Welcome to Gaia! ::

I can't stop watching it. I can't stop agreeing:

http://www.girleffect.org/#/video/

I found it sexist, honestly. We should change the whole world- it's not just women, we need to change for the better of everyone.

Yeah, that was what I was trying to say but I always have a hard time explaining things. Why help someone just because of their gender? I was just getting confused. I just don't see how it would really change anything.

KP-As for accidentally deleting my post, it's o.k. so don't worry about it.

I hate to say it, but that's a really, really good point. Although you did spell "Supremacist" two different and incorrect ways. razz

Basically, I agree with Sachiko, Divine, and Kate. First of all, the assumption that this will lead to a better world is just naive. So many things could go wrong. And secondly, even assuming that the girl gets to keep her cow, and gains respect, and all of that stuff, it's a little sexist to assume that it would change things for the better. What makes the woman better than a man? Who says that, once she has a position of power, she'll do any better than the men already there? In fact, our own history with the women's lib movement shows that women first act like the men already in place but -more ruthless- because she has to show that she's equal to or better than the men on her terms.

...Okay, you apparently read, "Women, when given equality, will just be the same as men" as "Women are evil, they suck, and they'll be totalitarians."

I am in no way saying women are worse than men; I'm just saying they're -the same- as men. We're all human beings. And women can be just as cruel as men, especially when their examples of leaders are a bunch of cruel men. Saying that women will be equal to men is, I'm pretty sure, the textbook definition of not being sexist.

On the other hand, acting like women will get into power, and just be wonderful mother figures, is naive and sexist. It's saying that the men currently in power are cruel and corrupt because they are men, but women in the same position would not be cruel and corrupt because they are women. It's saying that men are awful and evil, and women are wonderful and pure; I hate to break it to you, but that's not the case. There are evil men, and there are evil women. There are also good men and women.

The solution isn't to just give women power. The solution is to bring knowledge and access to knowledge to Africa. To give the common people a base to stand for themselves on; Not just the women, but the men too. It's not like it's a continent where every male has a chance either, you know. And we do need to work specifically with adolescents, and pre-adolescents, because adults are harder to change. We need to get in there and create schools, with free admission, and encourage them to come. Give them a good education. Teach them about equality among all men and women, not just those who are powerful/rich males. Heck, we need to show them how American history went, and how things are today in America. People may think it sucks, but Africa's worse.

But anyways, if you say "You guys need to watch this video," -my- assumption would be that the information you are trying to convey is in the video. And I'm sorry, but if the video does not impress me, I'm not going to go through some long .pdf file trying to find something of value. confused What's the point of having a video if it doesn't contain the essence of what you're trying to do?

The website as a whole keeps saying that adolescent girls are "uniquely able" to change the world. Why? Why are they different from adolescent boys? Or adult women or men? What makes the adolescent girl so uniquely capable? Why should we focus on these adolescent girls, rather than focusing on adolescents as a whole? If you educate an adolescent boy in the way things should be, if you teach a boy about how to treat women and how to treat their village, won't that also have an effect? A boy effect? It is extremely sexist to act like women are the only ones who can change things. And I for one will not support a program that just encourages replacing the men in power with women in power.

What? No I didn't. And if you think so, ah, I'm sorry, but you're a moron.

What you're saying is that, somehow, men are inherently evil, suck, and are totalitarians. o.O

Actually, though the video didn't say that specifically, the website did, and you defended it your whole post. "Adolescent women are uniquely able to change the world." Adolescent boys aren't able to change the world for the better? Grown men and women?

And even here you seem to make it sound like the only way men and grown women can help Africa is by helping adolescent women. Why? And why don't you reply to my idea for how Africa can actually be helped? An idea where -everyone- is helped, not just women? Empowering only women in this way, and not even bothering with the boys and men, will at best and least likely, lead to a few women becoming leaders. Until they're killed. At worst, these women will be killed, and their cows and land taken by the corrupt men. You do understand that that's how Africa currently works, right? The warlords are in charge because they've got the guns. Because they've got the guns, they can take whatever they want. And the current social climate does not allow for women with cows; A man with cows? Maybe they'll leave alone. But a woman with cows? They can't let women get to power, they'll just take her cows, and kill her. If she's lucky.

