Showing posts with label gender equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender equality. Show all posts

31 May 2015

R.I.P. "Beau" Biden

Yesterday we lost one of our champions:  Joseph Robinette "Beau" Biden III lost his battle with brain cancer.

Two years ago, as the Attorney General of the State of Delaware, he joined Governor Jack Markell in supporting same-sex marriage legislation, which passed soon thereafter.  Thus did Delaware become the eleventh state--and the twelfth jurisdiction--in the US to legalize gay marriage.  

One month later, he urged state lawmakers to pass legislation that would establish legal protections based on gender identity.  Only fifteen days later, Governor Markell signed that bill into law.

So, within the space of just over two months, Biden managed to bring both same-sex marriage and gender equality to his state.  How many other public officials have such a record?

While his commitment to human rights was palpable, he's an example of how "an apple doesn't fall far from the tree".  If his last name looks familiar to you, it's because his father is Joe Biden--yes, that one, the Vice-President of the United States.  It was Biden pere who, in essence, cornered President Obama into supporting same-sex marriage, something he had opposed while campaigning for office.

 

03 May 2015

Now You Can Be A Mx.--In England, Anyway

I identify as a woman.  Any time I'm asked for a salutation, I use "Ms.", in part because the titles "Mrs." and "Miss" seem both inappropriate for me and simply troublesome.  For one thing, I don't think a woman's salutation should announce her marital status if a man's doesn't signal his. For another, since I'm not married--and, were I to marry, I probably wouldn't take on my spouse's name--"Mrs." simply wouldn't make any sense.  And somehow "Miss" doesn't seem right for a woman of my age.

(In France, women "of a certain age" are usually referred to as "Madame", whether or not they are married.  Female salutations are used in similar ways in other cultures; i.e., "senora" and "senorita" in Spanish-speaking countries, and "signora" and "signorita" in Italy.)

Having said those things, I believe that a person should have the right not to identify as male or female.  Such a person should be allowed to create another gender identity, or not to have a gender identity at all.

Interestingly, some other countries are, in effect, allowing that.  Four years ago, an Australian  who goes only by the name Norrie was issued papers that say "Sex Not Specified."  As I understand, a few other people have received such papers.

Now people in the UK can get drivers' licenses and other official documents on which their names are preceded by "Mx."--which is usually pronounced as "Mux"--instead of "Ms.", "Mrs.", "Miss",  "Mr.", "Dr.", "Lord" or "Lady".  Royal Mail, the country's major banks, government agencies and some universities are now also acepting this title.  It even appears in the drop-down boxes of some online job applications and other forms.

It will be interesting to see whether the title is adopted here in the US.  I am old enough to remember the uproar over "Ms." when it first appeared.  Some people actually thought it was the end of civilization when the New York Times started using it in their articles in the late 1970's.  If Americans start to use "Mx>", how long will it take the Times to allow it onto their hallowed pages?

I also have to wonder how or whether other cultures that don't have an equivalent of "Ms>" will deal with "Mx."

15 May 2014

Governor O"Malley Signs Legislation; Opponents Ready To Drag It Into The Bathroom

News flash:  Governor Martin O'Malley has just signed legislation that makes Maryland one of a handful of states to extend its anti-discrimination laws to protect transgender people.


As happy as I am to see this, I am also dismayed at a depressingly familiar spectacle that accompanies it:  Opponents are launching a petition to put the law up for a referendum in this November's election.  I'm not so upset that they're trying to repeal the law:  That, at least can be defeated relatively easily, especially in a state like Maryland, home to many LGBT lobbyists and others who work in the nation's capital.  What makes me say, "Oh, this shit again!" is that, once again, opponents are using the bathroom argument. 


I mean, really:  What man will dress up in women's clothes just so he can go into a women's restroom and bother the people using it.  If a man really wants to molest, harass or attack women, he will do so by other means and in other places.  And I have yet to hear of a male-to-female transgender who actually did something she shouldn't have been doing in women's facilities.


I haven't spent a lot of time in Maryland.  But from my brief stops and stays there, I get the impression that there are enough intelligent people in the Old Line State to shoot down such a ridiculous argument.  I take that back: It shouldn't even be dignified by calling it an argument.


