Women in the Social Economy

Rod,

This reminds me of the Anglo-Saxon post you wrote a few months ago. I can't wait to see where this leads!

I think the question of whether women should take over any sector might be the wrong question to ask. Then again, I'm more of a "task" girl myself, and put value and emphasis on gathering the best people for the job so that the job itself is completed by people wired for it.

Rather than think in terms of male vs. female, I'd like to see us switch to a more strengths based system. This would require a completely new approach to hiring and managing people. I think this is already happening in some progressive companies/sectors but, as with most things involving humans, we still tend to let our pride, arrogance and, yes, even fear, cloud logical decision making.

Unfortunately, in the small non-profit world I work in, male hierarchy and seniority still impede the progress that could be made for those we claim to serve and tenure and past accomplishments receive more credit than ability to perform the job.

Leanne

You have a good memory
I like to ask questions that people tend to avoid
not just to be difficult, but because sometimes these issues are really important--as I think is the case here

It is NOT exclusively about men versus women
It is about a more feminine way of managing the economy,if I can put it that way
In such an economy, balancing conflciting objectives becomes the key

You make a good point about developing a "strengths based system"
There is much evidence that diversity yields better performance

You are also sadly correct about the male hierarchies prevalent in both the profit and non-profit worlds
But this is changing

regards, rod

Women have learned to be as narcissistic, strategic, egotistical, and fawning as men to get ahead in the rigid hierarchies that run most of our institutions. It's not a gender issue, it's a leadership issue. We need effective servant leadership that's uses sapiential authority, meaning empowering the people that know how to get the job done. This will help build effective organizations that fulfill the mission without screwing the employees.

Dear Mark

Thanks for your contribution

A few too many generalisations in there for me about what women have learned
As for leadership which empowers others to get things done, I agree completely

Regards, rod

Rod, I applaud you bringing up this question. I myself have wondered how a growing social enterprise sector will change gender dynamics, particularly with regards to leadership, that exist in traditional sectors. However, if we're not careful with our terminology we can rapidly conflate the goal of "promoting diversity of thought and leadership models" with "essentialzing women."

Promoting diversity in leadership is a laudable goal and indeed it does seem that pluralistic representation on boards and staff will do tremendous good in strengthening ethical practices and awareness of different perspectives.

But to say that "women" as a category possess a special way of perceiving or acting that is more "balanced" seems reductive to me. More importantly, the examples you cite about political leadership suggest to me that we may be unintentionally reinforcing women as people who clean up other people's messes. That's not a helpful construct for several reasons: it lets men off the hook by saying somehow their natures make them ill-equipped for thoughtful leadership or just responsible behavior; it simply elevates an almost maternal m.o. to a public forum; and it keeps the potential to revert back to patriarchal structures once the crises are solved (I'm thinking here of the women who joined the workforce during WWII and then were sent home en masse when American men returned from fighting overseas.)

More balanced gender representation is an extremely important and valid point. But anytime we justify a role for women on the basis of characteristics they ALL share, categorically, we run the risk of recycling tropes like "the angel in the house" or the moral pedestal that existed for women in the Victorian era.

Dear Amy

Thanks for your comments
As you say, I have enetered a minefield
And the word limits placed by "the Edge" does not allow much room for clarification

Lets start by drawing a distinction between the whole economy and the social economy or social enterprise sector, as we more frequently call it
What I am arguing for is more diversity in the general economy
There is a great deal of evidence that more diverse companies simply do better--this having more diversity is morally and economically preferable

At this stage, despite the rhetoric, leadership is still largely in male hands, so arguing for diversity becomes an argument for more women in leadership and Board roles
Beyond this, I am also arguing that the "style" of our system, particularly in finance, has been very masculine (as we commonly understand that term); with disasterous consequences
I am arguing that an economic model which was more feminine, as we generally understand that term, would be morally preferable and economically more successful, given our circumstances today

Also, I am pointing out that in the social enterprise sector a disproportionate number of the entrepreneurs are women.
I believe this reflects many factors

Lastly, I use Rwanda and Iceland as examples of how in two tragic situations the population has opted for women in a crisis
You argue this could lead to reverting back to masculine type once the crisis has passed.
This could happen but it does not necessarily follow

Men should not be "let of the hook" by what I am saying
I think they too need to recognse that in the economic models of the future, success will be more about the balanced achievement of varied financial, social, ethical and environmental goals rather than something as single-minded as "profit maximisation at all costs" model we have been follwing

thanks for your thoughtful comment

regards, rod

I appreciate your response, Rod - these distinctions are so tricky and nuanced. I still have qualms about using "masculine" and "feminine" as the descriptors for economic behavior, particular saying "as we commonly understand them" - If indeed we are relying on the normative stereotypes, then we need awareness of our potential to reinforce the gender binary and its ability to limit people's perceptions of each other based on gender. Another commenter did a great job pointing out that simply polarizing the "masculine" and "feminine" style is unnecessarily binary in structure, when we should be looking to blend different characteristics, as they may be socially encouraged in different genders. I agree with you on content, vis a vis behaviors to encourage in our new economic order as well as representation of different perspectives - I think we just disagree on labels here.

