From DEBRA@oln.comlink.apc.orgThu Sep  7 10:26:07 1995
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 14:52:00 +0100
From: Debra Guzman <DEBRA@oln.comlink.apc.org>
Reply to: beijing-conf@tristram.edc.org
To: beijing-conf@tristram.edc.org
Subject: WCW: Editorial by Jack Freeman on Beijing

    [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

## author     : theearthtime@igc.apc.org
## date       : 05.09.95

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial by Jack Freeman on Beijing
By Jack Freeman
Earth Times News Service

The Fourth World Conference on Women has a problem, if one
can believe what was said last week at a preliminary meeting
of parliamentarians serving on national delegations to the
Conference.

The problem is this: As Conference Secretary General
Gertrude Mongella and so many others have said, the purpose
of the Conference is to move women's rights issues from
rhetoric to reality. But what has emerged from the
discussions here is that the most important words in the
Conference document have meaning only as rhetoric. In the
real world they are almost meaningless.

For example, the word "equality." The Conference Platform
for Action speaks urgently of the need for equality between
women and men. As Senator Akiko Domoto, of Japan's House of
Councilors, told the International Meeting of
Parliamentarians on Gender, Population and Development, held
in Tokyo last week: "Women are working for real equality,
something they have yet to receive despite legislated and
mandated equality in many countries."

But if legislation and mandates cannot achieve real
equality--and it is abundantly clear that they cannot--what
can? And will the Beijing Conference endorse it?

Of course, nobody is opposed to equality as an ideal. But
the reality is this: If women suffer from inequality in many
parts of the world, so do men. Legislation and
mandates--and, yes, UN conferences and conventions-- have
not put an end to that.

There is also a problem with the word "empowerment," which
lacks even the rhetorical punch that "equality" delivers.
"Empowerment" is not a word that any English-speaking person
would ever use in casual conversation, possibly because
nobody is really sure what it means. So far as I have been
able to determine, it is no more current in any other
language either.

Some speakers at the meeting here referred to education as a
key form of empowerment for women. Others, though, contend
that while more and better education for girls may be a
prerequisite for empowerment (and desirable for its own
sake), it is not enough. They cite the low status and
relatively low earnings of educated women around the world.

Many at the meeting endorsed the proposal for a quota system
in politics to bring more women into decision-making
positions. But several delegates (all of them male) called
the proposal "unrealistic," citing the history of quotas and
affirmative action programs in various countries.

"How much 'real empowerment' did African Americans acquire,"
asked one observer, "when a seat on the Supreme Court was
given to Clarence Thomas? And would the cause of women be
advanced or hindered if the next open seat were given to
Phyllis Schlafly?"

In the rhetoric of empowerment, it is always depicted as a
benign sharing of power--rather than a transfer of
power--and therefore should not engender resistance from the
powerful.

Alas, as Lord Acton observed, power tends to corrupt. And
the people who have it are seldom willing to share it.

It's fine, say the cynics, for the empowerment advocates to
try to reassure the current holders of power (i.e., the men)
that "This isn't going to hurt a bit," but, they add, a
major change in power relations is never accomplished easily
or cheaply. It usually requires a revolution.

"The revolution has begun," Mongella said Monday at the
opening ceremony of the Conference. The question is whether
the lofty words will be followed by actions that can make a
difference to people in the real world.