Gender council members insist leaders must honour plans to discuss equality despite tensions over US tariffs
Members of the G7′ s first gender advisory board have vowed that talks about US tariffs will not overshadow deliberations about women’s empowerment as they prepare to meet world leaders this weekend.
Justin Trudeau made the advisory council to provide leaders with expert guidance on gender equality and to ensure the issue takes centre stage at the G7 summit , which begins in Quebec on Friday.
The Canadian “ministers “, whose country holds the G7 presidency this year, has established gender parity and female empowerment among five core topics to be tackled at the meeting.
On Saturday morning, the heads of state and government will meet with members of the gender equality advisory council, co-led by Melinda Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The council includes figures such as Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai.
Members want G7 leaders to officially institute the advisory council to ensure commitments to gender equality made by the heads of state and government are tracked.
Trudeau said earlier this week that gender equality would remain a top priority at the summit, despite concerns Canada’s agenda could be derailed by debate over US tariffs.
Katja Iversen, a member of the 21 -strong council and chairman of Women Deliver, a global advocacy group for women’s rights, said:” These are world leaders who can walk and chew gum at the same time. They can talk trade and also gender equality .”
In a report published ahead of the summit, which referenced #MeToo and other grassroots feminist movement, the council called for a” fundamental transformation of unequal power in gender relations “.
Iversen said the emphasis on gender equality at the summit was unprecedented.
” We’ve been privy to some of the documents and we have never seen such a focus on gender equality ,” she said.” We will be briefing the heads of government, including Theresa May, on Saturday morning for a full hour. Afterwards, they will have 45 minutes between themselves to talk about gender inequality. So, out of two days, we will, for the first time, have almost two hours dedicated to gender equality .”
She added:” To those who believe gender equality is a soft issue, we would say it is a steel hard issue. There is likely to be discussions on tariff and trade, but data from McKinskey has shown that we would insure a growth of 26% in GDP if we had gender equality. That’s a lot of money and a significant driver of the economy, which is untapped at the moment. It is a security and economic and social issue .”
Iversen welcomed calls from May for a united front to tackle cyberbullying, and agreed that it was vital that any action is followed up with a legal framework to tackle online persecution.
Iversen said:” I commend her for doing this. We see it in a broader context. What is online can become offline and real. Online bullying is a democratic issue as well. I don’t know any women who has participated in debates and policy who has not been attacked online- from humiliating commentaries to death and rape threats .”
The council’s recommendations include is also committed to “mandate” gender parity on boards and leadership positions by 2030, to follow Britain’s example in providing 0.7% of gross national income to foreign aid, and to fighting gender-based violence and sexual harassment. It also exhorts leaders to provide comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, and to supporting developing and conflict-affected nations in offering a minimum of 12 years of free, safe and gender-responsive education.
Michael Kaufman, novelist and co-founder of the White Ribbon Campaign, which seeks to engage humen in the fight to end violence against women, said:” It’s important to push our political leaders beyond stimulating nice statements, but to put in place policies and construct these thing happen .”
Kaufman, who is the only male member of the gender inequality advisory board, said:” We’re not naive. We don’t think this is the road to Damascus for certain leaders, but we hope to have an impact.
” People presume G7 is an annual photo op, but it is a year-long process of ministerial meetings. It’s an opportunity not just to fulfill a handful of leaders but a broader range of people who have an impact .”
Another council member, Farrah Khan, administrator of Consent Comes First, at Ryerson University, Toronto, said she was buoyed by the decision in Ireland last night to overturn the country’s forbidding on abortion.” I hope the G7 see this as something to fight for .”
Natural birth is the only option for many females here, and though dedicated midwives do their best, the risk of infection and sepsis is high
At the Nyarugusu medical dispensary in north-west Tanzania, Eva Paulo, 23, is in her 36 th hour of labour. She paces barefoot in circles around the dusty yard behind the delivery room, her narrow back hunched in pain. Apart from her belly she is a slim female with an angular face, her hair rubbed back into rows of tidy plaits. When a contraction grips her, Paulo leans hard into the nearest tree, shuts her eyes and breathes mutely as the sweat beads off her forehead.