But labels are important! It makes the difference between whether we're using gender as shorthand for an archetype or dealing with real, complex human beings on a wide spectrum of humanity.

Again, so glad you brought up the question, because otherwise we would not unearth the assumptions that often affect these conversations.

Dear Amy

Thanks for your comment

I do understand the danger of stereotypes and their binary and reductive dangers, yet I have waded into these waters knowingly, nevertheless
There are several points which I intended to make, of which some seem a bit less controversial

First the safest
Our economy has been run in a single-minded way and it is leading us to disaster--we need a more balanced approach--I think, so far so good--at least on a site like Social Edge

Second, also I think relatively safe here
Companies and their Boards have lacked diversity. This happens for reasons which are morally reprehensible (persistent gender-based discrimination). The effects are manifold, but have a negative personal impact on women and their careers and a measureable detrimental effect on our economy and the companies which practice discrimination. More diversified companies (not just in terms of gender) outperform.

Third--here we start to wade into trickier waters
In the social sector and in certain companies and countries, women are playing a larger role and the effects are positive. And i think as the social economy progresses they will play an increasingly important role, which will largely have positive implications. This will be one of the "big trends" of the next 10-20 years

fourth and finally--and here the waters turn to the "treachorous rapids" of gender stereotypes
The qualities these women leaders often evidence, based upon my own personal experience, conventional understanding and academic research, are those qualities we have come to conventionally describe as "feminine"

I am aware of the danger of stereotypes, even those which seem positive, because they do have a tendency to open certain unattractive floodgates
On the other hand, sometimes, in certain circumstances they have instructive value

You might recall the book, "Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars", or something like that
Now of course, the discussion was full of stereotypes, and do not apply equally to all men and women and in fact, that we are all blends of many different qualities; but this does not mean books like that one cannot be helpful in enhancing our understanding of ourselves. I feel as we consider newer, more social economic models, we need to embed elements or characteristics that are commonly considered "feminine" and excise some of those which we have considered "masculine"

and yes, as long as I am trying to be honest, I thought raising some of these questions in the direct and unexplained way I have might get such vital issues debated. My aim is not to cause offense or worsen gender understanding, but to bring some oxygen of debate onto some critical questions

Thanks for your thoughts

regards, rod

Hi Rod, when 'reckless cowboys' run the show, you know, everyone ends up losing - including the cowboys (unless they're up there in the 1%) I agree, women have a much better ability to balance resources and systems.

Like in Rwanda, women had to rise, in stopping the testosterone-fueled self-destructive cycle of retaliation from repeating. In giving balance to patriarchal structures, women are also better equipped to handle pain, without retaliating (that's why I think war won't be solved for good by men alone with pay back, testosterone just fuels retaliation.) Women are also the guardians of the future, (not just with child bearing and rearing roles they're often only assigned to) but with morality and the global economy too.

The problem with the cultural system of male-dominance, is the historical conditioning and entrenched gender-centric roles. Even in a corporate context today, women still feel the pressure to perform, are often ignored or belittled and don't seek out what they are entitled to, with respect/pay, etc. Only in the last few decades or so, has it been accepted that men and women are equally competent, power operates only as a social structure and men and women have different leadership styles, with women naturally tending toward multitasking collaborations, in managing systems and people.

In the Tao of life, we of course have both masculine and feminine energies within us, and within each, our learned expectations and behaviors so, so far traditional business leadership has been a very self-selecting "if I win, I keep the profits" masculine energy, without any diversity of thought in it's symmetry, and generally leaning toward a herd mentality. What a feminine presence (or femininity energy) would bring to the political and economic spheres, is an ability to direct masculine strengths and energies towards evolving and responding holistically rather than hierarchically, to shared responsibility/recognition etc, locally, nationally, and globally. In this new paradigm, men would embrace their own femininity, and recognize and accept the masculinity components in women (in the workplace) as a complimentary style to theirs, not as perceived incompatibility, or a threat to them, or to their religion, or their cult or whatever the workplace is to them, as the last bastion of their manhood.

