Our Beginnings

Empowered Women Empower Women

Attending an all-girls high school offered several lessons on feminism, though not always in the traditional sense one may imagine.
Surrounded by young women who occupied any and all leadership positions on campus, my peers and I were not immune to the presence of gender roles and the objectifying lyrics sprinkled throughout popular music. Some girls, informed single-handedly by their own experiences, began to keep quiet and learn about intersectional feminism from more-informed peers. Others gleefully provoked those conversations. Through it all, we proved resilient.
However, nearly simultaneously, I observed an ungeneralizable culture of competition between young women that was not an inherent quality of women. Rather, it was an emblem of stringent self-expectations and the pressure levied on women by a society brimming with inequity.

This inequity, or disproportion, is exemplified in several realms. Of them all, the condition of millions of rural Nigerian women speak to me, a Nigerian-American privileged with reliable access to basic health and safety needs. For many in the Nigerian healthcare system, however, the reality is much different.

In Nigeria, over one in ten children will not live past the age of five, and nearly one in twenty women die in childbirth. Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, and these figures are largely impacted by higher mortality rates in the northern and eastern regions.
Seeking to empower women and confront the devastation of maternal mortality, an issue that inherently affects women, the National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA) developed the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme: Maternal and Child Health Initiative (SURE-P).

The Initiative recognized that maternal and infant mortality rates were influenced by a shortage of trained midwives, high costs, and “low awareness of the importance of prenatal care and giving birth with a midwife or another trained health worker [present],” explained the World Bank.

In order to spread awareness in an accessible manner, midwives and community health extension workers were trained and equipped to enter thousands of understaffed health facilities. There, they educated women, like themselves, on the necessity of maternal and child care, which could be understood as foreign and hence dangerous by several of the women in the villages targeted by SURE-P.

The project involved other schemes that included conditional cash transfers and non-financial incentives. But for me, the most impactful measure of the initiative was the empowerment mindset behind it all.

Through SURE-P, women who were otherwise unemployed or untrained were employed and equipped to support fellow women, who were pregnant and lacked access to prenatal and child health care services.

I had the opportunity to visit several of the health clinics and meet several of the village health workers while in Nigeria during the SURE-P initiative, and interviewed dozens of the women who directly benefited from the program. The sheer exuberance of the shared gratitude and sincerity in the relationships between the health care workers and the pregnant women and mothers I met was enough to fill an auditorium.

The correlated NPHCDA Midwives Service Scheme (MSS) involved mobilizing midwives — including newly qualified, retired, and unemployed midwives — to deploy into primary health care facilities in rural Nigerian communities. According to the World Health Organization, MSS achieved progress in its aim to decrease maternal mortality in childbirth, a common yet preventably killer of women in Nigeria.

This recount of health care initiatives in Nigeria that involve a women-driven response to a mortality crisis affecting women, and of my own experience interacting with compassionate and emboldened women who committed to serving their fellow Nigerian women, serves two purposes.

First, it is a reminder of the impact to be had when women support other women. Although most readers may be unable to relate to the described challenges of healthcare access in Nigeria, let alone the implications for women, SURE-P and MSS serve as testaments to potential. When women support other women in responding to issues they uniquely face, the solutions and results are remarkable.
Second, these accounts are a call to action. In today’s globalized world, there are critical political, social, and economic necessities for women’s empowerment. The marginal uplift of a select group of women must not obscure the greater challenges facing other groups of women, themselves uniquely disprivileged.

Reflecting on my experiences with women’s empowerment from my high school education and research of women’s health initiatives in Nigeria, it is clear to see the subtle obscurities that hinder social progress on several of these issues. There is no space for self-imposed limitations and the internalization of society’s calamities in today’s strife for women’s rights.

Unhealthy competition driven by an insecurity with one’s own status, in a world of disempowerment, is a recipe for disaster. Thankfully, in collective empowerment lays an antidote.

Marching for Millions to Come

Almost a year ago, about four million Americans participated in the largest coordinated protest in United States history. A movement that started as a single demonstration in our nation’s capital – the Women’s March on Washington – rapidly spread to include hundreds of demonstrations, both in the United States and abroad. Overall, an estimated five million people raised their voices in protest on January 21, 2017 in the Women’s March.

