2020: Has It Really Been that Bad of a Year?

December 30 2020

2020

Many have highlighted some of the great things that happened in 2020 before this very bizarre year ends. We all know what went down since the first months, but let us look at some of the positive things that have happened this year.

I have chosen these major events that I think deserve to be celebrated and remember 2020 with.

Scotland Became the First Country to Provide Free Period Products

Period products are usually expensive and have higher taxes. Menstruation is a natural function in the human body and many women around the world, 66% of them in Lebanon, for example, do not have the financial resources that help them benefit from these products.

After a four-year campaign, Scotland became the first country in the world to provide menstrual period products free for everyone. This is a first and hopefully, many other countries will follow.

A photo of Scottish politician Monica Lennon and her supporters with a copy of the new law providing free period products to everyone in the country. scroll.in

China Banned the Production Of and Trade in Wildlife for Human Consumption

After the 2019 coronavirus outbreak, researchers and NGO’s in China surveyed the Chinese public on their opinions of the consumption and trade in wildlife. The overwhelming majority called for stricter policies in the trade and consumption of wild animals.

The findings prompted the legislative body of the capital Beijing to pass a new legislation in April 2020, that banned the illegal consumption and trafficiking of wildlife.

Water on the Sunlit Surface of the Moon!

For the first time ever, the NASA Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy confirmed the existence of water on the sunlit surface of the Moon. “This indicates that water may be distributed across the lunar surface, and not limited to cold, shadowed places.”

Scientists had discovered signs of the existence of water on the surface of the Moon since 2009, and in 2018 confirmed the existence of water-ice. This 2020 discovery could mean that astronauts will be able to use the water for drinking in future missions.

The Conversation Around Mental Health is Louder than Ever

There were several discussions and warnings in the early days of the lockdown on the mental health crisis the world would be facing due to the pandemic and enforced lockdown. Some companies have understood the necessity of taking into consideration their employees’ mental health and have opened the conversation about it and given days off when necessary.

The Earth Could finally Take a Break to Breathe

The lockdown and suspension of the activity of factories, cars and different engines has helped the Earth take a break as there were noticeable falls in carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide of as much as 40 %. This improved the quality of the air and reduced the risks of asthma, heart attacks and lung disease. Many experts say that this was a glimpse of what a world without fossil fuels might look like.

Nature took over several cities during the lockdown, like the clear waters that were seen in Venice in Italy.

Clear water in Venice’s famous canals after the Coronavirus outbreak caused a complete shutdown of the city’s traffic. GETTY IMAGES

2020 showed how sacrificing human health and nature for economic growth can have terrible consequences on the environment and our immunity to illnesses.

No More Wild Polio in Africa!

In 1996, nations in Africa started a vaccination program launched by Nelson Mandela after that about 75000 children were paralyzed by wild polio. The disease has no cure, but the vaccine offers lifelong immunization.

Following the immunization program, the World Health Organization confirmed on August 24^th, 2020 that Africa defeated the wild poliovirus which typically affects children under the age of five and can lead to paralysis and even death.

An opera company performed for an audience of plants

After months of lockdown, Barcelona’s Gran Teatre del Liceu opera house reopened its doors and performed its first concert for an audience of houseplants.

Conceptual artist Eugenie Ampudia told the Associated press that he was inspired by nature during the pandemic. ‘I heard many birds singing,’ he said. ‘And the plants in my garden and outside growing faster. And, without a doubt, I thought that maybe I could now relate in a much intimate way with people and nature.’

The plants were donated to 2292 healthcare workers accompanied by a certificate from the artist.

Musicians rehearse at the Gran Teatre del Liceu in Barcelona, Spain, Monday, June 22, 2020. USA Today

Author: Meriem Saoud

Sources:

–A’ Public Health Triumph’: Africa declared free of wild polio, Gavin Haines, positive.news

–Good News Prevails: 100 Positive Things that Happened in 2020 (so far), Amy Haneline, USA Today

–The Bright Side of 2020, Vice Arabia

Why is Social Reform so Difficult to Achieve?