I think an answer to 'cleaning up the mess" lies in the integration of the two - masculinity and femininity - and the release of toxic ideologies (diffusing false beliefs and prejudices about women) that are too rigidly defined and stop women from participating in decision-making - for blazing new trails for future generations, and in creating new roles and new social structures, that move the globe closer toward lasting peace and prosperity.

Maybe handing the reins over to women, in running the show, could perhaps reveal mankind's inner instinct for maternal reassurance? I don't know Rod, testosterone won't go down without a fight, and in striking out, testosterone most needs to remember to respect human nature's balance, especially when we see what too much one-sided testosterone has done to places, from Rwanda to Wall St.

Glad to hear you're in touch with your feminine side, Rod.

In recognition of the natural gifting of the "woman" in balancing systems and resources, women are the acknowledged home-makers in most cultures. And with the introduction of microfinance in efforts to boost development in rural parts of Nigeria (I am sure in other parts of the developing world too), women have been identified as better micro-entrepreneurs and managers of micro-credit. This is already happening.

However, instead of adopting a divisive language that emphasises all the goodness in the nature of womankind juxtaposed against all the evil that man represents, what we should be doing is debating the best qualities of both and how both can work out a synergy for the good of society.

Dear Adesina

Thanks for your comment
You are quite right, of course
I was not meaning to be divisive at all

regards, rod

Dear Jo

Thanks for your insightful comment
There seems little to add

Testosterone will not go down without a fight, as you put it so well
On the other hand, there are cases like Iceland and Rwanda where it walks off the stage, dejected, rejected and humiliated
The recent financial crisis may be the beginning of the same process
lets see

regards, rod

History is not making my gender somewhat useless, we are talking ourselves down because it seems that is the fad. There are positive and negative qualities about both sexes. We just need to highlight the positives in both and create a synergy for the good of all.

Dear Adesina

Thanks for your comment

Of course, we are not yet useless--or at least I hope not!!
And yes it is true that women and men both bring different qualities to the table
And it is also true that the ultimate goal is not one gender or the other in control, but both contributing to a shared control

On the other hand, we as men have made a hash of things in the last 30 years
There is no squirming out of the fact that we have run things economically, militarily and financially--we have alot to answer for in that regard

I do think that one aspect to our longer term recovery will be a change toward a more "feminine" style to economic management
This will be pervasive, far-reaching and bloody interesting to observe

I very much look forward to observing this process unfold

regards, rod

Ogunte is an organisation that develops female social innovators, women who have sustainable development at heart. They might be social entrepreneurs, activists, volunteers, members of micro, small and larger companies or public organisations.
Ogunte’s sister company “Global Tribal Network” promotes a culture of mutual support and learning, and the creation of viable and sustainable women-led marketing collectives among the members. Principally based in London, members connect from as far as Brazil, Canada, Europe, New Zealand and Australia.
 
We invite women to stop for a second and look at how they can be even greater catalysts of progress and connectedness in the communities of their choice and, when possible, in collaboration with men too!
 
During our networking and learning events we see a lot of women talking about their achievements as if they were doing this on behalf on their gender. Why not, it’s their choice. But it’s a heavy responsibility! What is important to us is their attitude, beliefs and talent, and specifically, the way they influence their work environment, their stakeholders, their communities.

We believe it is in this way that women make social enterprise what it is today - and that there is potential for more. Women could be even more influential if and when they...

- Talk boldly about their vision in a way that embeds their core values
- Clearly define these core values and the indicators of success
- Prove that they have a viable proposition (financial, strategic, operational)
- Can clearly demonstrate what change took place…
 
In our work with women social innovators, we have noticed six recurrent core domains. These six domains are worth embracing as a cognitive journey, to understand behaviour, talents, attitudes, past achievements, and to shape future plans.
 
Our objective is to take women through this simple journey to harness their skills and build opportunities.

As we go, we really insist on seeing the evidence with which women demonstrate and measure their progress. But what hinders a lot of female social entrepreneurs is the illusion that soft outcomes are “difficult” to measure. Things such as confidence, empowerment, well-being…
Yet, that is what a lot of women specialise in, sell and promote.
How do they know they have any influence on their communities, how do they know they make a real impact if they can’t demonstrate or measure the change?
 
