I’m late to the table with this one, but in case you haven’t seen it (as I hadn’t til last week!) I bring you “The Girl Effect” — an amazing video. Pass it on!
Global
We’re back to regale with tales of research from the international hinterland. The global economic crisis has been making front-page news for weeks now. And while we’ve heard lots about the bankers and the automakers, the gendered impacts of these shifts, especially internationally, are little reported. This week, we take a look at these impacts in the context of the phenomena of remittances.
Remittance is a big word that describes a simple concept critical to the economic viability of many countries. The term ‘remittance’ refers to the transfer of money from one country to the other by immigrant (or migrant) workers who leave their home country (usually in the Global South) to work in a higher-paid arena (usually in the Global North). Although difficult to exactly measure, remittances now account for the second largest source of external funding for developing countries. The Migration and Remittances Team at the World Bank estimates that flows to developing countries will reach $238 billion in 2008. Interestingly, with the rapid economic development of some developing countries, especially the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the flow of remittances is increasingly between developing countries. Information from the US Census Bureau shows that remittances between developing countries was 17% in 2008.
Why is this important to women? Remittances are a direct product of migration, one of the most highly gendered social processes. According to UNFPA, in 2006 95 million migrants were women, approximately half of all international migrants worldwide. Whether women are being left behind with the children, making decisions on how to spend the money that men (or children or other family members) send from abroad, or whether they leave behind children with extended family members in the hopes that they can create better lives for themselves and their families from a distance, women are at the maelstrom of movement.
UN-INSTRAW has been working on a fantastic project on Gender and Remittances since 2003. So far, they have looked at the patterns of migration and remittances by women between the Dominican Republic and Spain and the US, the Philippines and Italy, Guatemala and the US, Columbia and Morocco and Spain, SADC and Lesotho and South Africa, Albania and Greece, and Senegal and France. Key concerns of these projects are not only the recognition of the shear number of women migrants and the amount of money being sent back, but these monetary flows are then gendered both at the household and community level. In many countries, community development projects have been started with remittance money. INSTRAW, and others using a gender perspective, seeks to ensure that such money benefits both men and women, as well as is inclusive of issues specific to age, sexuality, race, ethnicity and religion.
Why does the gendered nature of remittance patterns matter in the context of the current global economic crisis? Well, according to The Economist, “plunging commodity prices and reduced foreign demand will hurt quite a few African economies; foreign investment, remittances and foreign aid will all shrink.†However, in spite of much doom and gloom in the current financial forecast, there is hope.
Remittances are one of the least volatile sources of foreign exchange in developing countries. They may slow but they never stop. They will continue as long as migration continues. Not only are they sometimes the sole source of income for many families – they are often seed funds for entrepreneurs. Two amazing young women from Mexico recognize the importance and the effect of remittances in their communities and have mobilized women in the community and the diaspora to exploit the full potential of these funds, as well as to ensure that the funds are used in a way that benefits both men and women.
GWP’s Gwendolyn Beetham (coauthor with Tonni Brodber of our Global Exchange column) attended the Association for Women in Development Forum this month, in Cape Town. Here’s her report. And do note the contrast between Gwen’s sentiment and the findings of the Daily Beast report this week. Feminism, alive and well. Not dead. Copy that, America? -Deborah
November 20, 2008
I just got back from Cape Town, South Africa, where I was lucky enough to attend the 2008 AWID Forum, aptly titled The Power of Movements. While networking, learning and listening to fabulous feminists from around the world, I was inspired, moved, and most of all energized by the power of feminists! Do check out the website, they are in the process of posting summaries of the panel discussions, as well as videos and photos from the conference. I’ve listed some personal highlights below.
One of my favorite videos was done by the Young Women’s Caucus, younger feminists who also went around the conference passing around pink scarves to conference-goers to symbolize intergenerational collaboration among feminists and asking people how they define feminism. Although the video isn’t available online yet, I can tell you that many participants said that feminism is a way of life – love it! For more on young feminist action at the conference, you can check out the Young Feminists at the AWID Forum blog, as well as AWID’s Feminist Tech Exchange (I must admit however, that some of the comments from the younger feminists really saddened me – it seems as if much of the “intergenerational†discussion hasn’t changed much from the point where it was five years ago when I was heavily involved in the young feminist movement here in the States.)