December 14 2020

politics, Social Reform

It is the exception rather than the norm to find the people of any nation satisfied with the accomplishments of their elected officials. Some would assume that this is simply due to the duplicity and hypocrisy of politicians. But even the most sincere of politicians often fail to deliver on their promises. There are many reasons behind difficulty of enacting social reform. In this article, we will try to tackle two key barriers to social reform.

How the Status Quo Rejects Reform

The term “Tyranny of the Status Quo” was first defined by Noble prize winning economist Milton Friedman in a book as well as a television program both bearing that name. This is an issue where a complex web of interests creates an equilibrium that is extremely difficult to move from without intense opposition. For example, when a political party promises a tax on cigarettes it would face opposition from tobacco companies as well as their workers and consumers. If the party promises minimizing government spending it would face opposition from government bureaucrats fearing for their job as well as labor unions and government contractors. If it tries to reform education it will face opposition from ideological groups and teachers unions. And If it tries to lower taxes it would be opposed by government agencies and if it tries to raise them it would be opposed by businesses and citizens.

It would seem that reform that does not hurt any special interests is a herculean task. However, these special interests are powerful yet not immune to political power. Yet, the issue is not that sincere politicians can not oppose these interests. But the cost of opposing them will be much greater to the politician than the benefits. The benefits of the status quo, in this case, are concentrated and significant while the benefits of reform would be dispersed and insignificant for each individual. For example, removing unnecessary bureaucracy would allow for more programs to be enacted or lower the burden of taxes on the citizens. But it would cost people their jobs which is much more significant. A company losing its government subsidies is much more significant than funding newer programs.

There is also the case of significant interests of a group being opposed to benefit another group significantly. But in this case, The dissatisfaction of loss is always greater than the delight of gain. This is because such groups inevitably consider rightful or wrongful privileges to be their inalienable “rights.” They become entitled to these privileges. And this is why it is almost always in the interest of the politician to not disturb the status quo with any significant reform. Therefore, politicians will mostly stick to symbolic accomplishments and new government programs out of the taxpayer’s pocket as they do not disturb the web of interest the system is built upon.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Milton Friedman had been quoted saying: “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program”. This quote sparks a question: how many times have you seen a government or political party admit that they were wrong on a certain policy and reversed it? I’m sure such a phenomenon is very rare indeed. This is because politicians can only push for social reform plans by overselling them but reality can be very different. However, admitting the failure of a program is political suicide. Hence, plans and policies that were seen as failures long ago would persist.

One more reason behind this is our fear of wasting our initial investment in these plans which is known as the “sunk cost fallacy”. This is a form of flawed reasoning. Because by persisting on the wrong road you are only wasting even more of your resources and time. This phenomenon makes social reform very difficult as it requires facing the failures of the past. This might cause losing public trust in the future. In some cases, the politician might have to face off against emotional investment from the public in these policies.

The Prudent Reformer

Social reform is not a trivial endeavor that only necessitates good intentions and zealous dedication. It is a careful balancing act that requires patience and compromise. The prudent reformer cannot succeed by merely forcing a false equilibrium on the sociopolitical system. Since, the power required to shape it would eventually be its downfall. I would like to conclude by the words of economist Thomas Sowell describing the Prudent reformer in the eyes of the father of economics Adam Smith:

“ The prudent reformer, according to [Adam] Smith, will respect ‘the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people,’ and when he cannot establish what is right, ‘he will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong.’ His goal is not to create the ideal, but to ‘establish the best that the people can bear.’

– A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell

Author: Wail Rimouche

The Attention Economy: Why You Cannot Put Down Your Device (Part 2)

December 4 2020

digital control, Social Media, the attention economy

In the first part of this article, I tried to explain what the attention economy was and how it worked. In this second part, I will be looking into how the attention economy is affecting our lives and how we can regain digital control.

Let us look at what consequences the attention economy can have on us-the consumers.

