Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide

This past weekend, the New York Times Sunday magazine devoted its entire issue to "Why Women's Rights Are the Cause of Our Time." Some very sober and powerful reading there -- and not what you might think upon first encountering a magazine with a title like that. In fact, these are real, global, and serious issues that should have the attention and ministry of Christians everywhere. More on that in a moment. 

The lead feature was an excerpt from the forthcoming book by New York Times Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof and his wife, Sheryl WuDunn,a former Times correspondent who now works in finance and philanthropy. The book is titled, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. I've already pre-ordered it, based on the excerpt I read in this magazine. Here's a summary, one that includes an honest fact about abortion that I was stunned to read in a mainstream publication -- a good indicator of the journalistic veracity of this book's research.

Traditionally, the status of women was seen as a “soft” issue — worthy but marginal. We initially reflected that view ourselves in our work as journalists. We preferred to focus instead on the “serious” international issues, like trade disputes or arms proliferation. Our awakening came in China.

After we married in 1988, we moved to Beijing to be correspondents for The New York Times. Seven months later we found ourselves standing on the edge of Tiananmen Square watching troops fire their automatic weapons at prodemocracy protesters. The massacre claimed between 400 and 800 lives and transfixed the world; wrenching images of the killings appeared constantly on the front page and on television screens.

Yet the following year we came across an obscure but meticulous demographic study that outlined a human rights violation that had claimed tens of thousands more lives. This study found that 39,000 baby girls died annually in China because parents didn’t give them the same medical care and attention that boys received — and that was just in the first year of life. A result is that as many infant girls died unnecessarily every week in China as protesters died at Tiananmen Square. Those Chinese girls never received a column inch of news coverage, and we began to wonder if our journalistic priorities were skewed.

A similar pattern emerged in other countries. In India, a “bride burning” takes place approximately once every two hours, to punish a woman for an inadequate dowry or to eliminate her so a man can remarry — but these rarely constitute news. When a prominent dissident was arrested in China, we would write a front-page article; when 100,000 girls were kidnapped and trafficked into brothels, we didn’t even consider it news.

Amartya Sen, the ebullient Nobel Prize-winning economist, developed a gauge of gender inequality that is a striking reminder of the stakes involved. “More than 100 million women are missing,” Sen wrote in a classic essay in 1990 in The New York Review of Books, spurring a new field of research. Sen noted that in normal circumstances, women live longer than men, and so there are more females than males in much of the world. Yet in places where girls have a deeply unequal status, they vanish. China has 107 males for every 100 females in its overall population (and an even greater disproportion among newborns), and India has 108. The implication of the sex ratios, Sen later found, is that about 107 million females are missing from the globe today. Follow-up studies have calculated the number slightly differently, deriving alternative figures for “missing women” of between 60 million and 107 million.

Girls vanish partly because they don’t get the same health care and food as boys. In India, for example, girls are less likely to be vaccinated than boys and are taken to the hospital only when they are sicker. A result is that girls in India from 1 to 5 years of age are 50 percent more likely to die than boys their age. In addition, ultrasound machines have allowed a pregnant woman to find out the sex of her fetus — and then get an abortion if it is female.

The global statistics on the abuse of girls are numbing. It appears that more girls and women are now missing from the planet, precisely because they are female, than men were killed on the battlefield in all the wars of the 20th century. The number of victims of this routine “gendercide” far exceeds the number of people who were slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century.

For those women who live, mistreatment is sometimes shockingly brutal. If you’re reading this article, the phrase “gender discrimination” might conjure thoughts of unequal pay, underfinanced sports teams or unwanted touching from a boss. In the developing world, meanwhile, millions of women and girls are actually enslaved. While a precise number is hard to pin down, the International Labor Organization, a U.N. agency, estimates that at any one time there are 12.3 million people engaged in forced labor of all kinds, including sexual servitude. In Asia alone about one million children working in the sex trade are held in conditions indistinguishable from slavery, according to a U.N. report. Girls and women are locked in brothels and beaten if they resist, fed just enough to be kept alive and often sedated with drugs — to pacify them and often to cultivate addiction. India probably has more modern slaves than any other country.

