As I expected, I found facilitating a week-long meeting challenging.  It wasn't easy keeping my energy and the group's energy up and focused, especially on Thursday, when my grandmother was in surgery in the early afternoon.  I found it difficult to manage the agenda sometimes since I didn't design it, so I didn't have quite the degree of insight into what it was intended to do that I would have liked to have had - particularly in those moments when I had to make fast changes to keep the group engaged and moving forward. 

I learned quite a bit this week, which is good.  Both about the topic of the meeting, and about facilitating.  Like if I were to do this again, I'd want to be involved in designing the agenda early on.  And I definitely would not try to do what I did this time, which was facilitate and take notes at the same time.  It was much too hard to divide my attention like that.  The group was very good to work with, though - they were very pleasant and eager to participate and respectful of each other.  On the whole, it was a good first experience, since it wasn't so hard that I never want to facilitate again, but it didn't go so smoothly that I risk being falsely confident about my own skills should I have the opportunity to do it again. 

My brain is so wrung out that I had to try to log on to my web account three times before I finally got my username and password right.  I haven't worked this hard since . . . some time in December, I guess.  I'd be hard put to say when, exactly, since the entire month (except Christmas) is one big blur of overwork in my memory. 

I'm prepping for a consultancy next week - facilitating a meeting.  And I'm excited, because it could be really interesting, and anxious, because I've never facilitated an entire meeting before.  And I'm not going to have time to do much tomorrow because I have to go to Princess Superstar's baby shower in Virginia, and that'll take most of the day.  I'm trying very hard to decide whether I've reached the point of diminishing returns or whether I can abuse my brain into a reasonable level of productivity for a few more hours.  I really didn't miss this frame of mind at all.   

Via Ampersand Duck

I would have to agree with Gore Vidal on that point.  The last time I saw Vonnegut was on a Daily Show appearance, and as with his writing, while I could find grounds to disagree as often as agree with him, I was never bored. 

What I loved about Vonnegut's work was the clarity of his opinions, the sharpness of his wit, the incisiveness of his thought, and the fact that he never shrank from being a gadfly to American culture.  His appearance on the Daily Show closed with mention of his list of "liberal crap I never want to hear again." And his story, "Harrison Bergeron" illustrates the poverty of an equality that denies the value of human difference.  His work was aimed at getting people to think about the consequences of their actions - on themselves, on the world, on each other.   

All of Vonnegut's wit would have been hollow without his humanism.  That, I think, is what most profoundly affected me.  Or, perhaps infected me: I went on a serious binge of his work when I was about 14, a highly suggestible age.  Thoughts like: "A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved" and "We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane" and "If you can do no good, at least do no harm."  Simple phrases, but deeply challenging once you start thinking about how to consistently apply them.

I liked that Vonnegut wasn't afraid of contradicting himself, either.  For all his dedication to humanism, he didn't shy away from talking about God (although he was highly skeptical of this possible God's motivations), as even a quick skim of quotes from his work shows.  But he also said:

Route 295 is usually not much of a source of inspiration.  It's not even something I notice much any more.  It's just a highway through the heartland of the western Jersey suburbs, with a view of trees and concrete walls that's  occasionally interrupted by an industrial park or massive strip mall.  But today, after my mother picked me up from the bus station, we drove home on 295, and I was suddenly struck by all the signs of spring.  The pine trees are no longer the only green - the grass is coming up in vigorous emerald tones.  The flush of buds throws a rosy sheen over branches, casting a warming glow across the skyline.  And here there, a tree has burst into blossom, a soft, frothy contrast to the surrounding evergreens.

And just as I was commenting on all these gorgeous vernal notes to my mother, it started to snow.

I hate April.

I've touched on my skepticism about "consumption for a cause" before.  This makes my point even better than I did: "Join us in rejecting the ti(red) notion that shopping is a reasonable response to human suffering."  Right on.  But then, I grew up exposed to an attitude to public service that said that donating money to a cause wasn't even enough.  If you really believed in something, you got out there and volunteered.  I am probably not in the target market for "activist chic."