An Everlasting Distraction

Think about how many times you check your phone per day. It’s hard to keep count, isn’t it? According to recent statistics, the average smartphone user unlocks their phone 150 times a day. With the different notifications, pop-ups, and messages, it becomes very difficult to get back to your workflow once interrupted. The continuous distraction deprives us of creating the conditions for concentrated deep work, which brings satisfaction and effective results.

A Toxic Relationship with Devices

On average, we use a gadget for 10 hours and 39 minutes each day. Not many of us are happy with how much we use our devices during the day and a lot of the time we are aware of how they affect our productivity, our social interactions, and our mood. Will this realization make us regulate the time spent on our devices, particularly our phones? No, we pick up our phones again to distract us from the uneasiness of our realization or to cheer ourselves up by sharing and getting likes.

Mindless Scrolling on Social Media

The infinite scroll is a built-in feature of social media feeds whose basic function is to automatically generate content the more the user scrolls through their feed. There is no bottom for a Facebook or Instagram feed, even if you have seen all the content shared by the profiles you follow. There is always some suggested content that might interest you.

“The scrolling doesn’t draw us in, but it keeps us there for much longer than we might be if the feeds ended, or if we had to click buttons to reveal new content,” says Adam Alter, author of Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked, and a professor at NYU, speaking about the infinite scroll. “People tend to function on autopilot until something inside their heads or in the world around them subtly or explicitly suggests it’s time to move on. Reaching the end of a feed is one such cue; removing the endpoint short-circuits that cue.”

The bottomless feed plays a major role in creating a mindless scrolling habit. The designer of the infinite scroll in 2006, Aza Raskin, said to the BBC that the innovation kept users looking at their phones far longer than necessary. “If you don’t give your brain time to catch up with your impulses, you just keep scrolling.’, said Raskin.

Developing an Addiction

According to an article published by Harvard University researcher Trevor Haynes, during positive interactions on social media, like receiving a notification or someone liking your picture, the brain releases dopamine, a neurotransmitter that makes you feel good. This chemical is associated with recreational drugs, food, sex, exercise, etc.

Behaviorist psychologist F.B Skinner explained in the 1930s how rewarded behavior is likely to be repeated. In the case of our use of social media, positive interactions are random rewards, and checking for them is easy. This makes the dopamine-triggering behavior a habit that we repeat ‘to feel good.’

A social media addiction involves broken reward pathways in our brain exactly like a gambling or substance addiction. According to TED, 5 to 10 percent of internet users are psychologically addicted. The immediate reward that social media provides is the attention we get from our network for little effort. The brain then rewires itself and makes you crave likes, comments, reshares, etc. Brain scans of social media addicts resemble those of drug addicts. There is a noticeable change in the areas of the brain responsible for attention, decision making, and emotions.

What Is the Future of the Attention Economy?

Companies will continue to design for attention in the future. Instagram, Facebook, and Snap, for example, are testing augmented-reality advertisements.

It’s not all doom and gloom, however! After receiving complaints from its users about attention-grabbing design and distraction, Apple responded by removing multiple notifications in quick succession on iPhones. It also introduced screen-time statistics which allow users to keep track of the time spent on electronic devices.

Can We Regain Digital Control?

I personally remember intentionally staying without internet during my freshman year at college. I would limit the time of my social media and internet usage to the time I go home by the end of the week. That had helped me be more productive, make time for my hobbies like reading and writing, and be present at every moment with a clear mind and not so much anxiety. I have then noticed over the years how my increased presence on social media had made me more anxious and affected my attention span. However, it did help me find many opportunities for personal and professional growth. So I do not think that complete isolation from social media platforms is the best option. There is a lot you can benefit from these platforms, but moderate use is crucial for a more meaningful and stress-free life.

Here are some suggestions to gain back control:

Becoming aware of how much time you spend on these platforms is an essential first step to get back control over your focus. Many of us may not realize how much time we are wasting on Facebook or Instagram through mindless scrolling, and there are specific applications and programs that help you keep track of your activity and the time you are spending on your devices.

By monitoring your digital activity, you can make sure that you have control over your time, remain focused and create space for more productivity and quality work.