One of the best panels that I attended was hosted by the Third Wave Foundation, Ms. Foundation, and the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, along with some of their partner organizations. During the discussion, Rickke Mananzala, of the NYC-based organization Fierce, raised a really important point on the success of Prop 8 in California and similar bills in Arkansas and Florida. He suggested that not only do these victories (for the right) point to the amount of funding that went into the promotion of these bills, but to the lack of an intersectional perspective in our own social justice movements. Makes me wonder what would have happened if youth organizations, children’s organizations and LGBT organizations would have come together to oppose the ban on unmarried couples adopting in Arkansas, or if organizations working for people of color and other marginalized groups would have come together to oppose Prop 8 in California. Don’t get me wrong, I know a lot of great organizations (including Fierce!) who do a great job of working collaboratively. But I do think that may organizations – especially those in the women’s movement, with which I’m most familiar – have really had problems incorporating both perspectives and actions which truly recognize the intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, religion and age.
I would be happy to chat with folks in comments about the rest of the conference. And kudos to AWID for organizing such an amazing event!
And stay tuned for next week, when Tonni & I resume our Global Exchange. This time we’ll be talking about the impact of the global financial crisis on women internationally. Stay tuned!
And, yes, given the economic meltdown, for everyone’s no doubt. But here are a few items that caught my eye:
In technology…
According to an article in Saturday’s New York Times, women are veering away from computer science in droves. The stat:
- Twenty-five years ago, more young women in colleges and universities were drawn to computer science than today.
What up? Read the article, and do check out the amazing work that GWP’s own Science Grrl is doing on this front. Paging Science Grrl!
And at Citibank…
In case you missed it, check out the article on how the chaos on Wall Street has cost Sallie L. Krawcheck’s career, cutesily titled “When Citi Lost Sallie.” (Thanks to Purse Pundit for the heads up).
And in Afghanistan, a horrible blow for girls’ education. This whole thing about the acid attacks on school girls in Kandahar makes me just weep.
Sorry to be a downer today. I’ll be back with more cheery news, I hope, soon.
Following their extremely informative column (anybody who hasn’t read it yet should go back and read!) from last week on how McCain and Obama rank on the international women’s issues scale, here’s a follow-up from Tonni and Gwen just a day before the election. Hoping for a fantastic tomorrow. –Kristen
Hi folks. Tonni & I wanted to share a quote from you as a follow-up to our Global Exchange: Election Special.
The amazing Debra Schultz, Acting Director of the Gender Program at the International Center for Transitional Justice (and proud NCRW alumna), shared her insights on the coming election with us:
“McCain and Palin are likely to continue U.S. unilateralism in foreign policy, which can only impact women negatively. Why? Prolonged US involvement in Iraq, possible confrontation with Iran and instability in Pakistan (how easily the assassination of Benazir Bhutto seems forgotten), will disproportionately affect women and children. In an economic downturn, bloated military budgets will siphon funds needed to provide for social welfare priorities at home, such as healthcare reform and education reform.
A US multilateralist approach under Obama would likely benefit gender justice worldwide.
If the US ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the international community could hold states and non-state actors accountable for war rape including the massive epidemic of sexual violence in the eastern Congo.”
Thank you, Debra, and Happy Election Eve to all!
–Gwen and Tonni
It’s hard to believe that election day is now less than a week away. The Economists’ Policy for Women’s Issues has graded the candidates nationally, but here with a special (and first!) edition of Global Exchange, Gwen and Tonni will be grading each candidate on their work in international issues that affect women. We are absolutely thrilled to have them address a topic that has been egregiously overlooked in this election. –Kristen
In just a few days the citizens of the United States of America will cast their ballots and determine their President, the future leader of the Free World (and really anything he so chooses). Today we consider what both candidates’ positions on reproductive health, international trade, the conflict in Darfur, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean for women internationally.
Toni Ann Brodber: Not too long ago I found myself explaining to a newly baptized American friend of mine why we foreigners watch every 4 years with bated breath as the American public decides our collective fate. Your policy often becomes our policy whether we like it or not. Some of us know this first hand. Frankly many of us faced near asphyxiation as a result of recent US policy decisions. Now, by the time we’ve learned how to breathe with barely any air there’s hope…and the cycle begins again.
Gwendolyn Beetham: I don’t know how many of my friends (including, you, Tonni!) from around the world have told me that they wish they could vote in this year’s election, not least because White House policies very much affect women around the world.
TB: No pressure.