But it's not like I've done any meaningful volunteering lately, to be honest.  I got motivated briefly by Women in Black a few years ago, but I haven't made what I would consider a meaningful to commitment to a cause in a long time.  So I don't know that I have a foot to stand on when it comes to critiquing "cause marketing."  Fortunately, I can just point to Jessica Bennett's Newsweek article on the surprising strength of support for BUY (LESS) CRAP, a parody of the (RED) marketing campaign. 

Bennett's article raises some interesting questions about what cause marketing is really effective in doing.  Is it better at raising money for causes, or profits for corporations?  Is it good for educating consumers, or making them feel good about their purchases?  Is "or" even a helpful way of constructing these questions?  If cause marketing benefits corporations, consumers, and a cause, should we accept all these outcomes as good ones and just keep shopping?

An idea that I think Bennett's article could have done more to explore is that of the impact of consumption decisions.  She quotes a University of Maryland international development expert as saying that "What we buy and consume and use up and waste has a big impact on the developing world,” he says. “So sometimes I think the responsibility is on the part of citizens to really take an active role [in learning about an item].”  Take the iPod that Apple has designated as a (RED) campaign product.  Bennett spoke to Randy Cohen, who writes about ethics questions for the New York Times.  He said that "there’s nothing wrong with buying an iPod."  So if you want an iPod (like I do), why not buy one that will result in Apple making a donation to anti-HIV/AIDS efforts?

If only it was that easy.  Demand for consumer electronics in the global North has helped to fuel conflicts in the global South, because the materials used to create these items are acquired from the most cost-effective source, regardless of questions of who benefits.  And who benefits may be corrupt governments or warlords in conflict-affected areas who exploit resources to fuel violence.  There are also questions of how products are produced - what are the labour conditions that workers face, and what are the environmental impacts of production?  The iPod, for one, has been criticised for having a battery that is not easily or cheaply recycled or replaced, resulting in entire iPods being thrown away and replaced when the battery dies (although this can be weighed against the positive environmental impact of purchasing digital music, which does not generate the waste associated with producing and disposing of CDs).

The whole idea that it's okay to consume needs to be considered, as well.  The Worldwatch Institute's 2004 State of the World Report charges that unsustainable consumption is reducing the quality of life across the world, in both richer and poorer societies.  Consumption in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, according to the report - the entrance of more people into the consumer class helps to meet basic needs and create jobs.  But what we tend to lose sight of is how much is enough.  The Worldwatch Institute has some suggestions in their Good Stuff guide to help make more informed purchasing decisions.  It appears, at a glance, to be geared more toward environmental impact than examining issues like the conditions under which goods are produced (although their section on clothing highlights anti-sweatshop initiatives), but it's a start toward making more informed purchasing decisions.

I don't think that "cause marketing" is a bad thing, necessarily.  But I do think that it risks furthering complacency about unsustainable consumption and creating false expectations about the ease with which social problems can be solved.  Fundraising is not enough.  Hopefully, the awareness-raising aspect of cause marketing will prompt people to learn more about issues and what they can do to respond to them, but - and this is only to be expected - it doesn't challenge people to consider whether the best contribution they can make is by buying something.

Another tip of the hat to My Heart's in Accra.

This year, the UN launched its first all-women peacekeeping unit.  The unit, comprised of Indian policewomen, is stationed in Liberia.  They serve a variety of traditional police roles, from guard duty to patrolling, crowd control, and providing armed back-up to the local police force.  Less traditionally, it is hoped that their presence will inspire Liberian women to join the local police and reduce the incidence of rape and abuse of local people by UN personnel. 

Reported cases of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN personnel in Liberia were reduced from 45 in 2005 to 30 in 2006, even before the all-women was launched, according to the Christian Science Monitor.  The leader of the unit hopes that the presence of women peacekeepers will lead to a further reduction in these numbers, by increasing respect for women in Liberia and in peacekeeping operations generally.   