Anyway, kudos to Governor O'Malley.  Too bad that this year marks the end of his second term.  Because of term limits, he can't run again in November. 

08 March 2014

It's Not "Just A Girl Thing"

In today's post, I will simply convey an open letter to men and boys from Dr. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Executive Director of UN Women.

Dear Men and Boys of the World,
When we fought against apartheid in South Africa, which the United Nations declared a crime against humanity, the whole world took a stand. All self-respecting people—leaders of nations, religious institutions, commerce and sports—crossed the line to be on the right side of history.
The unity and purpose of the people of the world played a major role in ushering in freedom for South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela, in whose cabinet I had the honor to serve. In Mandela, a force for good was unleashed, not just for South Africa but for all of humanity. He inspired those of us who worked with him, and countless millions around the world, to stand up for a just cause.
Now it is time to marshal the same conviction, energy and cooperation on behalf of the 3.6 billion women and girls in the world. You, the men of the 21st century, can make your mark by crossing the line united and joining women as a powerful force for gender equality. It is the right thing to do. In the words of Mandela, “for every moment we remain silent, we conspire against our women.”
This isn’t just a female cause. We have rising evidence that everyone, not just women, benefits from gender equality. Did you know that if women farmers had the same tools and fertilizer as men in agriculture, we would reduce hunger by up to 150 million people? Fortune 500 companies with the most women managers were found to deliver a 34 per cent higher return to shareholders. Discriminating against women comes at a cost to humanity and nations and denies women and girls their inalienable rights.
Yes, women are strong, bold, and brave, but men and boys also have a big role to play in ending gender inequality. It is both the right thing and the smart thing to do. It’s time to influence change in society. I know many of you desire a better world for women and girls and more than a few of you are actively working on bringing about positive changes. But there is much more to do. We need your action and your voices to be louder and to help us change some of the hardships women face.
More than 60 million girls worldwide are denied access to education. One in three women in the world is a victim of physical or sexual violence, the most humiliating and dehumanizing form of discrimination. Most of this violence happens at the hand of a partner or relative within her own home. Today two-thirds of the global illiterate population is women. If trends continue in this way, poor girls in Sub-Saharan Africa will not reach universal access to primary education until 2086.
These are your sisters, mothers, wives, partners, daughters, nieces, aunts, cousins and friends. They have hopes and beautiful dreams for themselves, their families, communities and the world. If many of their dreams were to come true, the world would be a much better place for all of humanity.
As we celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8th, I issue a call to men and boys and invite you to take action wherever you are and support the SHE Imperative, a new global initiative to bring women’s issues to the forefront and effectuate change through civil engagement, corporate commitment, and policy changes worldwide.
SHE has three key components: First, make sure SHE isSecure and Safe from gender-based violence. Second: Make sure SHE has her Human rights respected, including her reproductive rights. And third: Ensure that SHE has Economic Empowerment through Education, participation and leadership.
This sounds simple, doesn’t it? Yet if we applied this imperative, the world would be a very different and far better place. SHE would enjoy equal opportunity, access to education and no longer be the face of poverty, and her gender will not decide her status and place in society.
I invite you to join me and the women and men of the world who have led many long struggles for the gender equality. In Africa, we have a saying that I want to leave with you: ‘If you go alone you go fast, but if we go together, we go far’. Let us go far together.
You can find more about the SHE initiative and ways to help at www.heforshe.org.

25 February 2014

Women, Bikes And Equality

Yesterday I wrote about a rather curious phenomenon:  the cities and countries with the strongest cycling cultures aren't necessarily the ones with weather and terrain most people believe are best for cycling.  As examples, I cited Boston, New York, San Francisco and Portland in the US and such European locales as Amsterdam and Copenhagen.

Last week, I wrote about the relationship between the two major bike booms (1890s-early 1900s and 1970s) and the women's rights movements of those periods.



From Brain Pickings



Perhaps it's serendipitous that I came across a United Nations Development Programme Report which ranked countries, among other things, in gender equality. Tell me whether you are surprised to see these countries in the Top 10 (as of 2012): 

1. Netherlands 
2. Sweden 
3. (tie) Denmark 
3. (tie) Switzerland 
5. Norway 
6. Finland 
7. Germany 
8. Slovenia 
9. France 
10.Iceland.