According to the movement organizers, the five million demonstrators answered a call to “show up and be counted as those who believe in a world that is equitable, tolerant, just and safe for all, one in which the human rights and dignity of each person is protected and our planet is safe from destruction.” These goals were quite lofty, however, these very ambitious and diverse goals are likely what inspired the awe-inspiring level of participation in the march. Countless protesters and spectators were inspired on that historical day, and many acknowledge the march’s efficacy in itself as a landmark.

Critics, however, often deem the march overly-broad and ultimately unsuccessful because of this supposed lack of focus. Protesters carried signs that day for causes ranging from reproductive rights to climate change to anti-Trump slogans. In a sense, the march was a platform for any individual to express any dissatisfactions she might have with the political climate. This lack of a central cause is perhaps why critics question the success of the march: it was virtually impossible for a single demonstration to effect change and inspire activism in multiple political arenas.

After all, the event was called the “Women’s March.” Should the focus have been narrowed to issues like equal pay and sexual harassment? Maybe the event’s leveraging power would have been more obvious if the causes it represented had been fewer and more unified. However, the fact that many political issues were represented at the march does not make it any less of a “Women’s March.” For years, feminists have endeavored to justify this very multifacetedness of women’s rights.

Women’s rights are inherently connected to other issues, and our voices are often underrepresented in conversations about the most critical and current political questions. The opinions of women are relevant to every issue, not just the ones that marginalize or oppress females based on their gender. The Women’s March was a movement in which participants felt like their voices mattered, and many people seized the opportunity to advocate for their passions. Whether a woman is more passionate about immigrant rights or mass incarceration or something else entirely, none are more meritorious than the others, and advocacy, in whatever form, is some serious girl power.

Regarding the criticisms against the march, the progress made over the last year are excellent rebuttals. The Women’s March movement itself has continued to promote and engage in activism as participants and supporters have continued to work towards political action year-round. Currently, the Women’s March is launching an initiative called “Power to the Polls.” Through spreading awareness and holding voter registration drives, the movement hopes to influence the 2018 midterm elections. Although the activism since the actual march has not attracted the same media coverage as the five million-strong demonstration, progress since the march continues to happen and is still valuable and noteworthy.

Additionally, there is no effective way to measure the impact of the Women’s March on the morale of feminists everywhere. Perhaps most significantly, it is impossible to know how much of the #MeToo social media campaign and Hollywood’s Time’s Up initiative to put an end to sexual harassment were influenced by the Women’s March movement. This activism has led to the firing of many men accused of sexual misconduct, and while it may be optimistic to presume, this backlash from women and allies in many industries will hopefully inspire a significant cultural shift in the way our society handles these kinds of situations.

Although the Women’s March did not result in specific legislation, its impact is still significant. We should celebrate the march’s approaching anniversary with pride and rejuvenated energy for what it represents: a group of women who came together and organized the largest protest in United States history, a protest that stands on the shoulders of the feminists who came before and a protest that has sparked a movement that, in some sense, has just begun.

Advice: Creating Connections

I am a current sophomore at Duke and I have a problem. I’m hoping that your insights might be able to shed a light on the issue for me and perhaps offer some guidance as I proceed. I am applying to various internships in a particular business field, and I am getting really bummed out by my lack of connections. I am a first-generation immigrant to the U.S. and my family is far from well-connected. We still struggle to assimilate to American society and face prejudice from neighbors and supposed “community-members” as a result. At Duke, I don’t have to worry about this because of my diverse support network.

But recently, I’ve been recognizing how my background is hurting me in other ways. While some people, namely my roommate and a friend from a student group I am involved with, are able to talk to directors and engagement managers at various firms because of their family connections, I know no one. It’s becoming especially disheartening and I am at the point of giving up on the search all together. Obviously, the world is not a level playing field and being at Duke puts me at an advantage that others would love to have. Still, the nonchalance of my peers who leverage personal connections to secure professional opportunities is frustrating. Thoughts?