Another huge burden for women in poor countries is maternal mortality, with one woman dying in childbirth around the world every minute. In the West African country Niger, a woman stands a one-in-seven chance of dying in childbirth at some point in her life. (These statistics are all somewhat dubious, because maternal mortality isn’t considered significant enough to require good data collection.) For all of India’s shiny new high-rises, a woman there still has a 1-in-70 lifetime chance of dying in childbirth. In contrast, the lifetime risk in the United States is 1 in 4,800; in Ireland, it is 1 in 47,600. The reason for the gap is not that we don’t know how to save lives of women in poor countries. It’s simply that poor, uneducated women in Africa and Asia have never been a priority either in their own countries or to donor nations. ...

Why do microfinance organizations usually focus their assistance on women? And why does everyone benefit when women enter the work force and bring home regular pay checks? One reason involves the dirty little secret of global poverty: some of the most wretched suffering is caused not just by low incomes but also by unwise spending by the poor — especially by men. Surprisingly frequently, we’ve come across a mother mourning a child who has just died of malaria for want of a $5 mosquito bed net; the mother says that the family couldn’t afford a bed net and she means it, but then we find the father at a nearby bar. He goes three evenings a week to the bar, spending $5 each week.

Our interviews and perusal of the data available suggest that the poorest families in the world spend approximately 10 times as much (20 percent of their incomes on average) on a combination of alcohol, prostitution, candy, sugary drinks and lavish feasts as they do on educating their children (2 percent). If poor families spent only as much on educating their children as they do on beer and prostitutes, there would be a breakthrough in the prospects of poor countries. Girls, since they are the ones kept home from school now, would be the biggest beneficiaries. Moreover, one way to reallocate family expenditures in this way is to put more money in the hands of women. A series of studies has found that when women hold assets or gain incomes, family money is more likely to be spent on nutrition, medicine and housing, and consequently children are healthier.

These are shocking, sinful statistics. They must be challenged and changed. For that reason, I am very grateful for the journalistic efforts of Kristof and WuDunn. For the same reason, I was also very grateful for the attention Secretary Clinton brought to the status of women in Africa during her visit last week. 

But having researched the history of feminism in the Western world for my own book, I am also reminded of the course of our women's history. In many ways, though perhaps not as extreme, we issued the same complaints. Women in the 19th century complained of men making the same poor financial expenditures on alcohol and prostitutes, that women didn't have equality in education, and that maternal health was a neglected medical priority. But as women fought for equality, we found the fight remained long after the battles were won. Because men were identified as the problem, the gender war has never been fully resolved. Instead of unifying marriages and families, this ongoing battle continues to fracture them. So my concern is that we will import some of these same values into our efforts to help women around the world. 

In fact, the opening illustration of Kristof and WuDunn's article in my opinion illustrates this perfectly. It is about a Pakistani couple where the husband is sinning terribly against his wife by beating her and otherwise neglecting her. She is in despair until she receives a microfinance loan, which enables her to set up a small embroidery business. Soon she is the village business mogul, able to employ many others and pay off her husband's debts. He no longer beats her because she is too valuable, and he has come around to the view that girls are just as good as boys. 

And that's where the story ends. Yay . . . but only half a yay, really. He stopped beating her, but where is the true partnership? Where is the true repentance? Only the gospel can address sin and redemption. Economic parity can't be the ultimate solution because it can't address the heart issues. And this brings me back to why I think Christians need to be involved. If we preach equality because it's found on page one of the Bible, then we should be leading the charge in this area. But our solutions will be different because our end goals are different. Yes, we want to empower women. Yes, we want women to be educated. Yes, we want families to be healthier and more prosperous. But we don't want to do this by lifting up one person in the family at the expense of another. We have to help men change, too, by preaching the gospel and teaching them to truly apply the Ephesians 5 mandate to love their wives as Christ loved the church -- without concern for cultural practices or restrictions. They must fear God and His word more than the opinions of other men and the way things are currently done in their culture. 

As Christians, we have an opportunity here to help families around the world by both standing against incredible injustice against women and by preaching the gospel of reconciliation. Let's not lose any ground to lesser solutions. 

(Photos: The New York Times)

UPDATE: Due to my travels, the comments functions has been closed on this post. Thanks!