“This is too much,” she says, as another contraction racks her.” I don’t know why it’s taking so long. And the midwives, they don’t tell me anything .”
It is, of course, the universal complaint of women in labour the world over. But for many women in Tanzania,” natural birth” isn’t a preference or an accomplishment- it’s the only viable option.
Paulo is about to give birth for the fourth time in the most basic hospital conditions imaginable. The dispensary is composed of two unassuming cinder-block builds in a jacaranda thicket halfway up a mound. While the staff members will do their best, Paulo will receive no pain relief , no foetal monitoring and no medical interventions. The absence of physicians entails caesarean sections are not performed here.
Another problem- from which so many others stem- is a lack of water. There is no operating water for hand-washing, sterilisation or laundry. Toilets are filthy, squat outhouses a short stroll from the building.
Each morning, staff at the clinic buy 20 jerry cans of water from a local vendor for 500 shillings( about 16 p) each, for basic clean. The money comes out of their own pockets, which is significant for nurses who earn less than PS200 a month. Because of this, pregnant women are required to arrive with their own water.
Paulo’s water sits in the birthing room- three big vats of murky liquid purchased from a shallow well near her house an hour’s walk away.
The water in these buckets will sterilise any implements being implemented in her birth and induce the sweet tea she will drink in the late stages of labour. Finally, it will be used to hand-wash the bloodied linens and rubber sheet on which she devoted birth. A new mom cannot be discharged until she or her relative has done so.
Paulo’s experience is very much the norm. In Tanzania, merely 44% of healthcare facilities that deliver newborns have access to water, decent toilets and handwashing with soap. Of these, merely 24% have these facilities in the delivery room. The situation is similar across the region, with 42% of healthcare centres in sub-Saharan Africa having no water source within 500 metres.
By 8am each day, the dispensary’s open-air waiting area is packed with moms, pregnant women and newborns, most of whom have walked miles to get here. This is an area known for foreign-owned gold mine. What little job there is here is back-breaking and poorly paid. Although healthcare is free in Tanzania, patients have to buy their own drugs.
The medical staff at the dispensary- three registered nurse/ midwives, two trainee nurses, an office director and a lab technician- are clearly overworked. Clad in white smocks, they rush about with clipboards, weighing and immunising dozens of newborns, testing sick patients for malaria, tuberculosis and HIV, often working 24 -hour switchings for no overtime, trying to get ahead of the river of patients, which can number 500 a day.
For women in Papua New Guinea, violence at home is horribly normal. Local charities are trying to provide shelters in the absence of government support
In a room in Lae, Paula sits on the floor, Julie on a lounge. Caseworkers and support staff are on seats, and barefoot children peer at the newcomers. The children cant play outside in case their fathers show up at the gate and see them.
Paula, Julie and their children are sheltering at this Salvation Army refuge, having fled their violent spouses. They have little more than their clothes but they are among the luck ones in Papua New Guinea, where epidemic diseases of family violence builds it one of the most dangerous places in the world to be female.
In Lae, local NGO Femili PNG has for 18 months supported more than 370 abuse survivors. Femili is principally funded by the Australian government and many of its staff were trained by Mdecins Sans Frontires( MSF) when it ran a family support centre at a local hospital. Femili works with the courts, a local police department of three, and a welfare officer, emergency care and procuring interim protection orders.
Julie left her husband after he threatened to sexually abuse their six-year-old daughter. He had long been abusive to Julie, accused her friend of being most children father, and her of being a sorcerer. When he began making advances on his daughter, Julie and her children fled to a relative who set her in touch with Femili. They brought her to the refuge.
Paula gratified her husband in 2010 and they had three children, one who was killed. Her spouse was controlling, she says, limiting her conversations with male relatives and accusing her of talking to humen behind his back. He was violent and verbally abusive.
In September, the basketball team Paula played for stimulated the final, but when she came back from the game her husband accused her of only going to meet humen. He threw her belongings outside. The next morning, he hurled her out too.