It will be interesting to see what the early effects of the all-women force will be.  One possiblity is that the number of reported cases of sexual abuse and exploitation, both by UN personnel and by local people, may rise.  Crimes of sexual violence often are not reported to authorities, due to social stigma and inappropriate or unclear structures for handling such crimes.  Local women may feel more comfortable reporting sexual abuse to other women, rather than male peacekeepers.  Or they may not - common identity based on sex might not override the obstacles posed by the Indian policewomen's position as foreign people holding power in terms of legal authority, armed force, and economic wealth relative to local women.  As Richard Reeves points out in the Christian Science Monitor: "You get [these abuses] not just with peacekeepers but with soldiers in general, and it gets worse the further they are from home and the more destitute the local population."  Abuse is not fueled solely by sex, but by the degree of power peacekeepers hold over local people.  Women peacekeepers will hold power just as men peacekeepers do. 

Will adding more women help with the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN personnel?  Constant Lampey, a UN gender adviser, is of the opinion that the presence of women helps dilute a macho culture among peacekeepers: "if you have a contingent of 50 peacekeepers that are all men, the dynamics will be different than if you suddenly have 15 women, and 35 men."  However, the research I did for my thesis indicated that including a minority presence of women in the military has, at best, mixed results.  Women are as apt to adapt to the macho culture of the military as to attempt to change or mitigate it, so the simple introduction of women into military forces is unlikely to result in a substantive change to the attitudes that contribute to the abuse and exploitation of local people, especially if there is a pervasive attitude that being in a position of power entitles soldiers to treat civilians in whatever way they see fit. 

Sandra Whitworth has argued that one problem with UN peacekeeping is that it follows a military paradigm and relies on personnel who are trained in aggressive tactics by their national militaries (for example, see her article on abuses in Somalia perpetrated by Canadian peacekeepers).  Even an all-women unit trained in police tactics may be vulnerable to perpetrating abuse on local people, if the organizational culture and systems in which they work do not do enough to discourage abuse of civilians.  The UN has instituted policies and structures aimed at reducing abuse of local populations, but still must rely heavily on troop-contributing nations to train and discipline peacekeepers.  Even if the UN has the best and most effective abuse prevention policies and practices in place (which remains to be seen, since most of them have only been in place for a few years), implementation is likely to be uneven because of the high degree of control that troop-contributing countries retain over their forces. 

I hope I'm not portraying the deployment of the all-women unit as a bad thing, or an ineffective effort.  Women peacekeepers may have access to people and places that men don't - for example in communities where men and women have clearly defined spheres of activity that are defined by sex.  Women peacekeepers would presumably gain access to women's areas more easily than men in such cases, and be able to offer more effective assistance to women and children.  I am hopeful that the presence of women police officers in Liberia may indeed contribute to greater respect for women's capabilities, expand the range of roles open to women, and encourage women to become police officers themselves.  But I am reluctant to embrace what I see as a perception that women have a "civilizing influence" on men.  I think it asks too much of women, presumes too little about men, and obscures the impact of social or organizational control (or lack thereof) over its members.  The UN needs more women, but it also needs to take a hard look at why some people who work for it are convinced that they can get away with abusing local people, and I worry that recruiting more women will be seen as sufficient "fix" and that other problems rooted in inequality may not receive as much attention. 

Via My Heart's in Accra

Over and over again, through the course of my work and my education, I have heard Amartya Sen's charge that 100 million women are missing in the world, primarily in Asia.  This came up frequently, usually to illustrate the health impacts of discrimination against women.  In his initial publication on the "missing women", Sen proposed that the conventional wisdom that women make up the majority of the population of the world is erroneous, based on the high ratio of women to men in the populations of Europe and North America (1.06 or higher).  In other parts of the world, particularly South and West Asia, North Africa, and China, this ratio is lower (.94 or less).  Sen argued that, "[i]n these places the failure to give women medical care similar to what men get and to provide them with comparable food and social services results in fewer women surviving than would be the case if they had equal care."

Revisiting the problem of missing women in a 2003 publication, Sen made the case that improvements in healthcare in many of these societies had reduced women's mortality rates, but that ratios of women to men remainded largely unchanged because of an increasing incidence of sex-selective abortions.  India outlawed the practice of fetal sex identification, except for cases in which determining sex would be medically relevant, in an attempt to prevent sex-selective abortions from occurring.  Sen extrapolates the incidence of sex-selective abortion in Indian states from birth statistics, comparing the rate of female to male births in various states to that found in Germany, and attributing the difference to the abortion of female fetuses. 