Comments

[Sue]

Carolyn,

This reminds me of when you cited the policy of World Vision, with reference to women, that they must have equal participation in decision-making. There is no other answer. I pray that Christian women can become part of the solution and not perpetuate the problem of lesser authority for females around the world.

The authority and submission paradigm for marriage taught by so many evangelicals is incredibly damaging to many women and will cost them their life, for some only their sanity.

Lifting up women to equality with men is not at the expense of men, but is better for everyone.

[Kristine McGuire]

Thank you for sharing the article (I'm going next to Amazon to pre-order the book!) but also for pointing out the need for biblical understanding and true equality in marriage. It is through Christ that men and women find true unity, and the rights of all people are championed.

[Carolyn McCulley]

As a point of clarification, it's true that women are equal to men in terms of their status as creatures made in the image of God. And as sinners in need of a Savior! Equality is declared on the first page of the Bible and modeled for us throughout Scripture. That said, so are roles and the recognition of authority. Our modern culture equates worth and roles as the same, but Scripture does not. That's why I believe Christians can both uphold the dignity of women around the world, reach out with the gospel to all involved, and still uphold the teaching about roles found in the Bible. When we do so without recognizing our mutual equality as sinners redeemed by the blood of Christ, then we flaunt whatever authority we are given by our Savior. That's why Jesus said do not marvel over the limited authority you are given, but marvel that your names are in the book of Life.

[Terry]

This was excellent! I linked to it on my blog tonight.

[Jessalyn Hutto]

Dear Carolyn,

I want to thank you for bringing this book up within the Christian community. The subject matter is so heart breaking, but it is vital that we know the terrible evil that is pervading our world and try to find ways to be the hands and feet of our Savior until his return. It also reminds me of how desperately I desire to see Christ return and judge the evil that has ravaged our world since the fall. Knowing that each of these sinful deeds will be punnished gives me peace and hope for the future.

In responce to Sue's statement, "The authority and submission paradigm for marriage taught by so many evangelicals is incredibly damaging to many women and will cost them their life, for some only their sanity," I must disagree. True life and true sanity are found only in Christ. He has taught us how to live to the fullest through his Word and it is there we find true freedom. Loving, sacrificial authority and respectful, honoring, submission are the only prescription to a happy, healthy, and fulfilling marriage.

[Sue]

Jessalyn,

Organizations with experience in Africa support the policy that women need equal participation in leadership and decision-making. This book supports that view.

If you want to contradict the view of those organizations and people who have been involved in helping women improve their living conditions, you could mention examples of how increased submission has improved the lives of real women in Africa.

Perhaps Carolyn could provide some examples of this. I think we need to support those things which are going to help women out of violence. Typically submission to abuse increases the abuse. I have not heard of any counter examples.

[Jessalyn]

Dear Sue,

I am not in any way encouraging the idea that abuse should be tolerated or encouraged. I agree with you that we should do everything in our power to help these women and teach their husbands how to be loving and respectful partners with their wives.

The problem is that, and correct me if I am wrong, we are going to be coming to this issue from different perspectives. I believe that the only way to "liberate" these women is with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Through belief in the gospel (that Jesus Christ is God, that he gave his life on the cross so that we as sinners could be forgiven, that because of his sacrifice our relationship with God is restored and we will spend eternity with him in heaven) the men of these cultures would come to the understanding that we are all made in God's image and therefore deserve to be respected. Also, a knowledge Christ's condescension and service to sinful humanity would create a desire to serve others (including their wives). I am by no means endorsing the sinful dictatorship of a husband over his "wifely property" described in this book, but a loving and respectful relationship that is dictated by God's plan for marriage.