After seeing that, I did a bit of research. (OK, I spent a few minutes on Google.) I found a number of reports that rank Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Boston, New York, Washington DC and Madison, Wisconsin among the best US cities for gender equality.

Is it a coincidence that the countries and cities in which cycling and cyclists are most mainstream are also the ones where a woman has the best chance to get a good education, paid what she's worth and the health care she needs?

Just askin'.

31 August 2013

Rights Are Not Mandates; Geography Is Not Destiny

Here in New York, many people--particularly among those with whom I have worked and otherwise spent a lot of time--attribute progressiveness or backwardness to geography.  When they hear about hate crimes and oppressive laws, they are quick to dismiss them as vices of people who live south of the Potomac and between the Appalachians and Rockies.  Some think that the line between civilization and barbarism is the Hudson River.

I'll admit that I've fallen into that sort of (non)thinking from time to time.  However, today I came across an article that makes an extremely intelligent and informed observation of gender rights and equality.

The piece in question comes from the Battle Creek Enquirer.  Now, the first thing I think of when someone mentions Battle Creek is the Corn Flakes I ate yesterday morning or the Rice Krispies the morning before that:  The Michigan town, of course, has long been the headquarters of Kellogg's cereals.

(In case you're interested:  I ate both cereals with fresh blueberries.)

The article appeared in commemoration of Women's Equality Day, which came last Monday.  Ninety-three years earlier, on that date, the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, passed.  The writer of the article, Bill Schroer, noted an interesting irony:  The day before WED was Go Topless Day.

Well, it's an irony to folks like me who would never, ever set foot in Hooter's (or, at least, would never admit to doing such a thing).  But, Mr. Schroer doesn't see it that way.  After all, he says, if men can take off their shirts on hot days, why shouldn't women have the same right?  As he points out, it's done all the time on beaches and in parks in Europe.  And in New York, the State Supreme Court affirmed that it's unconstitutional to require women to wear tops where they're not required of men.  Judges in Ohio and in some places in Canada have come to similar conclusions.

The arguments against women going topless (In most states, it's still illegal for women to publicly breast-feed; in other places, it generates bewildered or hostile stares.) have been, as Schroer points out, couched in morality, or someone's idea of it.  The same was true for men taking off their shirts:  Until the 1930's, it was illegal for them to do so almost everywhere in the US.  The sight of a man's nipples was believed to be ungodly; the same pseudo-religious prohibition still binds women in most parts of this country.

As Schroer so astutely explains, a right is not the same as a mandate.  No one is requiring women to go topless; he and others are simply calling for the right to do so.  Most of us have rights we never exercise; for many women, going topless could be one.  

That is the very essence of an equality movement:  People gaining the rights that other people have.  For example, whenever a suffix is called for, I use Ms.  That is not required of me; I could just as easily use "Miss" and, if I were married, "Mrs."  Many women I know--some younger than I am--continue to use those titles; I use "Ms." out of personal preference and because, I'll admit, it's a bit more socially acceptable among educators, artists and other people around whom I spend much of my time.

Likewise, I often wear skirts and dresses out of choice.  Had I been a biological cisgender female born twenty, or even ten, years earlier than I was, I would have been required to wear such garments to school and, most likely, on whatever job I worked.  In fact, depending on where I lived, I might have been required to wear them any time I ventured outside the confines of my living space.  But now I have the choice to expose my legs (which, many people have told me, are nice) on warm days, or to cover them in trousers when the weather is colder or on other occasions when I can't go bare-legged but don't want to deal with pantyhose or tights.

Sartorial selections may seem like relatively small matters. But, as Bill Schroer points out, they are emblematic of the state of gender equality, or lack thereof.  Leave it to a man from Michigan to understand that.  

Then again, I shouldn't be surprised that someone from the Great Lakes State should have such an understanding of human rights.  After all, New York is third among all states (trailing only Texas and Virginia) in the number of recorded executions.  On the other hand, in 1846, less than a decade after Michigan became a US State, its Legislature became the first English-speaking government in the world to abolish capital punishment.  That law has never been repealed; to this day, Michigan is one of the few states never to have executed anyone from the day it was admitted to the Union.