With the current economic crisis, what the next president’s foreign policies will mean for women isn’t grabbing any headlines. There has been some coverage of how the candidate’s different policies will affect US women, but, like our friends at the Center for New Words, we’re of the opinion that there just hasn’t been enough. So, we’ve done the research for you. We’ve looked at how the candidates’ foreign policy positions will affect women globally, and have taken it one step further by grading the campaigns. Our findings may (or may not)surprise you.
Reproductive Health
The Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was a Reagan-era policy that made it possible to deny U.S. funding to organizations that that “provide abortion services or counsel, refer, or lobby on abortionâ€. One of George W. Bush’s first official acts in office was to reinstate this policy, which had been repealed during the Clinton Administration. This rule led to the scaling back of reproductive health programs in approximately 56 countries around the world, which, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, “imperils women’s health and lives both in countries where abortion is legal, as well as where it is illegal.†Reports on the impact of the Gag Rule on women’s lives point to a shortage of contraceptives, clinic closings, loss of funds for HIV/AIDS education, and a rise in unsafe abortions in countries where the rule has been implemented.
According to a survey conducted by RH Reality Check in December 2007, Obama plans to overturn the Global Gag Rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA. McCain supports the Global Gag Rule and voted against repealing it in 2005. He has not addressed UNFPA directly, but, when asked in a town hall in Iowa whether he believed that contraceptives stopped the spread of HIV, McCain responded, “You’ve stumped me.â€
Grade:
Obama/Biden: A
McCain/Palin: D-
Comments:
For the past seven years, the Bush Administration has also stopped funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), claiming that it “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” UNFPA’s office in China as an example of such support, despite the fact that a U.S. fact-finding mission to China found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilizationâ€. More recently, USAID discontinued funding to Marie Stopes International (MSI) in several African countries due to the organization’s ties to UNFPA in China. (Curiously, such moral objections don’t seem to stop the government from letting China buy up much of the U.S.’s debt.) According to UNFPA, the $34 million in funding that the U.S. would give annual could prevent:
2 million unwanted pregnancies;
nearly 800,000 induced abortions;
4,700 maternal deaths;
nearly 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness;
over 77,000 infant and child deaths.
For more policies and grades, click to go past the jump!
Amnesty International has reported that an American-Iranian student (she holds both American and Iranian nationality) has been arrested in Iran while doing work on the Iranian women’s movement for her Master’s thesis. Amnesty reports
Esha Momeni, a student and women’s rights defender, was arrested by Iranian security officials on 15 October. She is being held in Section 209 of Evin Prison in Tehran, which is run by the Ministry of Intelligence. She has not been charged with any offense, and is at risk of torture or other ill-treatment.
Esha Momeni is a graduate student at California State University, Northridge, in the USA. She is also a member of a branch of the Campaign for Equality in California. She had been in Iran for two months to visit her family and to conduct research for her Master’s degree thesis on the Iranian women’s movement, for which she had conducted video interviews with members of the Campaign for Equality in Tehran.
More information on Esha Momeni as well as addresses to write letters to protesting her detainment can be found here and in an article at the Chronicle.
Other ways to help (thanks to Sharon Collingwood for sending these out to the Women’s Studies List):
There is an online petition here.
The American Islamic Congress also has a petition.
The World Organization Website has more on the story.
This activist site has a video that could be useful in the classroom (1:46 in length).
There is a student group on Facebook.
Hey all, I am completely excited to announce that GWP will be going global with a new column from Gwen and Tonni called Global Exchange. Global Exchange will be appearing the last Wednesday of every month. Here’s an intro from the authors so you know what to expect. — Kristen
Hi everyone. Tonni and I wanted to introduce ourselves and our monthly segment, Global Exchange, which will normally appear every 4th Wednesday. Since we’re in the last days of the election, however, and this month we get an extra Wednesday, we’ve decided to hold off until next week, when we will offer an election special. We agree with Ruth Rosen and the folks over at the Center for New Words: there just hasn’t been enough focus on women in this year’s election. And, from our perspective, this is especially so when it comes to foreign policy. Both candidates talk about the war in Iraq – but how is it affecting women – both U.S. vets and Iraqi civilians? Both candidates talk about health care at home. But what are the candidates’ positions on the ‘Global Gag Rule’ – the policy that prevented thousands of women from accessing U.S. funded health programs worldwide? Senator Obama opposes CAFTA– what will this mean for women? So stay tuned… next week Global Exchange will bring you our assessment of how the foreign policy proposals of both candidates will affect women around the world.
We’re back to regale with tales of research from the international hinterland. The global economic crisis has been making front-page news for weeks now. And while we’ve heard lots about the bankers and the automakers, the gendered impacts of these shifts, especially internationally, are little reported. This week, we take a look at these impacts in the context of the phenomena of remittances.
Remittance is a big word that describes a simple concept critical to the economic viability of many countries. The term ‘remittance’ refers to the transfer of money from one country to the other by immigrant (or migrant) workers who leave their home country (usually in the Global South) to work in a higher-paid arena (usually in the Global North). Although difficult to exactly measure, remittances now account for the second largest source of external funding for developing countries. The Migration and Remittances Team at the World Bank estimates that flows to developing countries will reach $238 billion in 2008. Interestingly, with the rapid economic development of some developing countries, especially the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the flow of remittances is increasingly between developing countries. Information from the US Census Bureau shows that remittances between developing countries was 17% in 2008.
Why is this important to women? Remittances are a direct product of migration, one of the most highly gendered social processes. According to UNFPA, in 2006 95 million migrants were women, approximately half of all international migrants worldwide. Whether women are being left behind with the children, making decisions on how to spend the money that men (or children or other family members) send from abroad, or whether they leave behind children with extended family members in the hopes that they can create better lives for themselves and their families from a distance, women are at the maelstrom of movement.
UN-INSTRAW has been working on a fantastic project on Gender and Remittances since 2003. So far, they have looked at the patterns of migration and remittances by women between the Dominican Republic and Spain and the US, the Philippines and Italy, Guatemala and the US, Columbia and Morocco and Spain, SADC and Lesotho and South Africa, Albania and Greece, and Senegal and France. Key concerns of these projects are not only the recognition of the shear number of women migrants and the amount of money being sent back, but these monetary flows are then gendered both at the household and community level. In many countries, community development projects have been started with remittance money. INSTRAW, and others using a gender perspective, seeks to ensure that such money benefits both men and women, as well as is inclusive of issues specific to age, sexuality, race, ethnicity and religion.
Why does the gendered nature of remittance patterns matter in the context of the current global economic crisis? Well, according to The Economist, “plunging commodity prices and reduced foreign demand will hurt quite a few African economies; foreign investment, remittances and foreign aid will all shrink.†However, in spite of much doom and gloom in the current financial forecast, there is hope.
Remittances are one of the least volatile sources of foreign exchange in developing countries. They may slow but they never stop. They will continue as long as migration continues. Not only are they sometimes the sole source of income for many families – they are often seed funds for entrepreneurs. Two amazing young women from Mexico recognize the importance and the effect of remittances in their communities and have mobilized women in the community and the diaspora to exploit the full potential of these funds, as well as to ensure that the funds are used in a way that benefits both men and women.
GWP’s Gwendolyn Beetham (coauthor with Tonni Brodber of our Global Exchange column) attended the Association for Women in Development Forum this month, in Cape Town. Here’s her report. And do note the contrast between Gwen’s sentiment and the findings of the Daily Beast report this week. Feminism, alive and well. Not dead. Copy that, America? -Deborah
November 20, 2008
I just got back from Cape Town, South Africa, where I was lucky enough to attend the 2008 AWID Forum, aptly titled The Power of Movements. While networking, learning and listening to fabulous feminists from around the world, I was inspired, moved, and most of all energized by the power of feminists! Do check out the website, they are in the process of posting summaries of the panel discussions, as well as videos and photos from the conference. I’ve listed some personal highlights below.
One of my favorite videos was done by the Young Women’s Caucus, younger feminists who also went around the conference passing around pink scarves to conference-goers to symbolize intergenerational collaboration among feminists and asking people how they define feminism. Although the video isn’t available online yet, I can tell you that many participants said that feminism is a way of life – love it! For more on young feminist action at the conference, you can check out the Young Feminists at the AWID Forum blog, as well as AWID’s Feminist Tech Exchange (I must admit however, that some of the comments from the younger feminists really saddened me – it seems as if much of the “intergenerational†discussion hasn’t changed much from the point where it was five years ago when I was heavily involved in the young feminist movement here in the States.)