We argue that all things are measurable, and all knowledge is manageable. We also argue that outcomes such as "people empowered" to make life decisions, healthier and happier young people are not “soft” but rather “outcomes of substance” that are essential to the way that people operate in the world.

Step by step, we invite women to reflect on connectedness and collaboration, on their social impact and their contribution to this impact, their growth in confidence, their visibility and leadership, their sense of learning, and their viability.
 
We are aware that these domains overlap, feed and complement each other. This is how we define each one of them:
• Social Impact: the difference or change made as a result of you carrying out your work.
• Connectedness and collaboration: the way in which you interact and build relationships with others to achieve mutual goals
• Growth in Confidence: your capacity to overcome obstacles and gain assurance
• Visibility and leadership: where and HOW you bring your message across (internally and externally)
• Sense of learning: the way you make use of reflection and inspiration for yourself and others
• Viability: the evidence of how you manage your resources and subsequently create value

We then explore how all this makes sense compared to other individuals, other organisations and wider campaigns. Personal benchmarking is a crucial step to ensure women make sense of their values, their ideas and ability, and their progress to come, in a meaningful context. It also helps to prioritise what really matters (we all have limited time and resources) and opens up opportunities to effectively share and learn with others.
 
To ensure these elements are always considered and valued across our work we use this process in recruitment, learning and evaluation, as initial organisational health-checks, as business and executive coaching introductory tool. We also use it to assess candidates of the Ogunte Women’s Social Leadership Awards and to recruit our internal team!

Social enterprise isn’t for the spineless nice-to-do’s but rather for the bold and the brave change-makers – and women can lead the way if they give themselves the permission to do so. To make sure the substance and significance of work is seen and heard we are determined to help show and demonstrate the value of women’s achievements, and build strong connections for learning and future opportunities!

Dear Servane

Thanks for your lengthy and interesting post about Ogunte
I find what you all do there fascinating
I hope you will not mind if I post the URL just for those who might e interested
http://ogunte.com/innovation/home

There is little to add--good luck

regards, rod

Without going into too much detail, I think Will Easterly has largely answered your question already: people respond to incentives. The biggest problem in the banking collapse was that companies were focusing and rewarding short-term goals rather than long-term profitability indices. Stability was forsaken for tomorrow's cash-in-hand.

It is possible that women would take a longer-term approach, but at this point, it sounds like everyone has taken a step back and is looking for a more cautious route. We have all learned from others' recent mistakes and will likely alter our strategies accordingly. Regardless of gender, there are good managers and bad managers. What we should focus on is not what hormones may be driving them, but what their capacities are and how to evolve and promote increasingly strong management training.

An interesting interview on managers versus leaders can be found on the Economist website here <http://www.economist.com/[…]/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14770319>.

Dear Shannon

Thanks for your comment
William Easterly is one of my favourite authors, and I think his book, "White Man's Burden" is a classic

It does not feel to me like people are taking a cauitious approach, rather like we are "back at the races"
I have a dread fear we will have another crisis before too long
Also, I have no idea how many heart attacks this person can take

My view is that the changes undertaken are superficial and not structural--we are papering over the cracks

and yes, of course, there are good and bad in all genders...and races, and ages and all of that
I am not focused on the hormones, just the results

regards, rod

Hi Rod, Sorry to join in so late in the conversation but I thought that it would be good to take this in one more direction... A women run investment bank sounds like a great idea to me (but let me say on the one set I am hardly an unbiased person when it comes to my opinion about the machismo that has ruled wall street and the city in the past) but it is more important in my opinion to have gender equality in upper management than just switching from one to the other. Apart from what has been said earlier about taking the good and the bad from both genders and the dangers of putting on a pedestal it is increasingly becoming clear that firms with more diversity are performing better financially and attracting more investment. In a very interesting practitioners guide from the IFC and the Global Reporting Initiative claims that more gender diversity on boards and upper management are likely to perform better financially and mentions that "there is growing belief in the investment world, supported by research findings, that companies that empower women and encourage gender diversity may outperform others in the longterm - gender performance being one possible indicator of organizations’ financial strength"…
So yes I would like to see more women in the social economy however not at the expense of gender diversity itself (besides … I like men … this last little snip being my provocative contribution to the conversation ;))

Sorry forgot to mention... I am referring to "Embedding Gender in Sustainability Reporting: A practitioners Guide" IFC and GRI, 2009. Full publication available on http://www.globalreporting.org/[…]/GRIPublications.