And this is what I have heard for the past 10 years or so: that women are missing - in vast numbers in some societies - and that they are missing because women and girls in some societies receive less food and less nutritious food than men and boys, they are less likely to receive adequate medical care, and that as technology makes fetal sex determination easier and more wide-spread, female fetuses are more likely to be aborted than male fetuses. 

I just learned that a new factor has been introduced into the equation.  In 2005, Emily Oster proposed that the prevalence of Hepatitis B in a country's population must be taken into account when considering a gender gap that favours men.  According to this Slate article, Oster decided to examine the problem of the missing women after learning about research that indicated that women who carry Hepatitis B are significantly more likely to give birth to boys than to girls.  Oster's research indicates that approximately half of the 100 million "missing women" can be attributed to a high rate of Hepatitis B infection in a country's population.  Further, she discovered that as much as 75% of sex ratio difference in China can likely be explained by the effects of Hepatitis B.  Interestingly, less than 20% of the difference can be attributed to Hepatitis B in India, Pakistan and Nepal.  I have often heard India and China lumped together in discussions of attitudes toward girl children and women, based largely on their high rates of "missing women."  Obviously, Oster's research undermines the basis on which those comparisons rest.

50 million "missing women" is still a high number, and as Oster herself points out, her research likely somewhat overstates the impact of Hepatitis B on the absolute number of female infants born.  Behavioural factors and social values are still important - plenty of research has documented that discrimination against women and girls with respect to food and health care takes place in many societies and has short and long-term impacts on women's well being.  Oster's research does not indicate that preference for men and boys is not still a significant problem in many societies.  But it does add another layer to the problem (and suggests a possible partial solution - universal vaccination against Hepatitis B), and I'm interested to see how long it takes her research to be incorporated into the "conventional wisdom" about the problem of missing women.

This afternoon, I should have been on the bus to Baltimore.  I didn't make it. 

Mom and I pulled away from the house, headed for the bus station, and within moments, we were looking at each other, asking "Does something feel wrong to you?"  The van's strange list was quickly discovered: a flat front tire.  Mom pulled out the manual, and soon discovered that getting to the spare and the jack was going to require shifting a lot of stuff out of the van.  So we started moving bags and boxes.  There was still a chance we could make it to the bus station if we got the tire changed quickly.

We got the jack and the spare out, and set them next to the van.  People were out for their afternoon strolls, and I'm sure we made an entertaining picture - two women, heads bent over a manual, next to a badly leaning minivan that had disgorged most of its contents onto the lawn.  

Our jokes about "who needs boys to change a flat?" went flat when Mom first tried to loosen the lug nuts.  I tried next, and I wasn't getting anywhere either.  But I get stubborn.  Consequently, I now have a slightly strained muscle in my right leg.  But we got those lug nuts loosened, even if it did take both me and Mom pulling on the last one to get it to budge.  In a congratulatory mood, we went about setting up the jack.  

Problem - we couldn't figure out where to put it.  The manual was very specific, yet oddly unclear.  There was something about a notch behind the tire and lining up the jack with something right behind the notch.  I found a notch, but I couldn't figure out what the jack was supposed to line up with.  Mom kept asking, "Are you sure that's the notch?"  "Yes, that's the only thing that looks like a notch.  But I can't figure out where the jack should go."  "But are you sure that's the notch?  I can't feel anything."  Turns out the place where the jack should've gone had been sort of . . . mangled.  So we called in the professionals - "that's what we pay for road side assistance for," reasoned my mother.  

I should've been on the bus to Baltimore this afternoon.  Instead, I was sitting on the front porch in the sunshine, luxuriating in the brief taste of spring we had today.  Then I was baking cookies with my mother.  Then I was entrusted with dinner while my mom got new tires on the van.  I should really watch more cooking shows and fewer home decorating programs.  I bet if I watched more cooking shows, I wouldn't have had to pick charred bits of onion out of the pan. 

I should be in Baltimore, and I'm looking forward to getting back, but I'm not sorry for the delay.  It would've been much less entertaining spending the afternoon on the bus.