I said, If you dont want me to stay with you then buy my ticket and Ill go home to my relatives, she recounts. I said I[ would] take my two children. He said, No, you leave my children and you go.
Three months in, the future is totally unpredictable. But a dramatic fightback is under way. Four activists tell us how they are adapting to the new normal
Naomi Wolf, author, political journalist and cofounder of DailyClout: Trump didnt do this. You did this. Your own inactivity brought us precisely here
The first 100 days of President Donald Trump: how has my life changed? First of all, there was the mourning period. Not for me, but for my fellow citizens. I was just mad. And I wasnt even maddest at the Trump voters. I understood that the critical battle lines now are not left versus right, but the 1% neoliberal globalisers constructing off with all of the plunder and disembowelling the middle class. So when I find the campaign, I knew that in the US, just as in the UK, a candidate who said anything at all about people forgotten in the neoliberal race would have a solid chance.
No I was mad at my own leftwing tribe. All of January, people on the left would tackle me with dazed, grief-stricken expressions, as if they had just emerged from a multi-car pileup on a foggy freeway. How could this have happened? What the fuck is we do ? I couldnt even bear to participate in those conversations. Eventually I started explaining my rage to my closest friends.
I had been screaming about the possibility of setting up this very moment for eight years, since I publish a piece in the Guardian titled Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps and wrote a book based on it, called The Objective of America ( 2007 ). Under George Bush Jr, the left had been very receptive to the books message about how democracies are undermined by the classic tactics of would-be authoritarians.
But once Obama was elected one of ours I had to expend the next eight years screaming like a haunted Cassandra, to a room the left had abandoned. I had hollered myself hoarse for eight years under Obama about what it would mean for us to sit still while Obama sent dronings in to take out US citizens in extrajudicial killings; what it would mean for us to sit still while he passed the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act that let any chairman hold citizens for ever without charge or trial; what it would mean for us to sit still while he allowed NSA surveillance, allowed Guantnamo to stay open, and allowed hyped terrorism tales to hijack the constitution and turn the US into what ultimately even Robert F Kennedy Jr was calling a national security surveillance state.
A proposed bill would enforce a far-reaching prohibit on private insurance coverage for abortions under Obamacare, and could see tens of thousands lose out
Republicans in Congress are advancing a bill that imposes a far-reaching prohibition on private insurance coverage for abortion services for as long as the Affordable Care Act remains in effect and would induce permanent a longtime forbidding on the use of Medicaid to cover abortions.
The bill, H R7, would allow Donald Trump to fulfill a promise that helped his volatile presidential campaign procure the support of major anti-abortion rights activists. In an open letter published in September, he vowed to sign the Hyde amendment, a perennial budget rider that Congress has approved every year for 40 years, into permanent law. Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has prevented millions of women who rely on Medicaid, the government-funded insurance for low-income individuals, from utilizing it to cover their abortions.
But if the bill passes, the most immediate changes will be feel on insurance policies exchanges where millions of women buy healthcare coverage.
HR7 prohibits insurance carriers from offering policies that contain abortion coverage on the exchanges set up under Obamacare to sell insurance coverage to people. It proscribes low-income women who qualify for a healthcare subsidy from receiving it if they purchase a healthcare plan that covers abortion. And it would withhold the small business taxation credit from employers who offer policies with abortion coverage.
Critics of HR7 fear it could enforce a widespread forbid on private insurance coverage of abortion by banning abortion coverage in the small subset of private insurance policies that are sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.
Because many insurance carriers offer policies to individuals on the exchanges that are similar to the group policies they sell to companies, encompassing abortion in one case but not the other requires an extra layer of administration.
Health experts said they could not be certain that would be the outcome.
What that would do to other schemes, we dont actually know, said Laurie Sobel, the associate director for womens health policy for the Kaiser Family Foundation, a healthcare think tank. But she noted that after Obamacare began involving health care policies to offer contraceptive coverage, insurance carriers enforced the coverage in the same way across the market for group and individual policies alike.
With very limited exceptions, health insurance companies essentially did the same thing with everybody, Sobel said. That is worrisome in terms of, if abortion coverage was restricted in the marketplace, insurance companies might just adopt that policy across the board.
