Member to Member

FAWCO IWHHR Group
8 February 2015
Week 1 Discussion

Participants:
Yolanda Henry (Canadian who winters in America)
Juliet Cutler (American currently living in The Netherlands)
Johanna Dishongh (American currently living in The Netherlands)
Mary Adams (American currently living in The Netherlands)

Introductions
The profiles of the participants ranged from active and long-term involvement in community projects in Cambodia (Tabitha – wells) and Tanzania (Masai - Secondary Schools) to organized FAWCO/NGO and United Nations activist to newcomer. A key motivational factor in taking the course was personal research to better understand issues with women’s rights, existing conventions and treaties and learn how to help positive rights for women move forward.

The group began with describing one new idea or fact gleaned from Week 1. Here are the responses:
Fact: Countries sign conventions and treaties with no intention of carrying through with women’s rights. Do they believe in it?
Idea: Changing my point of reference from developmental improvements to a human rights perspective.
Fact: Gender Lens
Idea: “Human rights do not exist. They are a political idea.”

Discussion 1: Can human rights norms be broadly adopted and/or enforced? Consider them at the local, national, and international levels. If your answer is “yes,” how can they be given reality? Who are involved and what are some of the challenges?

The summary of this discussion is the agreement that significant change for human rights for women in health is a long-term project that should be proven and measured through generational applications. A simultaneous and broad adoption/enforcement of the entire program is like swallowing an elephant. All of the levels (local, national, international) must be involved because change acts as a wild card that can act as a catalyst at any level.

Local Level: The readings, videos, book and group member’s real-life experience support that sustainable change must originate from within a culture. At this level, change sources can be unpredictable based on community need: women’s groups, NGOs, activists, victims and even men. Julie shared a startling example of change from Masai tradition culture, which limited girls’ access to school. After boys who were educated returned to their village, they were unable to find suitable mates because the village women were uneducated. So the men married outside the village. When they had daughters, they made decisions to send their daughters to school. Other examples were cited from Half the Sky (Kristof and Dunn) and class case studies of women’s groups.

National Level: National level means the introduction of legal frameworks and policies to enforce women rights. The power of a common human rights language is a critical success factor. Johanna commented that conventions and treaty is a double-edged sword: a powerful framework for women’s rights but also full of political doublespeak language. Communication between local and national levels is a critical success factor. Julie pointed out a conundrum: human rights laws and policies may be based on knowledge and merit at the national level – but there is a dysfunctional disconnect with the local level. Are local illiterate people even aware that such laws exist to protect them? If so, does their culture accept change? Yolanda commented that women struggling in poverty with a focus on survival rarely accept change. Mary brought up the issue of difficulty in collecting diverse data and validating national statistics. Political propaganda plays a role: for example, countries who have enacted voting rights for women fail to inform the public that men make the voting decisions for their wives. The group agreed that the parallel reports to the United Nations filed by NGOs are an important check and balance element.

International Level: The group agreed that the international level is the most complex layer. World political climate and peer pressure for nations to sign conventions and treaties does not lead to ratification, adoption and enforcement. Johanna reminded us that it wasn’t until 1993 that rape was considered by the United States National Security to be a weapon of war. A key barrier of international level is the national governments. For example, the U.S. denial of any global spend on abortion is a clear violation of human rights that cannot be remedied within the current international framework based on national sovereignty.
In discussing the way forward, Mary commented that monetary and prestigious awards from world organizations could be stepping-stones for global change. She mentioned the awarding of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai for her struggles against the suppression of children and young people to the right of education.
Discussion 2: Discuss the CEDAW treaty. How does it pertain to your country? Has your country ratified CEDAW and/or has it placed any reservations on the treaty? Why do you think it has placed reservations?

Yolanda commented that Canada had signed and ratified the treaty. Human rights are protected by federal, provincial and territorial laws; however, discrimination still exists. 

Johanna attended the United Nations meeting in Geneva in 2014, when the vote came through that the U.S. declined to ratify CEDAW. The primary hurdle cited was “lack of political will.” In other words, human rights for women held no prominent place on the political agenda. Mary reviewed the U.S. CEDAW reservations and the group confirmed they consisted of political rhetoric. In the same sentence, the reservations state commitment and support of the Platform for Action and continue with language that limits its enforcement. i.e. “undertake a meaningful implementation of the Platform of Action’s overall recommendations but not specific commitment to each element.” The group considered these reservations legalese wiggle room for non-compliancy. Johanna questioned the group if we felt that a viable reason for declining to ratify CEDAW was because the U.S. legal system policy adequately covers human rights for women. The group couldn’t confirm that this wasn’t true, but the overall feeling was that if such laws are enacted, they are enforced as negative (civil) rights. Of more concern is that the U.S. failure to ratify CEDAW has a negative impact/influence on women rights’ lobbyists in other countries – if the U.S. as a world power doesn’t ratify CEDAW, why should their nation?
Since FAWCO (Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas) has NGO status and is a United Nation advisor on human rights for women, we took a next step to contact active FAWCO members about CEDAW to learn more about the hurdles and how to be part of positive change.
Discussion 3: Consider your own country and women’s rights. What is the condition of negative (civil) rights in your country? What about positive (socio-economic) rights?
This discussion was based on women rights in the United States. The U.S. law operates on paradox. With rights assigned in the Declaration of Independence, 50 individual states (with governing laws per state) and federal government law, it can appear that the concept of social justice is in place – perhaps starting with Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court – but is it really? Johanna stated the currently women are under-represented in Congress and media – even though women represent half the U.S. population. The group reflected on the success of countries (Rwanda) that had put a quota of the number of women in Parliament. One by one, each of us admitted that we would not run for political office in America. Why? The U.S. media scrutiny of private life and the expectation of “purity” and “family values” that originates in powerful political parties to suppress women’s rights. The risk of public exposure on private matters was too great. The media focus on sensationalism. Could it be that the U.S. media is now a tool for lobbyists agendas and no longer a check & balance on government? Johanna asked another key question: Why are there not more women in civil servant roles? The group responded because these were dead-end bureaucratic jobs of no politic influence.
In the workplace, the gender lens of male preference and power is still firmly in place. Johanna and Yolanda commented on wage discrimination. Johanna mentioned that her during her work in Human Resources with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, discrimination was very difficult to prove and the “good ole boy” network was clearly in charge. It was also discussed that sexual harassment was still a major workplace problem.
In the community, we noticed that America has moved more and more inside the either/or categorization paradigm that assigns lower value based on religion, skin color and gender. In the home, American society promotes an unrealistic view of the “ideal” women that gives messages to girls that harms self-confidence. Since the 1970’s, “Cosmo Girl” can have it ALL (goddess-like beauty, high-paying job, loving spouse, great sex and health) and have it all NOW. It is an impossible goal to attain. It associates glamor and high pay with success and confirms the strength of the socio-economic pecking order in the United States. This fosters the goals of economic and developmental as success factors rather than attaining human rights.