Being mindful of your digital time is a great first step that will allow you to choose where to spend your time more and what is worth having your attention. You can remove apps that are not adding any value to your life or your time. Unfollowing accounts and profiles that may make you feel more anxious or depressed is also very helpful for a clearer mind. You can also consider using anti-distraction apps when you want to remain focused on your work for a long period of time.

There are also people who choose to set availability hours for email and Slack, so others know when to contact them and when they can receive a response.

It all comes down to creating the perfect conditions for yourself both online and in real life so that your work, creativity, mental health, and overall well-being do not get affected and you get to make the most of your time and your most precious commodity: your attention.

Conclusion

The responsibility does not only fall on the consumer to regulate their use of these platforms, but companies should also take into consideration how their products are affecting the well-being of their users. Some companies have taken these matters into consideration, but it is very important that we as consumers take matters into our hands and prioritize our well-being over all else. Technology keeps evolving and changing over time and we need to be more mindful of how this change is affecting us and shaping our lives.

Author: Meriem Saoud

Sources:

Timely Blog:https://memory.ai/timely-blog/the-attention-economy

Now.:https://bit.ly/37Pxev9

Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/highly-functioning-is-highly-dangerous/202009/my-name-is-dana-and-im-addicted-mindless

Inc.:https://www.inc.com/john-brandon/these-updated-stats-about-how-often-we-use-our-phones-will-humble-you.html

Why Is there a Need for Uniformity?

November 29 2020

As a child, I had a bit of an inherent wish for uniformity. I always wondered why there were so many different brands of products on store shelves. Why are there so many different building styles? Why do people wear so many different clothes? I wondered why we could not just agree on one model for everything. As I grew up, I realized that such extreme uniformity is absurd, yet I kept wondering why such a need existed in the first place.

Uniformity for the sake of Justice?

The first hypothesis to this dilemma that came to my mind was that uniformity was a form of achieving justice. After all, socialism, which was an ideology built around social justice, has long pushed for uniform city layouts, jobs, and even goods. In the not so distant past, our store shelves here in Algeria were full of identical products without any brands. There was a single type of most types of goods. But was such uniformity a byproduct of central government planning or an intentional aim? I lean towards the latter explanation. Since what justice is there in making different people with different needs buy the same things?

Uniformity for the sake of Simplicity?

Another plausible explanation is that uniformity makes things simpler. We humans have quite a fascination with categorization. Hence, it would make sense for us to simplify our categories. It could be argued that standardization is effective in simplifying many aspects of our lives. This is very notable in electronic products and software. Industries in particular have benefited greatly from standardization. So perhaps, simplicity is in fact the key driving factor for this urge for uniformity. However, this type of uniformity is concerned with standardizing processes and protocols and not the aesthetic uniformity I wondered about.

Uniformity for the sake of Conformity?

Conformity could also be the potential culprit behind this need. It might be an internal instinct to shape the world around us in a unified style. The same instinct that pushes us to behave the way society expects us to behave. Conformity is, after all, an attempt to create uniformity of individual behavior. Aren’t uniforms and unified building styles the ideal reflection of a conforming population? However, even if this conclusion is true, it would only mean that the need for conformity does stem from a need for uniformity. And Therefore, the root of this need is yet to be uncovered.

Uniformity for the sake of Perfectionism?

The idea that conformity and uniformity are two sides of the same coin does offer a clue into their shared root. Perhaps, these needs are driven by the implicit idea that there is a “perfect thing”: The perfect soap, the perfect house, the perfect clothing, the perfect culture, the perfect beliefs, the perfect morals. This need is potentially not a need for uniformity but a rejection of differences. To accept differences is to accept compromises, which is in conflict with the idea of perfection. Then, perhaps if a perfect thing exists, then there must be a choice to be made in defining it. And that would imply a need to reduce said options to minimize the burden of making such a choice. Perhaps we only wish for uniformity to escape the need to make a choice, as choices always imply regrets.

Is this a need worth fulfilling?