The ban on using subsidies or taxation credits toward policies with abortion coverage could also consequence significant changes, because carriers could be reluctant to design plans that so many women or small business owners would be ineligible to purchase. In 2016, there were 871,000 uninsured women eligible to buy policies containing abortion coverage use subsidies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Under the bill, tens of thousands more who have already utilized their subsidies to purchase insurance would lose abortion coverage.
The bills restrictions on the health insurance exchanges would cease to apply if and when legislation passed by Republican in Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act. But the bill is almost certainly a preview of the lengths to which Republican will go to restrict abortion when they come to replace Obamacare.
Its a pretty sweeping bill, said Destiny Lopez, a director of All Above All, a alliance of abortion rights groups that opposes the Hyde amendment. Its an attempt to withhold abortion from nearly all women in the US through burdensome regulation intended to stop insurers from covering abortions. It could restrict abortion for nearly every woman in this country in some manner, and do significant damage in particular to low-income women.
Insurance coverage for abortion is already limited in a way that forces thousands of women to pay for abortions out of pocket. Twenty-five nations limit the sale of insurance policies encompassing abortion on their country exchanges. And exchanges in six other states dont offer any plans that encompass abortions, perhaps because Congress imposed extra administrative hurdles under the ACA for abortion coverage.
A 2013 study found that only about a quarter of abortion patients who had insurance used it to cover their procedure. Those who didnt use their insurance overwhelmingly said their insurance did not cover abortion or they werent sure.
The bill would also convert a slew of existing, provisional bans on abortion coverage into permanent law. These include bannings on abortion coverage for women on federal insurance, such as many Native American girls, women in the Peace Corps, in federal prisons, or those enrolled in Medicare or the Youngster Health Insurance Program, and prohibit the towns of Washington DC fromusing its own local funds to subsidize abortion services.
The House of Representatives approved a version of the bill on Tuesday, and the Senate will consider similar legislation next week. But Republicans in that chamber will need to peel off eight Democratic or independent votes for the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Unless Republican leaders change the Senates regulations to eliminate the filibuster, the fate of the bill may lie with Democrats facing re-election in 2018 in states that voted for Trump.
Were confident that the Senate will continue to be a firewall on this matter, said Lopez.
Also on Tuesday, Republicans introduced a federal heartbeat bill that they say would effectively eliminate abortion, but is less likely to pass even the House.
Despite Hydes longevity, progressive lawmakers in recent years have adopted efforts to see it overturned. Even Hillary Clinton, in her 2016 bid for the presidency, promised to attempt to remove Hyde from future budget bills. HR7, although it does not change the fact that women on Medicaid have long been forced to pay for any abortion services out of pocket, would make it harder for a future Democratic Congress or president to do so.
HR7 is titled the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017. Republican congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey introduced the bill in early January, as he has for several years running.
At an event to announce the bill, Smith said he supports repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, but that it is necessary to restrict the ways in which the law facilitates abortion coverage until that time.
No one knows how quickly the replace proportion will actually occur, Smith said. In the meantime, the unborn child is about to be killed with public funding. We need to enact a ordinance that takes abortion out of[ Obamacare ].
Such articles has been amended on 25 January, 2017, to correct an assertion that the contraception mandate did not apply, initially, to all insurance schemes.
Three months in, the future is totally unpredictable. But a dramatic fightback is under way. Four activists tell us how they are adapting to the new normal
Naomi Wolf, writer, political journalist and cofounder of DailyClout: Trump didnt do this. You did this. Your own inaction brought us exactly here
The first 100 days of President Donald Trump: how has my life changed? First of all, there was the mourning period. Not for me, but for my fellow citizens. I was just mad. And I wasnt even maddest at the Trump voters. I understood that the critical battle lines now are not left versus right, but the 1% neoliberal globalisers inducing off with all of the pillage and disembowelling the middle class. So when I ensure the campaign, I knew that in the US, just as in the UK, a candidate who said anything at all about people forgotten in the neoliberal race would have a solid chance.