What we need to do, again, is educate all young Africans on how women should be treated, on equality, and on peaceful coexistence. On helping each other instead of the strong taking from the weak. While the idea that this website espouses is, "Give women power, and everything else will take care of itself," it ignores the fact that the men -don't want women to have power.- They're not going to just stand back and let it happen. The village elders aren't going to accept a woman because she's successful, they're going to take her cows as village property, and give her to some man as his wife. We have to change how they see women, and -that- will bring women to power. Not vice versa.

Your arguments are so convoluted, it's extremely frustrating.

To the first, just because the men have power and the women are in a very bad position does not mean that the women, once getting power, would be any ******** different. To equate, "Women and men are equal" to "Women are evil, they suck, and they're totalitarians" is the very definition of sexist! Just because you're being sexist against men does not mean you are not being sexist. I hate that bullshit. It's like saying it's okay to hate white people, because they're white. It's not racism. It's only racism when a white person hates people who aren't white.

And no, I mean that you defended throughout your whole post that adolescent women are "uniquely able" to change the world. And that is sexist.

But this website, that video, are about helping -girls-, and they act like that's the only way we're going to change things.

"will at best and least likely, lead to a few women becoming leaders.
Empowering women doesn't gip men (as a whole). "
How did you even come to the conclusion that I was saying it would gyp men? o.O All I said was that, at the unlikely best, this would lead to a limited number of women becoming equal to men. It would not make anything better, it would just put different people in power. And the idea that it would even do that is naive. "The elders will realize that she is of value and add her to the council?" The separation of men and women isn't based on what women are able to do. It's based on the idea that women shouldn't do these things. Even assuming that the girl managed to keep her cow/herd, even assuming she managed to make a decent living selling the milk, I highly, highly doubt that the village leaders would just go, "Oh look, a successful woman, let us welcome her with open arms." If they did, then obviously they weren't being sexist, there just weren't any successful women.

To the last, point a: Oh, hey, the video said something! Surely nothing a video says is ever wrong, or naively optimistic! The problem with the video is it acts like this one little act will have a domino effect leading to these things; Why not just start with these things, making there less room for the dominos to be stopped?

Point B: As a group, they could better defend themselves. They would most likely be citizens of a foreign country, to begin with, or funded by a foreign country, and so would be better protected in that way as well. And because it's free, and it's helping educate the boys as well as the girls... See, it accepts that they are going to be sexist at first, and is a little more sneaky, allowing the educating of those dirty awful boys as well as the girls. And there are, in fact, plenty of organizations, especially religious, that go out and build schools, and libraries, in Africa. I donate to them. Not to this.

If you call it the blind leading the blind, then who are you to say that I am so wrong in this?

Honestly, I'm not going to argue with you anymore on this if you're just going to keep taking small parts of my replies out of context. It's worse than a Choicer...

An inherently sexist concept! Why can't you see that? What if this was your argument for African Americans? Or Latinoamericans? "Once they have power, they may abuse it just as the men have!"

In good faith, we must bring them to equal status as the dominant class. What they do then they've done on their own conscious. End of story.



Don't confuse frustration with sexism. Men, particularly, men with power are very loaded, and sensitive terms, for myself.



No it's not. Not at all. "Uniquely" able is just as good as saying "In a profound way" or "In special ways". It's just saying the powers they command to create reform are special.

That's just assuming to much of the video.



Well sometimes the greatest messages must be dripping with poetry. What; did you want a planned out, nine-part plan of "attack" on the sexism against women in Third World Africa? With pretty music? Who's going to watch that?


Professors are not trained to use guns; oppressors generally are (or are not afraid to get dirty, to be more general). My idea of a "revolutionary" teacher isn't an idea of someone that can afford to be outspoken.


You didn't look hard enough.

There isn't a "this" to donate to.


An ellipsis for emphasis!