It is very entertaining to contemplate one’s implicit wishes, yet uniformity is in blatant opposition to reality itself. It is true that diversity creates conflict, yet it is through conflict that prosperity is procured. One does not obtain new knowledge and insight by reciting the same ideas over and over again. But by contrasting and comparing them to different ideas. It is also in direct opposition to freedom. Even if the ideal solutions exist it would require someone to designate them for others to follow. And this is in complete opposition to individual freedom. As the economist Dr Thomas Sowell once said:

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”

Author: Wail Rimouche

The Rashomon Effect: Is Truth Accurate?

November 14 2020

Five people just witnessed an accident. Will they retell it the same way?

This is where the Rashomon Effect comes in.

The fact the same event unfolded in front of all of them makes it likely they would all describe it identically, but it is not that simple.

What is the Rashomon Effect?

The Rashomon Effect refers to a situation wherein an event is given plausible but different, often contradictory interpretations by the people involved. It is named after Akira Kurosawa’s 1950 movie Rashomon. A murder is witnessed by four individuals, but described in four separate ways despite having all seen the same crime.

Is Truth accurate?

The Rashomon Effect puts theorizes that truth is relative and subjective. The reason there are four versions of one crime in the movie, is because personal interpretation underlies each person’s testimony. It is what hinders the quest for an answer. People’s accounts of certain events depend largely on individual experiences. Something hardly affects two people the same way, and so the mind draws different descriptions. It is their own perceptions of truth that comes to play.

In Rashomon (the movie), the bandit and the samurai’s testimonies are different. The first claims he dueled the samurai in a sword-fight, and successfully killed him. However, the samurai recounts a second version. The bandit let him free and then he took his own life. It is understandable. Both of them, driven by their self-hood, retell the story with their own perception. The bandit wants to prove he killed a skilled swordsman; The shame of the samurai’s wife’s infidelity pushes him to kill himself.

The Rashomon Effect addresses memory subjectivity.

Memory isn’t photographic, contrary to popular belief.

In 1932, Frederic Bartlett conducted a study to research the reconstructive nature of memory, and how it is affected by previous knowledge. Participants listened to a story, and had to retell it. When recounting later, details became less accurate, and more personalized as they each drew from their own culture to fill in the gaps. Thus proving that memory is a subject of personal interpretation.

We tend to alter our memories in a way that makes the most sense to us.

The Rashomon Effect: a term for unreliable eyewitnesses.

Eyewitness testimonies are the strongest evidence against criminals. However, social scientists showed that eyewitness identification is not as faultless as people think. And that causes wrongful convictions. Experts, since then, strive to reform the accuracy of eyewitness identification.

Author: Nour Nachoua Nait Ali.

Separating the Art from the Artist: A Debate

October 12 2020

art, artists

The recent article by a fellow member of Algerian Black Pearl: ‘Is Cancel Culture Canceling Free Speech?’ made the debate over whether you can separate the art from the artist come to mind.

The article briefly mentioned the backlash author J.K Rowling received this summer. A lot of Harry Potter fans took to social media to express their disappointment at Rowling’s transphobic comments, with most agreeing that she had now ruined their love for the series. Buzzfeed asked their community how their relationship with Harry Potter changed following the incident, with the majority of the answers deplorable.

J.K Rowling wasn’t the first person whose art became questionable.

J.K Rowling wasn’t the first person whose art became questionable after a controversy. Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, once considered brilliant movie directors, had their credibility tarnished amid sexual abuse accusations. People were reluctant to show their appreciation for their works. The same thing happened to singers R. Kelly, and XXXTentacion whose music was bitterly received following their controversies — their accusations were sexual misconduct, and domestic abuse respectively. Streaming service Spotify had even stopped promoting, and recommending their music on their platform.

There are many other artists whose works arose the same, repeated question: can you separate the art from the artist?

To some, it is imperative.

Many people believe that separating art from the artist is mandatory. The quality of art should not depend on the artist’s character. Once it is out there, it stops belonging to the person who created it. It takes on a life of its own. When this question was asked on Reddit, one user commented: “great art is bigger than the artist who created it.” Meaning people’s interpretations of it should not be held down by external factors, such as the artist’s private life.