One of the best panels that I attended was hosted by the Third Wave Foundation, Ms. Foundation, and the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, along with some of their partner organizations. During the discussion, Rickke Mananzala, of the NYC-based organization Fierce, raised a really important point on the success of Prop 8 in California and similar bills in Arkansas and Florida. He suggested that not only do these victories (for the right) point to the amount of funding that went into the promotion of these bills, but to the lack of an intersectional perspective in our own social justice movements. Makes me wonder what would have happened if youth organizations, children’s organizations and LGBT organizations would have come together to oppose the ban on unmarried couples adopting in Arkansas, or if organizations working for people of color and other marginalized groups would have come together to oppose Prop 8 in California. Don’t get me wrong, I know a lot of great organizations (including Fierce!) who do a great job of working collaboratively. But I do think that may organizations – especially those in the women’s movement, with which I’m most familiar – have really had problems incorporating both perspectives and actions which truly recognize the intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, religion and age.
I would be happy to chat with folks in comments about the rest of the conference. And kudos to AWID for organizing such an amazing event!
And stay tuned for next week, when Tonni & I resume our Global Exchange. This time we’ll be talking about the impact of the global financial crisis on women internationally. Stay tuned!
And, yes, given the economic meltdown, for everyone’s no doubt. But here are a few items that caught my eye:
In technology…
According to an article in Saturday’s New York Times, women are veering away from computer science in droves. The stat:
- Twenty-five years ago, more young women in colleges and universities were drawn to computer science than today.
What up? Read the article, and do check out the amazing work that GWP’s own Science Grrl is doing on this front. Paging Science Grrl!
And at Citibank…
In case you missed it, check out the article on how the chaos on Wall Street has cost Sallie L. Krawcheck’s career, cutesily titled “When Citi Lost Sallie.” (Thanks to Purse Pundit for the heads up).
And in Afghanistan, a horrible blow for girls’ education. This whole thing about the acid attacks on school girls in Kandahar makes me just weep.
Sorry to be a downer today. I’ll be back with more cheery news, I hope, soon.
Following their extremely informative column (anybody who hasn’t read it yet should go back and read!) from last week on how McCain and Obama rank on the international women’s issues scale, here’s a follow-up from Tonni and Gwen just a day before the election. Hoping for a fantastic tomorrow. –Kristen
Hi folks. Tonni & I wanted to share a quote from you as a follow-up to our Global Exchange: Election Special.
The amazing Debra Schultz, Acting Director of the Gender Program at the International Center for Transitional Justice (and proud NCRW alumna), shared her insights on the coming election with us:
“McCain and Palin are likely to continue U.S. unilateralism in foreign policy, which can only impact women negatively. Why? Prolonged US involvement in Iraq, possible confrontation with Iran and instability in Pakistan (how easily the assassination of Benazir Bhutto seems forgotten), will disproportionately affect women and children. In an economic downturn, bloated military budgets will siphon funds needed to provide for social welfare priorities at home, such as healthcare reform and education reform.
A US multilateralist approach under Obama would likely benefit gender justice worldwide.
If the US ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the international community could hold states and non-state actors accountable for war rape including the massive epidemic of sexual violence in the eastern Congo.”
Thank you, Debra, and Happy Election Eve to all!
–Gwen and Tonni
It’s hard to believe that election day is now less than a week away. The Economists’ Policy for Women’s Issues has graded the candidates nationally, but here with a special (and first!) edition of Global Exchange, Gwen and Tonni will be grading each candidate on their work in international issues that affect women. We are absolutely thrilled to have them address a topic that has been egregiously overlooked in this election. –Kristen
In just a few days the citizens of the United States of America will cast their ballots and determine their President, the future leader of the Free World (and really anything he so chooses). Today we consider what both candidates’ positions on reproductive health, international trade, the conflict in Darfur, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean for women internationally.
Toni Ann Brodber: Not too long ago I found myself explaining to a newly baptized American friend of mine why we foreigners watch every 4 years with bated breath as the American public decides our collective fate. Your policy often becomes our policy whether we like it or not. Some of us know this first hand. Frankly many of us faced near asphyxiation as a result of recent US policy decisions. Now, by the time we’ve learned how to breathe with barely any air there’s hope…and the cycle begins again.
Gwendolyn Beetham: I don’t know how many of my friends (including, you, Tonni!) from around the world have told me that they wish they could vote in this year’s election, not least because White House policies very much affect women around the world.
TB: No pressure.
