out forcefully for women's rights and against domestic warlords and foreign occupiers. But Afghanistan's parliament wasn't designed for women like Joya. It was designed (by the U.S.) to achieve a superficial victory for democracy by showcasing the mere presence of women. Any feminist members of parliament who attempted to exercise their rights in the interests of all women--and ordinary Afghans in general--were excoriated, and her nemeses eventually kicked out Joya. You cannot simply seat women at a table full of armed woman-haters and magically produce democracy and justice.
The same sort of women in Washington, D.C.--including Clinton and Albright--want us to believe that placing a woman, specifically a woman who will not rock the boat, in the White House is a panacea for women's rights. Ordinary American women are expected to celebrate this as a victory, whether it impacts their lives positively and practically or not.
This is the type of identity politics that has long been favored by the U.S. liberal establishment precisely because it distracts us from the political demands of progressive and independent voters.
Eight years ago, we saw a similar dynamic play out in the election of Barack Obama. Most Americans voted for him, first and foremost, because he wasn't George W. Bush but also the ideal demographic alternative to Bush--a blank slate upon whom we could write our hopes and dreams. He could be anything to anybody, just about. The fact that he would be the first black president was the best part of it.
However, Obama was never the progressive candidate we imagined him to be, no matter how much we wanted it. Campaign adviser Anita Dunn, in a recent interview with Ezra Klein, said, "Obama had significant establishment support in his campaign, including from the traditional Democratic donor base." She added, "Obama promised change, not a revolution." Obama's former chief strategist David Axelrod told Klein, "Obama's was not an ideological campaign. There was a big difference in the war, but Obama was not the candidate of the left." Obama's nearly two full terms as president reveal how moderate and pragmatic his approach has been.
Clinton is banking on voters seeing her through a similar lens--as a candidate whose female gender will be enough to quell desires for change and distract the electorate from her Wall Street campaign donations, sizeable personal wealth, foreign policy disasters, and former board membership at Walmart.
Clinton wants voters to see her as a successful woman who has broken through the political glass ceiling and earned her credentials as commander-in-chief. Indeed, through the Clinton Foundation, the former secretary of state initiated a program called No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project, aimed at the "full and equal participation of women in political, civil, economic, social and cultural life." Such a program reflects a standard liberal feminist approach to women's rights that ignores the fact that all women need to have the floor raised to break through any ceilings. The full rights of women to food, water, shelter, education, employment, and health care are subservient to tokenism in political arenas that often keep people who are at the bottom well.
No one doubts that Clinton and Albright are brilliant, tough, and experienced women who are probably overqualified for their jobs compared to their male counterparts. However, none means anything to voters tired of prevailing conditions if their political values tend toward preserving the status quo. Feminism cannot be defined solely by helping the highest-achieving women get a "seat at the table."
While the problems that American women face are far smaller echoes of what Afghan women face, as Afghanistan's continued misogyny has shown, putting establishment women into positions of power only ensures one thing--that the establishment view will prevail. That is just as true in the U.S. as it is in Afghanistan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy