A Day Without a Woman

When I first met my fellow Peace Corps volunteers, I was completely unsurprised to find that at least 3/4 of them are females. That's because throughout my education and paralleled part time career, women have vastly outnumbered men. In college, slightly more than 50% of my pre-med classes were composed of women. And in grad school, slightly less than 100% of my public health classes were composed of women. Peace Corps has proven to be no exception to this trend with a reported 62% female and 38% male gender breakdown of volunteers worldwide. The trend is nothing new, nor am I the first to notice it. The disproportionally large representation of female students and workers in the healthcare and social sciences fields has long been noted. According to a recent count by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a little under 80% of all health care provider jobs in the U.S. are held by women. This imbalance is most stark with nursing, where females outnumber males 10 to 1. Beyond direct health care provision, the trend holds true in other fields like international and domestic public health, social work, and education. If you look a little closer at these professions, you'll notice another trend - historically low pay for incredibly invaluable work. Health care, public aid, mental health, and education are cornerstones of a high-functioning, healthy society, so why do we pay our nurses, social workers, and teachers so little? Are fields dominated by women inherently underpaid due to the wage gap? Or are women more likely to go into low-paying, "nurturing" careers as their male counterparts choose less rewarding, but higher paying job opportunities? I think the answer to both of these questions is an indubitable yes.

The wage gap in the United States is not a feminist-invented boogey man that liberal snowflakes use as a happy hour talking point. It is a quantifiable, observable trend that has been studied by countless economists and sociologists; and it has real economic and social consequences. The wage gap dissuades women, particularly mothers, from entering the work force as their wages may not outweigh the costs of child care. This not only deprives our industries from talent, new ideas, and different perspectives and ways of thinking, it deprives our economy of spending power. Also, it's just plain unfair and insinuates that our work is somehow worth less just because the person doing it has an uterus. Across time and setting, we have seen over and over again that empowering women in the workforce leads to higher company productivity, stronger markets, and higher GDPs. So why is closing the wage gap still such a contended issue????  Apparently our country is willing to overlook the large-scale social and economic benefits of equal pay in fear of upsetting the status quo and actually acknowledging gender equity. I truly believe that if we were capable of looking past our human differences and made policy decisions based on the facts and numbers - not our gender, religion, or sexuality - issues like the wage gap would dissipate.

Issues brought up by the wage gap are also compounded by a noted tendency for women to choose "caretaker careers."  The choice to pursue these careers is born out of a desire to take care of others and support communities, and not out of the allure of a big paycheck. The idea that public health and other social aid careers should be lower paid is a concept that can be traced back to origins hundreds of years old. In his TED talk, "The Way We Think of Charity Is Dead Wrong," Dan Pallota links this mentality back to the Quaker idea that doing good for others is a sacrifice good, God-fearing citizens choose to make with no personal benefit. This mentality became deeply imbedded in our country's psyche and now, half a century later, choosing service careers is still a personal sacrifice for most. While I think there is true value in charity without any reward other than the warm feeling you get from helping others, I don't think this concept applies to career paths as it does to a Saturday morning volunteering at your local homeless shelter. Denying public health and education workers competitive wages deprives the most complex and important fields competitive applicants. In my short time out of college, I have seen many friends choose higher paying corporate jobs over the nonprofit jobs their hearts cried out for. Crushing student loans doesn't help this dilemma either. If we were somehow able to shift our outlook on public service fields, we could offer competitive wages that attract the brightest, most qualified individuals to education, social work, and health care jobs without them having to take pay cuts. If we promote the idea that it's not just the women that can be the caretakers and nurturers in our society, then maybe more men would enter these fields. Balancing wages and blurring the line between our overly-defined gender norms that pit women as caretakers and men as breadwinners can expand male representation in social services and female representation in industries like tech. Win - win.

In 1975, Icelandic women took a "day off" to protest things like wage inequality, unbalanced opportunities in the workplace, and unfair employer practices including little attention paid to sexual harassment or assault claims. Their intention was to demonstrate the indispensable work of women for Iceland’s economy and society, and how disastrous losing the contributions of women would be. On October 24, 1975 90% of women in Iceland didn't go to work and refused to do any housework for the whole day.  There was no telephone service and newspapers weren't printed since the typesetters were all women. Theaters shut down for the day as actresses refused to work. The majority of teachers were women so schools either closed or “operated at limited capacity.” Flights got cancelled since the flight attendants did not come into work. Iceland was essentially shut down for a day. Tomi Lahren would obviously go on some primetime rant about how women are just complaining and being hormonal (only a true villain has no quarrels adopting the same slurs men sling to make women feel inferior, and I have no doubt that Tomi is capable of exactly this level of treachery). How this will do nothing to change the way things are and that there's no reason to punish our poor husbands and children in the useless process. But like always, Tomi would be wrong because just a year later Iceland’s parliament passed a law guaranteeing equal rights for women and men, which set an important legal precedent in the country. The strike also paved the way for the election of Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, the first democratically elected female president in the world. 

             

To honor this legacy and to protest the still existent economic injustices women and gender-nonconforming people face worldwide, grassroots activists and organizers have declared March 8, International Women's day, "A Day Without a Woman." They're encouraging women to take the day off from paid and unpaid work if they can, or to show support in other ways if they can't. If you can't strike, you can avoid spending money anywhere except small businesses and those owned by women or minorities, wear red to symbolize "revolutionary love and sacrifice," or donate to an organization that bolsters women's rights. No one can foretell how successful this strike will be, especially in the U.S. where our 'work, work, work' mentality has been a big obstacle for past labor movements. Whether or not this movement is successful, I believe it's important - especially now. Women in the U.S. need to stand up and fight, not just against the tangible barriers restricting our economic and social equality, but also against our country's most insidious demons - the deeply rooted misogyny and sexism that got Trump elected. Strikes are hard to organize and, as many opponents have pointed out, are only viable options for those privileged with job security, an understanding employer, or the ability to forfeit a day's worth of pay. This undeniably prompts the question, "who is the strike really for?" In response, organizers released the following statement: "Many women in our most vulnerable communities will not have the ability to join the strike due to economic insecurity. We strike for them." I'm not wholly convinced by this logic, but I'm always here for social experiments and support any and all attempts to shake up the patriarchy. I sincerely hope activists find a way to make this movement, and all future movements, as inclusive as possible. 

In solidarity, I will be wearing red, donating to Planned Parenthood, calling my representatives, and showering the goddesses of my life with well-deserved thanks and affirmations. 

Donate to PP: https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Donation2;jsessionid=00000000.app259b?df_id=24063&24063.donation=form1&NONCE_TOKEN=7B9F4E800C632B936695CC88AC0B53F1

Gagged by the Past: U.S. Development Workers’ Perspective on Trump’s Global Gag Rule- 762 Signatures and Counting

One day a fellow PCV serving in Botswana reached out to me because she had noticed that I, too, was a vocal advocate for reproductive rights and an opponent of Trump's reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule, which bans employees of foreign aid organizations that receive any federal funding from even uttering the word "abortion." As PC volunteers, this policy directly affects us and many of the organizations we partner with around the world. And so we decided to team up and write an open letter to Mr. Trump - not necessarily with the intention of changing his mind, but with the idea that perhaps if we speak up now, the GGR will not be reinstated later. It was also pretty cathartic. We were able to garner the attention of some big-name publishing sites and collect over 700 signatures from PCVs and RPCVs working around the world. Then suddenly our momentum was slashed and we were halted in our tracks. The Peace Corps is an "apolitical" organization and therefore cannot allow its volunteers to speak out about political issues, we were told. (I often forget that a woman's body is a political battleground and as such any opinion regarding abortion, no matter how informed by empirical data, is seen as inherently political.) So threatened with "administrative separation" (aka being kicked out) and effectively silenced, we were not able to publish our letter on a more attention-grabbing scale. We decided instead to share with family and friends on a more low-key level. If you'd like to take the time, you can find the letter below. Please keep in mind that the words "Peace Corps" do not come up anywhere in the letter, and that is extremely intentional. The letter represents our thoughts as individuals and in no way reflects PC's apolitical take (or rather lack there of) on current events.

https://medium.com/@globalcitizens/gagged-by-the-past-u-s-development-workers-perspective-on-trump-s-global-gag-rule-b5b0a92c1c74#.318y4u9a5

Romanticizing Poverty

Chances are that if you’re a Peace Corps volunteer home for the holidays, you’ve recently talked with a family member or friend that has equated poverty with happiness. During my short visit home, I was taken aback by an incredibly common theme that popped up during the countless “so how’s Guatemala?” conversations I had back home. It appeared to me that many people, who seemingly for the most part enjoy wonderful, privileged lives, got caught up marveling at how happy my host-country neighbors are in the simplicity of their poverty. Most said something along the lines of, “ those people have next to nothing, but they still find a way to be so happy. Not like us.”

                             

It’s true, of course, that many of the people I live and work with live below the poverty line (~$2 USD/day), and yes many of them are the happiest people I know. But this assumption that their poverty is somehow directly responsible for their happiness really confuses me. Do people honestly think the key to happiness is poverty? Because if so, why not just donate all of your things today? Yes the men and women who live in poverty that I’ve worked with are happy, but that is not to say that they wouldn’t be just as happy or even happier making more than $2 USD a day.

If I am misreading these comments, please by all means let me know, but my understanding thus far is that people are essentially assuming a cause-and-effect relationship when it comes to poverty and happiness. It seems that the common line of reasoning is that being poor leads to a simpler life where you don’t get caught up with “first world problems” and learn to be happy with what little you have. This thought process worries me because buying into a causal pathway that diametrically links poverty with simplicity and happiness makes poverty seem voluntary. It’s almost as if you’re saying that the poor chose their destitution because they prefer the simplicity of the lifestyle, when in reality those in poverty are generally stuck in poverty. They probably spend just as much time dreaming about a life of privilege and wealth as many Americans I’ve met seem to spend dreaming of a “simpler life.”

                                    

The most confusing part to me, however, is that people I’ve met readily romanticize the poor in the countries I’ve worked in or travelled to, but I’ve never heard the same applied to those living in poverty in the U.S. Usually the poor people of Kenya, Haiti, or Guatemala are resilient-minded, hardworking folk who have learned to make the most of what they have, while the American poor are lazy or even scamming. Apparently it’s easier to romanticize the poor that live thousands of miles away and vilify the poor that live down the block. I wonder where this paradox comes from. Is it from movies like Slumdog Millionaire where the characters’ capacity for happiness and love seem to outshine our own because of all the hardships they’ve been through? Or is it simply easier to romanticize something so far away from your own reality?

                                           

The danger with romanticizing poverty is that it tricks people into thinking that there’s no need for change. “Why complicate their lives with globalization or modernization? Just let them be happy in their simplicity.” But the truth that I have seen with every house visit I’ve done is that there is no simplicity in poverty. There is no simplicity in a 21 year-old mother of three, denied of financial autonomy, clean water, and food security trying to figure out how to keep her family healthy. There is no simplicity in a 14 year-old girl with untreated schizophrenia being stripped of her basic right to education. Poverty is not a simple thing- it is a complex multitude of emotions, circumstances, and contexts that can’t be captured in one stereotypical, glorified depiction. When we romanticize the poor and simplify poverty, we hobble the desire to find realistic interventions for alleviating poverty.

The “happy with what little they have” mentality is dangerous because it confuses making the best out of harsh circumstances with willfully choosing those circumstances – the bottom billion are happy with what they have (by the way who is actually surveying these populations and uniformly declaring that poor people are happier than wealthy people?) because they usually come from such disadvantaged lives that the simple making it through the day with food on the table and a roof above their heads is a blessing, not a given. But please don’t confuse this with the happiness you are thinking of. Imagine being content with your day not because you excelled at work or made a new friend, but simply because you and your family survived. Many of the women I work with are so overcome with the sheer challenge of survival that they don’t have the time to find the things that make us in the developed world happy – things like friends, pastimes, or forms of personal expression. The truth is romanticizing poverty is a privilege that only people who do not live in poverty are lucky enough to have.

Friends and family back home are by no means the only ones guilty of romanticizing the poor. Social justice think tanks and public health nonprofits tend to characterize the poor as ‘resilient and creative entrepreneurs.’ This is clearly visible in the explosion of emphasis placed on micro-financing in recent years. This characterization is by all means probably true to a large extent and I really do believe micro-financing has the capability to mobilize and empower the poor in ways top-down interventions never could, but the over-simplification of the poor as ‘untapped potential’ is harmful in more ways than one. It results in too little highlighting of the need for legal and social mechanisms to protect the poor who are actually quite vulnerable consumers. If you or I make a poor business decision or rash purchase, chances are that we’re much more likely to recover from the economic downfall than someone living below the poverty line would be. A romanticized view of the poor also distracts from the importance of sustainable interventions – if you view poverty as a choice rather than a reality, you are probably less likely to invest the thought and time that it takes to ensure a project is fully sustainable.  The idea that the poor just need a catalyst – a donation of money or resources for example- completely disregards the complexity of the social, political, and geographical contexts that keeps the poor living in poverty.  Instead of romanticizing poverty, we would do better to admire the strength of the poor while understanding our role as individuals, institutions, or government in ending poverty.