Dear Hanniah

Thanks for your comment

Look, I like women, and I can also say that "some of my best friends are men"
Both are true, but this is not the point

I certainly agree that diversity would be best
But I also think that for an economy to be diverse, we will probably have firms run by women too--and some will be large
It would be interesting to see how an all-women bank would be differently run--all investment banks would have something to learn

This is a bit of a ramble
Typical for late on a friday evening
I should go home!

thanks again--rod

Boutris Boutris Ghali said to me during an interview at the UN, "Any nation that marginalizes half of its population, cannot succeed economically, politically or culturally"
If you look around the world, you will see that every single country that marginalizes or subjugates women is poor, non democratic, and culturally threadbare. Male-dominated societies spend most of their time fighting internally for "honor" and abusing women.

Women must actually hold up more than half the sky because so many men don't hold up their end. The result is a civilization and an economy that is not sustainable.

There is a solution to this: a Caring Economy, as laid out by Riane Eisler in her latest book, The Real Wealth of Nations, in which she postulates that rich and sustainable economies are based on society-supporting "female" work, like education, child raising, etc, and that women and female values are equally woven through all aspects of society. When they are, the result is less violence, less war, better economic decisions, more wealth, more art, more happiness and a sustainable national economy.

It is not that men are bad, they just think too much with a body part that is not attached to their necks.

Quite right Patrick, that would explain why it is mandatory for women to cover themselves entirely in some cultures or why in Western culture, pornography is so rampantly available as the ad next to your news.

When men are led by their other head, women are treated only as sexual objects, while men gain a false sense of superiority. Under this climate, an equal and just society can never flourish (instead unbalanced, narrow-minded and self-serving.) I agree with the Caring Economy - the 21st century is about the 'liberated' woman and the 'new' man.

I say what I say above, because I learnt first hand what being married to a man who was always led by his other brain, was like. I know my marriage was not the only one to have ended because of infidelity, so Rod you being raised by holocaust survivors is a far greater victory, than me overcoming misogyny of the 'old'man.

Jo

Thanks for both your comments

We all have our crosses to bear
It is my parents whose experiences were challenging--not mine

I am sorry for how your ex-husband treated you and apologise on behalf of my gender
On the other hand, I am certain have no professional competence in personal relationships
My goal above was only to focus on the harm men and the male approach have done to our economy and our society

This is something within our capacity to fix

regards, rod

best, rod

I agree men and women aren't here to fix each other, so knowing the importance of lesson learning in how one sees things, I didn't mean to out myself with a public confession, it's just I believe in a world that's post-patriarchy.

And with the value of seeing each other more fully, if the world's post-patriarchy then it's also post-feminist (without any anarchy) because it's the world of patriarchy that's caused the problems that now need to be fixed, any thing that's post-patriarchy is a good thing.

Dear Jo

Thanks for your comment
Public confessions are fine--its the time of year!
Completely agree with your statement

Happy New Year!
rod

Dear Patrick

Thanks for your comment
I missed it earlier and thank you for pointing out the book by Riane Eisler
I had not heard of it before
and as far as our body parts, well.......

regards, rod

Rod, thank you for launching this discussion about the importance of women in leadership roles. As a woman social entrepreneur myself, I find it exciting to see the strong women working in the nonprofit sector. There are so many inspiring stories. One of my favorites is Frances Hesselbein. She was a mentee of Peter Drucker. This 90-something leader is still going strong, speaking internationally, and helping women leaders and entrepreneurs all over the world. She has written two very insightful books geared towards non-profit/for-profit leaders: The Leader of the Future and On Mission and Leadership: A Leader to Leader Guide. I had the pleasure of meeting with Miss Hesselbein in New York; she has already had a profound influence on me and my desire to become a leader. With leaders like Frances to inspire us, it's exciting to think what can be accomplished in the future.

Sincerely,
Pamela

Pamela Hawley
Founder and CEO
UniversalGiving

www.universalgiving.org
phawley@universalgiving.org

Living and Giving Blog: www.pamelahawley.wordpress.com

Dear Pamela

Thanks for your comment and the story of Frances Hesselbein
She sounds an inspiring individual indeed and someone who I hope can give young people of both genders a model to strive for

regards, rod

‘HALF THE SKY: TURNING OPPRESSION INTO OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN WORLDWIDE,’ By Nicolas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn is, in my female opinion, an absolute read especially for literate, privileged [Western] women.

As I drew closer toward the end of reading [it], I became impatient – mainly because I so wanted to pen the impact of reading this daunting account has had on me – in the hope that by so doing, you too may be inspired to delve into it.