With the current economic crisis, what the next president’s foreign policies will mean for women isn’t grabbing any headlines. There has been some coverage of how the candidate’s different policies will affect US women, but, like our friends at the Center for New Words, we’re of the opinion that there just hasn’t been enough. So, we’ve done the research for you. We’ve looked at how the candidates’ foreign policy positions will affect women globally, and have taken it one step further by grading the campaigns. Our findings may (or may not)surprise you.
Reproductive Health
The Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was a Reagan-era policy that made it possible to deny U.S. funding to organizations that that “provide abortion services or counsel, refer, or lobby on abortionâ€. One of George W. Bush’s first official acts in office was to reinstate this policy, which had been repealed during the Clinton Administration. This rule led to the scaling back of reproductive health programs in approximately 56 countries around the world, which, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, “imperils women’s health and lives both in countries where abortion is legal, as well as where it is illegal.†Reports on the impact of the Gag Rule on women’s lives point to a shortage of contraceptives, clinic closings, loss of funds for HIV/AIDS education, and a rise in unsafe abortions in countries where the rule has been implemented.
According to a survey conducted by RH Reality Check in December 2007, Obama plans to overturn the Global Gag Rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA. McCain supports the Global Gag Rule and voted against repealing it in 2005. He has not addressed UNFPA directly, but, when asked in a town hall in Iowa whether he believed that contraceptives stopped the spread of HIV, McCain responded, “You’ve stumped me.â€
Grade:
Obama/Biden: A
McCain/Palin: D-
Comments:
For the past seven years, the Bush Administration has also stopped funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), claiming that it “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” UNFPA’s office in China as an example of such support, despite the fact that a U.S. fact-finding mission to China found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilizationâ€. More recently, USAID discontinued funding to Marie Stopes International (MSI) in several African countries due to the organization’s ties to UNFPA in China. (Curiously, such moral objections don’t seem to stop the government from letting China buy up much of the U.S.’s debt.) According to UNFPA, the $34 million in funding that the U.S. would give annual could prevent:
- 2 million unwanted pregnancies;
nearly 800,000 induced abortions;
4,700 maternal deaths;
nearly 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness;
over 77,000 infant and child deaths.
For more policies and grades, click to go past the jump!
Amnesty International has reported that an American-Iranian student (she holds both American and Iranian nationality) has been arrested in Iran while doing work on the Iranian women’s movement for her Master’s thesis. Amnesty reports
Esha Momeni, a student and women’s rights defender, was arrested by Iranian security officials on 15 October. She is being held in Section 209 of Evin Prison in Tehran, which is run by the Ministry of Intelligence. She has not been charged with any offense, and is at risk of torture or other ill-treatment.
Esha Momeni is a graduate student at California State University, Northridge, in the USA. She is also a member of a branch of the Campaign for Equality in California. She had been in Iran for two months to visit her family and to conduct research for her Master’s degree thesis on the Iranian women’s movement, for which she had conducted video interviews with members of the Campaign for Equality in Tehran.
More information on Esha Momeni as well as addresses to write letters to protesting her detainment can be found here and in an article at the Chronicle.
Other ways to help (thanks to Sharon Collingwood for sending these out to the Women’s Studies List):
There is an online petition here.
The American Islamic Congress also has a petition.
The World Organization Website has more on the story.
This activist site has a video that could be useful in the classroom (1:46 in length).
There is a student group on Facebook.
Hey all, I am completely excited to announce that GWP will be going global with a new column from Gwen and Tonni called Global Exchange. Global Exchange will be appearing the last Wednesday of every month. Here’s an intro from the authors so you know what to expect. — Kristen
Hi everyone. Tonni and I wanted to introduce ourselves and our monthly segment, Global Exchange, which will normally appear every 4th Wednesday. Since we’re in the last days of the election, however, and this month we get an extra Wednesday, we’ve decided to hold off until next week, when we will offer an election special. We agree with Ruth Rosen and the folks over at the Center for New Words: there just hasn’t been enough focus on women in this year’s election. And, from our perspective, this is especially so when it comes to foreign policy. Both candidates talk about the war in Iraq – but how is it affecting women – both U.S. vets and Iraqi civilians? Both candidates talk about health care at home. But what are the candidates’ positions on the ‘Global Gag Rule’ – the policy that prevented thousands of women from accessing U.S. funded health programs worldwide? Senator Obama opposes CAFTA– what will this mean for women? So stay tuned… next week Global Exchange will bring you our assessment of how the foreign policy proposals of both candidates will affect women around the world.