Response:

Despite the actions and higher social/economic standings of other students being at times transparent and therefore difficult to ignore, there are moments when you just need to focus specifically on yourself and how you plan to achieve your goals. We were all born into varying household situations with varying benefits or challenges accompanied within them; however, that is something we cannot change. What we can change is how we proceed from there towards each long and short-term goal we establish for ourselves. Honestly speaking, I understand your frustration and over how others may require less of an effort because of their more available resources. However, reversing this scenario, if your parents or family associations were to have landed you the internship, how would you have felt and to what moral extent would you be able to accept such an outcome that you may or may not have deserved?

Although the social connections you mentioned that your peers have are results of someone else’s efforts, who is to say you cannot create your own? The process will definitely be more time consuming and require more effort on your part, but they will be connections that you yourself have established. By getting to know a professor within your business field or major (or someone who has a similar social and academic outreach) and investing time into strengthening that student-faculty bond, you expand your access of resources. If you do this each semester, by the end of your undergraduate career, you will have five new people (assuming you start now) that would be willing to help you further your academic pursuits. In your own way, you can level the playing field.

What will truly impact your situation is your level of willingness to accomplish your goals despite hardship. Although there is always a possibility that things may not go as planned, that does not mean failure. At times, you need to just take a step back and try again when you feel most comfortable. Whatever course of action you choose to take, I hope it resonates with what you believe is right for you and your current situation.

Hope this helps,

Michelle

Muse Profiles: Dr. Nina Sherwood

Dr. Nina Sherwood is a professor of Biology and a faculty member of Duke Institute of Brain Sciences. Dr. Sherwood attended the University of California at San Diego for her undergraduate career and obtained her doctorate at Duke University in 1998. Her current research uses fruit flies to understand the development and function of the nervous system.

After discussing my first semester of college, Dr. Sherwood reminisced on some of her own favorite memories of her undergraduate career: “[I loved] the feeling of freedom that came with being an adult. I realized that going away to college was a great opportunity to be whatever persona I wanted. I didn’t change all that much, but it was fun to know I could if I wanted to! Meeting all kinds of different people from all walks of life, working in the lab, being surrounded by smart and interesting people motivated by curiosity, having life be all about learning and figuring out how we wanted our future to look.”
​
However, Dr. Sherwood’s experiences have not come without obstacles. She grew up in a small Hawaiian town as a child of Chinese immigrants, who raised her to be high-achieving, but also respectful of elders, unquestioning of authority, humble, and self-sacrificing. “While these [scruples] worked reasonably well in school, I found many of these traits were not particularly valued in the working world. It took me a long time to figure this out, and because I still believe in many of the values I was raised with, I continue to wrestle with this problem.”

After discussing her own undergraduate career, Dr. Sherwood shared some advice for current undergraduate students: “You still have relatively few responsibilities, so do as much as you can – explore, try different things, travel! If something interests you and feels like a good idea, don’t be stopped by timidity or others saying you shouldn’t or can’t. [Also, remember that] life is not linear, and sometimes is not even under your control. Be adaptable, trust your instincts, and remember that things will likely work out.”
​
Finally, I asked Dr. Sherwood if she considered herself a feminist, and if so, how she would define what a feminist is, and why she considers herself one. She eloquently replied, “I think feminism means believing that women and men are equals. Not the same (and vive la difference), but equals. So, they should have equal time, equal opportunities; they should be equally heard. Societal norms of success, particularly in the workplace, frequently favor traits like assertiveness, aggressiveness, self-promotion, and competitiveness. The way that women communicate and interact can be quite different, and for some puzzling reason (given that most of us were raised by women), there doesn’t seem to be much appreciation for it in the professional world. For these as well as other reasons, I’ve seen too many incredibly smart and accomplished women struggle, and often fail, to have gratifying careers that make use of their training and talents. The subsequent loss of women’s contributions is to the detriment of us all. So, what’s to be done about it? I think it’s a combination of women learning to be more assertive and realizing that they deserve that space, that oxygen in the room, and men learning to be more giving of that space and oxygen. I definitely feel like we as a society are moving in that direction, but we are still far from parity.”