No I was mad at my own leftwing tribe. All of January, people on the left would tackle me with dazed, grief-stricken express, as if they had just emerged from a multi-car pileup on a foggy road. How could this have happened? What will we do ? I couldnt even bear to participate in those dialogues. Ultimately I started explaining my rage to my closest friends.
I had been screaming about the possibility of setting up this very moment for eight years, since I published a piece in the Guardian titled Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps and wrote a volume based on it, called The Aim of America ( 2007 ). Under George Bush Jr, the left had been very receptive to the books message about how democracies are undermined by the classic tactics of would-be authoritarians.
But once Obama was elected one of ours I had to spend the next eight years hollering like a haunted Cassandra, to a room the left had abandoned. I had yelled myself hoarse for eight years under Obama about what it would mean for us to sit still while Obama sent dronings in to take out US citizens in extrajudicial killings; what it would mean for us to sit still while he passed the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act that let any chairperson hold citizens for ever without charge or trial; what it would mean for us to sit still while he allowed NSA surveillance, let Guantnamo to stay open, and allowed hyped terrorism narratives to hijack the constitution and turn the US into what eventually even Robert F Kennedy Jr was calling a national security surveillance nation.
Women on Waves announced that the page had been unpublished on its own Facebook account, writing: Girls on Web offer life-saving information to thousands of women worldwide. Its Facebook page publishes news, scientific information and the protocols of the World Health Organization and Women on Web has answered over half a million emails with women who needed scientific, accurate information essential for their health and life.
We expect Facebook will[ undo] this action soon enough, as access to information is a human right.
This is the second censorship row between Facebook and Women on Web. In January 2012, Facebook deleted the specific characteristics photograph of different groups founder and director, Dr Rebecca Gomperts. The image contained instructions for inducing an abortion using Misoprostol. Gomperts was locked out of her account for two days after re-posting the image, but Facebook subsequently apologized and reinstated both the image and her account.
Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for commentary.
With virtually 2bn users, the social media site plays a crucial role in circulating news and info around the world. But Facebook has struggled to meet competing demands to allow for the free flow of information while cracking down on graphic material( such as the livestreamed murder of a newborn in Thailand in April ).
In 2016, the company faced international censure over its decision to censor the iconic Vietnam War photo of a naked girl fleeing a Napalm attack. Facebook subsequently altered its policy to allow for editorial decisions about newsworthiness.
On 3 May, amid criticism over its handling of graphic videos, Facebook announced that it would hire 3, 000 more content reviewers. Such content reviewers are tasked with applying the companys community standards, often with uneven outcomes.
Facebooks has faced particular difficulty enforcing its rules for regulated goods prescription drugs, marijuana, firearms, and ammunition. The company bars attempts by private individuals to buy, sell, or trade such items, but has struggled to halt gun sales.
It used to be fun to be a 32 GG. Oh, how the mighty have fallen
There are many styles you could describe me to a friend who isnt sure whether they talked to me at a party. You might say the one with the poorly behaved blond daughters or the one with the gremlin crop. Far easier, though, simply to make a large, curving gesture at the front of your body. Start at your neck, objective somewhere near your belly button and say the one with the tits.
Turns out they did meet me after all.
Last year, a friend told me that her husband fights to hold a dialogue with me because he cant get past my breasts. I checked that their sheer sizing wasnt blocking his style to the exit( this has been known to happen ). It wasnt that. It was those things on the front of my body, which secrete milk after childbirth. They were emotionally intimidating a grown man.
And he isnt alone. With depressing regularity, I meet people who cant get past my breasts. Some guy shouts, Look at the rack on that! from a occur auto. As I arrive at a party in an outfit Id felt comfy in only seconds before, a friend takes one look at my cleavage and sniggers, The girls are out. At university, a prof tells me Im distracting him during lecturings. I spend a few weeks wondering what, precisely, he wants me to do with them, then transfer to a different course. Ive been advised to Get em out, love! and Put em away, slag! on the same day, wearing the same clothes, strolling along the same street. Is it any wonder that my breasts and I have had a complicated, often confounding relationship?