I would never contradict the fact that equal participation in leadership and decision-making and even other forms of gender equality have in the past and will in the future decrease the physical/emotional abuse of the female gender. However, I don't think that this is the best answer to the problems facing cultures around the world. Yes, gender "equality" has brought respect to women within the civilized world, but this "solution" has brought its own problems such as increased divorce rates, the devaluation of the role of dedicated motherhood within a society, increased promiscuity among young women, and increased abortion rates. In solving one problem we unwittingly create others. I am not saying that there are not benefits incurred, but simply that with those benefits come other unwanted side effects. This is because the effort is made without acknowledging the spiritual aspects of the problem. I am very much in favor of "liberating" these women. My favored approach, however, is to get to the heart of the problem by truly liberating both men and women from the sin that holds them in bondage. Only by liberating them from their sin will they be free to treat each other with love and respect in obedience to the Lord. This is what missionaries around the globe are seeking to do. As Carolyn said, "As Christians, we have an opportunity here to help families around the world by both standing against incredible injustice against women and by preaching the gospel of reconciliation. Let's not lose any ground to lesser solutions."

I really appreciate your passion and desire to improve these women's lives; we simply differ on the means. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[Sue]

Jessalyn,

Thank you for responding. I have a somewhat different viewpoint.

As I see it, one cannot forcibly convert husbands. Another sad statistic is that domestic violence is not lower in church attending families than non-church attending families in North America. I think it is evident that women are not sheltered from violence by the church.

You may say that they would be sheltered by the husband living out the gospel. But in the meantime what? In fact, among abused wives I know are a very good number of minister's and missionary wives. Many Christian husbands in our churches here do not live out the gospel. Can we guarantee that they will in Africa?

In view of the fact that the gospel cannot guarantee a reduction of violence, there should be some way to enable women to have freedom from violence and to feed their children in the meantime.

If the authority and submission gospel is preached in Africa, then women will not be able to get loans, or employment since their money would be under their husbands control. This is enough of a difficulty here in NA for a woman who lives in submission. How does she save money, plan a pension, further her education, if her husband sees her as uniquely occupied within the house and under his "final say"?

I cannot agree with your recounting of the side effects either. Oddly, in industrialized societies, in western Europe, the birth rate is higher in countries with less rigid gender roles. Italy, for example, has by far the lowest birth rate but reinforces gender roles.

It is important also to realize that abortion rates in the US are several times higher than anywhere in Europe, where abortion is more available. Statistics on abortion are not availble pre-women's lib, as far as I know, but abortion was a major issue in patriarchal Greece, where men wanted to limit family size.

I cannot agree that the higher incidence of divorce is necessarily a negative, since in the 19th century, there was an enormous nunmber of families living without enough food, children in orphanages, street children dying in all the major cities of North America. In some countries without easy access to divorce, many couples simply live with new partners outside of marriage and families are not cemented by marriage at all.

I believe that women being able to work, and being able to divorce, although not ideal, has made a huge improvement in the living conditions of children.

The statistics of street children and orphans in North America is often forgotten and we pretend that the masses lived in a middle class family environment. This is not the case. Many dies in extreme poverty.

Women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought hard to enable women to have rights in order to feed their children. They were not anti marriage, but promoted the interests of women who needed to escape from physically violent situations, also lacking in basic needs for the children.

If the women of North America do not support equal participation in decision-making for women worldwide, then a very basic means of survival is being withheld, (one which we benefit from in civil law, even if it is muted by the church.) I do not think that authority and submission in marriage can be presented to the women of Africa as the "Gospel."

Surely our love of children should make us want to help women to participate fully in decision-making.

[a.b.e.]

have to help men change, too, by preaching the gospel and teaching them to truly apply the Ephesians 5 mandate to love their wives as Christ loved the church -- without concern for cultural practices or restrictions.

Do you know how many Christian men (including leaders and pastors) use porn, commit adultery and otherwise abuse their wives? They know about the mandate to love their wives as Christ loved the church. But they don't practice it. How do you expect to get men in the third world to do this when men in the first world don't do it?

[a.b.e.]

My favored approach, however, is to get to the heart of the problem by truly liberating both men and women from the sin that holds them in bondage. Only by liberating them from their sin will they be free to treat each other with love and respect in obedience to the Lord.

I hate to be the negative one again, but having seen the personal lives of many Christians I don't think many of them have allowed themselves to be fully liberated from sin. I can't tell you how many Christians I looked up to only to find they were sinning in their personal lives. This has happened time and again regardless of gender, race, or socio-economic status. There appears to be so few Christians truly living out the liberation from sin that it is hard for non-believers to believe there really is liberation.