Dystopian Representation of a Global Crisis: Helpful or Hurtful?

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of female genital mutilation. This year alone, more than 3 million girls will be at risk of being subjected to one of these harmful procedures. In addition to being a human rights violation that unnecessarily harms the health of young women, FGM typically involves unsanitary practices which increases the risk of HIV infection, cysts, severe bleeding, complications in childbirth, and other infections.

FGM is a difficult injustice to abolish given its social, cultural, and traditional origins in many cultures, particularly in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Migrants from these areas (and other regions) also practice FGM within diasporic populations. In other words, this is a global crisis. So, why the hell aren’t we talking about it? Is this yet another case of mainstream feminism ignoring massive issues that primarily affect women of color and/or women from non-Western cultures?

Perhaps. According to screenwriter and producer Bruce Miller, people are shamefully unfazed by the crimes that impact women of color around world until they are shocked into consciousness by a show like The Handmaid’s Tale. Based on the gripping novel by Margaret Atwood, Miller’s portrayal of the dystopian country of Gilead is just similar enough to our modern reality to enthrall, shock, and frighten viewers. In both the novel and the new award-winning show, Gilead exists in what used to be the United States; following the overthrow of the US government, a fundamentalist theocratic and militaristic regime leaves most former Americans, particularly women, horrified and enslaved by the ruling class. The commodification of women for their childbearing capabilities is, again, just believable enough to be absolutely petrifying.

Despite the countless scenes in which those in power brutalize women and invoke outrage, there is one scene that surpasses the rest in terms of the shocked and horrified response it received. In the third episode of the season, one of the handmaids named Oflgen, played by Alexis Bledel, is the victim of a forced clitoridectomy. As a punishment for her homosexuality, Ofglen is subjected to unconsensual female genital mutilation. In a disgusting disregard for her human rights and dignity, she is informed that the procedure has occurred after the fact.

“You can still have children, of course,” her superior tells her, “but things will be so much easier now. You cannot want what you cannot have.”

This bone-chilling scene, with the exception of its futuristic setting, is quite similar to the 3 million brutalities of female genital mutilation that will occur this year alone. Young women are often subjected to these horrible procedures to curb their sexual desires and physically force their modesty and premarital virginity. Alexis Bledel’s character experiences a horror that is not fictional – it happens every single day.

Yet, as Bruce Miller points out, it doesn’t typically happen to people that look like Rory Gilmore. At first glance, it may seem appropriative to use the plight of colored women to add shock value to a dystopian TV show, but Miller was meticulous to ensure that this would not be the case. Instead, Miller wanted to portray this injustice in a light that would indeed shock people, but not for the purpose of the show’s drama.

The procedure itself is not shown; there is no graphic scene in which Alexis Bledel is seen screaming in terror. Instead, it is her reaction after the procedure that is shown – the raw, powerful, yet quiet realization that she has been violated in a way that will forever haunt her.

In response to the intense response that this scene elicited, Miller issued the following statement: “We’re trying to bring in problems of women in societies around the world. I think that bringing things that you read about in other parts of the world home, to America, is kind of one of the reasons people are connecting so much to the story in the age of Trump. We’re now in an age where things that seem like they could never happen in America are happening here. Problems that seem to be problems in other cultures, in other countries, with people of different colors, are all of a sudden our problems.”

In truth, female genital mutilation has always been “our problem.” It is a blatant human rights violation. As a nation comprised of people from all different cultures, this has in fact been happening in America for quite some time. If seeing the emotional impact of this kind of procedure on the face of Rory Gilmore helps bring this issue to the forefront of our debates and conversations, then we should thank Bruce Miller for his brave depiction of this international crisis. However, if this scene is used to trivialize the plight of colored women for the sake of a shocking depiction of a white girl’s mistreatment, then we should seriously rethink how we interpret popular representation of the abuse of women. One can only hope that this kind of exposure in popular culture inspires a shift in mainstream feminism. This is a global crisis, and time’s up.