Over time, my bra sizing has varied from a 32 C at my smallest to a 38 K at my greatest, while I was pregnant with my second daughter. Now, at the age of 34, I find myself the not-so-proud owner of a pair of 32 GGs that protrude from my size-1 0 frame like an obscene cake topper. This year, I lost 3st in weight, but went down only one cup sizing. Im constructed this style. Im not doing it on purpose.
Here are a few things that my enormous breasts make me feel: cumbersome, bulky, matronly, mumsy, lumbering, massive, unwieldy, hefty, laden, out of proportion, cartoonish, imbalanced, disconcerted. Here are some things they dont make me feel: abundant, bountiful, blessed, womanly, feminine, confident, sexy, attractive.
It hasnt always been this way. Back in the working day when my boob were perky, I took full advantage and why not? Pushing my elbows together while leaning over packed-out bars usually meant I get served very quickly; when I worked as a waitress, the contents of my tip jar seemed to swell in direct correlation with the tightness of my shirt.
However, staying in control of a huge pair of breasts is difficult. In the same way that people will touch a pregnant belly without attempting permission, big breasts are often treated as public property. Strangers in bars open conversations with, What size are they? or, Are those things real? Wags at parties wonder if Ive ever lost anything in my cleavage. Debases offer to help me look for mislaid items. Im pretty certain that Ive had my breasts honked( complete with hilarious sound effects ), groped, squeezed and accidentally brushed against more periods than a woman with average-sized assets( which, in the UK, is a 36 DD ).
Some people assume I must love having large breasts( Youre so lucky ), while others are convinced they attain me miserable( You must have was just thinking about having a reduction ). Nobody would ever ask an overweight female to disclose her clothes size or a beaky human if he was considering a nose job. But whatever their opinion on big breasts, people only cant seem to keep them, or their hands, to themselves.
When I was younger and more unsure of myself, “its easy to” to fall into the role of the one with the tits, because letting my breasts define me meant that I didnt have to worry too much about defining myself. But around the time I turned 30 and devoted birth to my first daughter, I observed myself wanting to be taken more seriously, and to fit in with the other mothers I met.
Im not sure its functioning. Ive developed a sinking feeling that my breasts might be spreading lies about me in the school playground, undermining me at work and, above all, betraying who I am now that I know for sure myself. They want me to be the person I was before my children came along. I know we had good times together, but Ive moved on and I often guiltily wonder what life might be like without them.
Women chose bigger penises for a one-time sexual encounter versus a long-term partner, showing that the ideal penis is larger than the global average
A new examine has revealed that girls prefer a slightly larger penis in a one-time sex partner compared to a long-term partner.
Researchers from the University of California and the University of New Mexico provided women with 33 different-sized 3D penis models made of rigid, odorless, blue plastic( they were blue to minimise racial skin-color cues) to choose from. In total, 75 girls, ages 18 to 65, took part in the study.
When asked to select the model which represented their preferred penis size in a long-term partner, the average reply was 6.3 inches( 16 cm) in duration and 4.8 inches( 12.2 cm) around. For a one-time sexual experience, the average plastic penis the women choice was slightly larger 6.4 inches( 16.3 cm) long and 5.0 inches( 12.7 cm) in circumference.
Previous surveys had presented women with 2D, flaccid penises, so this is the first research to provide hard evidence that womens ideal penises are slightly larger than average penis size.
The women in the study opted penis that were, on average, larger than those on supply. The median erect penis is 5.2 inches( 13.1 cm) long, and 4.6 inches( 11.7 cm) in circumference, according to a global analysis of 15, 000 phalluses published last year. The interactive below, created by Nick Evershed, allows you to explore those averages.
Sexual psychophysiologist Dr Nicole Prause and a squad of researchers also gave the women a questionnaire about their past sex experiences. Their reactions uncovered a variety of first-hand penis encounters, ranging from 2.5 inches in duration to 8 inches. Some females also said that they had ended a relationship partly because of their partners penis sizing 7 % of women told because their partners penis had been too large, and 20% said it had been too small.
In August, Dr Prause spoke to the Guardian about female pleasure as part of a video series Vagina Dispatches .