Thinking Big Just one human brain recording its thoughts.

I am going to call myself out and admit that a lot of my previous posts on women’s rights have been  preachy. I think it is the rhetorical style that comes unfortunately most naturally to me when I feel passionate  about an issue. I see  horror, pain, suffering. And I react. I get really worked up and emotional. I feel a sort of fury and I sometimes feel frustrated when other’s do not feel that same urgency, so I preach.

The more I reflect the more I realize that that preaching tactic can often be ineffective, and I have much to learn about the art of advocating for women’s rights. Although I believe passion is necessary to fight for a cause, so is  patience and  humility. Passion does not have to be impulsive. It can live within and come out with strength and grace. Passion can be transformed into strategy to combat complex issues.

When I look at the people who have made immense change in the world, I recognize it has only been after deep thought (Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Mary Robinson). These leaders choose their words wisely, and they have the ability to spin issues to reach out to wider audiences.

Recently Mary Robinson spoke at the Eisenhower auditorium (as discussed in class last week) and in one part of her talk, she spoke of the issue of child brides, a particularly pressing issue in Indian culture (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/21/devadasi-india-sex-work-religion) She explained that this practice was deeply rooted in many village traditions and as an “outsider” of the village, she could not simply come in and tell these people they were “wrong”, although to many people and to her, it clearly is wrong. She and many others had to spin the issue to explain that the village would prosper much more if these young women were given a chance. For example one argument would be, “A few more years of education for a girl could help the village economy, or waiting a few years would make her a better mother.” For people who are very set in tradition, it is plenty difficult to convince them that a practice is harmful so one must provide incentives to support the other option.

Furthermore as someone trying to fight for a cause, I think it is important to address limitations of your own person.  For example, I could live the rest of my life in India, but  still be viewed as an “outsider”.  My advocating efforts and influence in India could be less respected because I am not from there. This does not necessarily mean I cannot make a difference there, but I will need to address the unavoidable gap in my understanding.  One way of filling this gap could be finding someone who was born in India and who understands it in a way that I never fully will, in order to fill the void of influence. In short, I believe to combat the limitations of individual’s culture, people need alliances and affiliations. This way if there is a gap in your ability to influence, you can fill it with someone else’s ability to.

Although Mary Robinson did not explicitly say this, I am going to infer that her affiliation with Ela Bhatt may be a strong example of this idea. Mary Robinson is known for her Human Rights activism around the world has recently made particular strides against child marriage in India.However she has not done this zone

Arguably, fully understanding the culture of the country you are advocating in can have its advantages. Therefore when trying to advocate for a cause outside of your particular culture, as Mary Robinson has done successfully, I am going to argue that it is imperative to align yourself with someone who is an expert in that culture. For Mary Robinson advocating against child marriage in India means alining herself with Ela Bhatt, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ela_Bhatt) the founder of the Self-Employed Women’s Association of India (SEWA). Mary Robinson and Ela are both members of The Elders (http://theelders.org/ela-bhatt)  and currently working together to combat child marriage.

Furthermore, I learned is that although I must be aware of cultural limitations,  I must still strictly differentiate between respecting a culture and respecting and advocating for basic rights. I thought Mary Robinson worded this well when she explain that many things that people define as culture are actually harmful traditional practices. Child brides are harmful traditional practices just as  slavery is a harmful traditional practice. There should be no grey area.  I feel like there are times where I am timid to critique a “culture” because I am afraid I do not always have the credibility or that I will offend someone. However I am realizing that there is sometimes a very distinct line between what should and shouldn’t be fought for, and although how to fight for it can be tricky, the passion to continue fighting should never be lost.

From now on I want to hold onto that passion, but maybe face and combat the limitations as an outsider by creating networks and alliances. I personally may not be able to fully understand the culture that these events are coming from especially not immediately, but  if I connect with someone for a particular region who does, we could work in tandem to promote women’s rights.