Innately feminine and an acquired feminist, I have born witness to the mis-understanding of issues as they pertain to women by all human beings; i.e., males and females alike. Dare to echo the ‘F’ word and the reaction forthcoming resembles ‘prickly’ heat rash.

The extent to which issues affecting women have been normalized and marginalized is in a word, shameful. And in sharing my thoughts, I do not absolve myself from being a part of this ‘shame dynamic.’

For many who will read this, we have been brought up to believe that equality is our inalienable right. Subsequently, to discover otherwise is incredibly confronting. However I refer to this quote:

‘If we firmly believe in certain values, such as the equality of all human beings regardless of colour or gender, then we should not be afraid to stand up for them; it would be feckless to defer to slavery, torture, foot binding, honour killings or genital cutting just because we believe in respecting other faiths and cultures.’

As one who describes herself as a ‘global humanitarian committed to being a catalyst for transformation’ my shame stems from how much I was partly ignorant to in spite of ALL the traveling that I have managed to do in the name of humanity. Here are just a few examples:

• Every day, the equivalent of five full jumbo jets of women die in labour – I am seated in a jumbo jet as I write this
• In instances where women are sold and/or thrown into prostitution and/or sex trafficking they are better protected against HIV/AIDS as, in such instances, they are engaging in protected sex. It is in fact when they marry and start to have unprotected sex that they – and their potential off-springs – become exposed to the deadly virus
• Approximately once every ten seconds, a girl somewhere in the world is pinned down. Her legs are pulled apart, and a local woman with no medical training pulls out a knife or razor blade and slices off some or all of the girl’s genitals. In most cases, there is no anesthetic
• Six of the ten richest self-made women in the world are now Chinese

The business of espousing statistics is a tricky one. Oftentimes intended to create the ‘shock factor,’ the adverse resulting effect is one of numbing out and inaction by the audience to which they are targeted and intended to evoke some sort of meaningful action. After all, how does one relate to millions of girls not completing elementary school – statistics report 57% of 10 million children, the bulk of this percentage being girls – for a myriad of reasons – the main one in poor countries being that it is viewed a better ROI to educate boys than girls.

Meanwhile, in the cozy confines of our own homes we are trying to get one or two children ready for school – where a school bus will come and get them and a balanced, nutritious meal prepared from a place of love is handed to them in a pretty little lunchbox as they bolt through the door with the bellies already filled courtesy of Kellogg’s! In sum, when existing realities are so stark and foreign on either side of the divide, it renders both sides of the equation into a state of paralysis.

How then do we continue to work toward bridging this gap? The first step lies in our own personal responsibility to raise our own levels of awareness. Repeated personal experience has taught me that the most effective way of doing this is reaching out and helping those in need. Choosing to help even one person is a good starting place. In other words, ‘self-improvement comes mainly from trying to help others.’

Some may argue, why help others when I have my own burdens to bear? To this I retort, why not? The size of our burdens is relative. In the words of one of my friends, ‘the weight of her blessings propel her to want to make a difference in the world.’ How honourable it that?

As the world continues to turn, increasingly across the globe, the significance and role of women is shifting from being ‘beasts of burden and sexual playthings into full-fledged human beings.’

In closing, I refer to a quote from the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan:

‘It is impossible to realize our goals while discriminating against half the human race. As study after study has taught us, there is no tool for development more effective than the empowerment of women.’

China and Rwanda serve as living validation of the aforementioned.

As we continue to self-empower let us take on the responsibility to empower another woman in our families, in our communities, in our places of worship, in our countries and in our world. When each one of us commit to helping another one of us, our transformation is virtually guaranteed.

During this year-end time of reflection, my invitation to you is to pause and consider how you may be able to put your gifts to use such that they benefit another. Every one of us has a gift to share and a lesson to learn – otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

‘Women hold up half the sky.’—Chinese proverb

Dear Nadine

Your passionate reply leaves little left to say
It is kind of you to share these feelings and insights with us
On a personal level I feel honoured that you have chosen to express yourself in reply to our conversation

Only one thing I aspect of it I would make a comment on
Let me first commend you for being the kind of person who considers others
That is a rare quality indeed, although it less rare on "the edge"
Not everyone can match your ambition in this regard

What I feel is that the greatest impact we can have is by first trying to live our own lives in a manner which is consistent with our stated values
If we can make this work, then being a positive influence on those closest to each of us is a sufficiently noble task and, if successful, achievement
If we can, like you, go beyond and influence others as well, well this is remarkable

I continue to struggle with even just the first and second, but learn from the example of people like you

regards, rod