Zafar began her presentation with an explanation of the origins of patriarchy and moved on to share astounding figures that illustrate why focusing on economic empowerment of women can change the world. 70% of people living below the poverty line are women. The economic loss to a society that has a lack of women participating in the market is 0.7% of GDP. In both South Asia and the Middle East, female participation in the economy is only half that of male participation. Thus, there is a clear correlation between a society that does not utilize all of its human resources and poverty.

However, this is not only a problem of economics. The most difficult part about empowering women economically is changing a society’s attitudes and perspectives towards women. During her presentation Zafar stated, “Microfinance is simple, but changing mindsets is not.” Therefore, the real challenge to empowering women economically is making both men and women realize the worth of a woman in both social and economic terms. The underlying devaluation of women in some societies continues to be an uphill battle for organizations like the KASHF Foundation, and for our global community as a whole. Hopefully, one day we will reach a global society where equity between women and men is the norm. Thankfully, organizations like Kashf are doing some of the most important work in the world, and leading us in that direction.

Please click the link below to check out the Kashf foundation and all the wonderful work they do!

http://www.kashf.org/site_files/display_content.asp?id=5

The answer? With an overwhelming 46+ percentage of the vote, the answer is that women and girls are the solution to development. Being a woman, especially one interested in development and international politics, one would think I would jump for joy at such a realization by the international community. But I remain straight faced, neither elated or impressed.

As inspiring as it may seem to be the singled-out gender by leaders in development, should we accept that women are the only answer to development in the Global South? Evidence has shown tremendous changes in societies and regions which have embraced the Grameen Bank micro-finance model, which asserts the intellectual and business capacity of women to the front line. Money in the hands of women: proven to be a positive endowment for the rest of the community, as funds trickle to feed the children and the ill within each local society. This is incredibly true.

It is essential that women and young girls are inherently integrated into development models throughout all countries and systems- including the West! But, do polls such as these or verbose statements made by our heads of state, put too much pressure on women in the developing world? Consider me a feminist, but I can not help but be frustrated by the pressure placed on women to single-handedly carry development in their local communities. I would like for a more egalitarian perspective that reviews ideas of men attributing positively to development as well. If there are problems in men contributing positively, then let’s also work on the social dictations that convince us men and boys only perpetuate war. Let us work towards not only burdening women with such a task but also recognizing they are the gems of war torn societies. Therefore respecting their bodies, their ideas and their contributions. After all for a more sustainable process, shouldn’t the role of sexes and gender at some point coincide?

And if this egalitarian look is too irksome, progressive or idealistic for you, then let’s consider more rewards, incentives and support programs for women in developing nations– as they seem to be carrying much of the weight of the third world on their shoulders. With such a large task at hand, I would think they deserve the largest support system available.

More perspectives on this issue:

Empowering the Voices of Women to Appease the MDGs

Africa: Women and Children the Focus of Achieving MDGs

Many have tried to detract from this move with base arguments about emotion and issues between the U.S. and the IOC. While these arguments are true and have some merit, it is obvious most of those making them never read the Rio bid. Believe it or not, I actually did. A few weeks ago, I found it online and went through pretty much the whole thing. And it’s good. It takes advantage of the beautiful setting, previous infrastructure development and forces Rio to confront such major issues as crime and inequality.

Hosting the Games won’t by any means solve all, or even most, of Rio’s and Brazil’s problems, but the Olympics have aided societies in transition. This move by the IOC shows that many in the international system are willing to take a few risks and begin sharing and entrusting responsibility to the up-and-comers. It has always been said that responsibilities shared makes the load that much lighter.

Hopefully other international organizations will follow the IOC’s lead and begin to share spoils with new members. In many ways this decision is very counterintuitive since the IOC has been known as being wealthy, white and male and European dominated. Maybe if they can change, the rest of us can too?

Call me cheesy but I truly feel that the Olympics can bring out the best in all of us, even if only for 16 days every four years. Hopefully this latest decision by the IOC highlights that fact and reminds the rest of us that the world is changing and maybe we need to change along with it. If the IOC sees the benefits in Brazil, then maybe sport really does imitate life.

Here are a few highlights:

• The Pennies for Peace program of Mortenson’s Central Asia Institute is a grassroots campaign started by school kids to donate pennies to build schools, especially schools for girls, in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It’s estimated that there are enough pennies lying around the U.S. to eradicate global illiteracy, which would take $6 billion a year for 15 years.

• Mortenson discussed the direct effects of female literacy on decreasing fertility rate and used Bangladesh as an example of a success story. In Bangladesh, there was a national literacy campaign which tripled female literacy, and now the birth rate has decreased to 3.5 live births per woman.

• In terms of cultural norms in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mortenson pointed out that when a woman is married, she severs maternal ties and goes to live with her husband’s family. By learning to read, she can teach her mother how to read. Then, the married woman and her mother will have a means of communication by letter writing.

• Another interesting point is that for a man to go on Jihad, he needs his mother’s permission. Not to have his mother’s permission/blessing is an enormous sin. Women who are educated are less likely to allow their sons to go on Jihad.

• The final point of the lecture was about Obama’s surge in infantry in Afghanistan this summer. Mortenson argued that Afghanis want brainpower, not firepower. Generals have said there’s no military solution to Afghanistan, so Mortenson suggested that perhaps listening and talking to Afghanis before deploying troops would be best.

• Mortenson also pointed to good news that very few people knew (it doesn’t make the NY Times): in 2000, there were 800,000 boys in school in Afghanistan. In 2008, there were 7.2 million Afghan kids in school, 2 million of whom were girls. This is the biggest increase in child enrollment anywhere ever!

One of the themes from his discussion was the idea that you can’t solve poverty from a think tank in Washington D.C. You need community participation, involvement and support.