Reading up the context of a given piece — a novel, a song, a movie — is favorable. It gives you a contextual insight into the creator’s thoughts when delivering their art. It helps you understand how it came to exist. Though it shouldn’t force you to view it a certain way when consuming it. People react differently; what sparks up emotions in one person doesn’t necessarily mean the same for everybody else. And so: the art should not be boycotted if the artist is. In her essay, philosophy professor Jenna Thompson concluded: “We should expose the wrongdoing of artists and but we should not be prevented from admiring their works.”

Not everyone holds this same view, though. To so many others, art is an inseparable characteristic of the person that created it.

It is not possible to consider art a piece of its own, without thinking of the person who created it. Even if subtly, it will always hold undertones of its creator. This is what the opposing argument is. One cannot orchestrate an entire body of work without peppering smudges of their personality into it. It is impossible to be entirely unbiased. As one Twitter user explained it: “the work an artist creates is directly tied to their morals as a human being; one’s work and one’s values are not separate.”

Keeping an artist’s terrible character in mind will undoubtedly reflect how you consume their work. And if the artist is a terrible person, then there is no reason to give them a platform for more harm. The backlash against J.K Rowling was justified as such. The fact that she is still actively profiting from Harry Potter should be an incentive to stop supporting her work. Fans, since then, opted out of the series’ merchandise.

Their general consensus is: art does not function as a redeemable quality. People should not be excused because the art they are making is good.

An alternative: a case-by-case basis.

There is a third view of this debate, however. One that does not lean too far into either side.

A suggestion that separating the art from the artist should be done case-by-case. The artist should be censored (and boycotted) if their art directly causes harm. If their art is an expression of their beliefs, then their work as a whole should be rejected. Take Pablo Picasso for example. Considering his misogyny, his paintings of women become difficult to separate from his identity. His art directly correlates with his beliefs, and so should not be glorified. The key, therefore, is to be critical.

Sometimes, the debate even becomes futile if the artist is dead. Some people believe that since the artist is no longer benefiting from the engagement, then it is safe to consume it. Financial support is important. If you are not boosting this horrible person’s income, separating the art from the artist becomes relatively easy.

At the end of the day, art is expression. It all comes down to your own perception of it. How you individually react to its context, and the artist’s biography; whether their values represent yours or not.

Author: Nachoua Nour NAIT ALI

Copycat Suicide: Does Talking About Suicide Increases its Rates?

September 19 2020

papageno effect, suicide, werther effect

In 1774, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote The Sorrows of Young Werther, a loosely autobiographical epistolary novel that generated an overnight fascination. Once unknown, Goethe had now become hugely famous and the novel started a copycat culture called The Werther Fever, a fanatical behaviour where young European men dressed in Werther’s signature clothing as described in the novel, and a perfume called Eau De Werther was produced.

But the effects of this phenomenon were not limited to harmless behaviours. This novel had also led to the first known examples of copycat suicides. The story, revolving around unrequited love, ends with the protagonist taking his own life after realizing there is no other way to escape that love triangle except for death. Soon after its publication, young men started to mimic Werther’s suicide by dressing up in the same clothes, and using similar pistols. Many times, the book was even found at the scene. This resulted in the book being banned from several places, and the appearance of The Werther Effect to label copycat suicides.

Coined by David Phillips, The Werther Effect means a triggering increase in suicide rates, generally carried out in the same manner as the reported suicide. After conducting several studies, Phillips concluded that: “Hearing about a suicide seems to make those who are vulnerable feel they have permission to do it.” He also found that publicized suicides increased the suicide rate for the next month by about 2 percent on average. And that of a famous person even worse; the rate rose by 12% after Marilyn Monroe’s death.

Media and Suicide.

The media is found guilty of copycat suicides in most situations. The extreme publicity and glorified portrayal of suicide on television more often than not lead to increases in suicide rates, especially within groups of the same age in the reported cases. After the graphic depiction of the protagonist’s suicide in the Netflix show 13 Reasons Why, experts warned of a surge in copycat suicides, that unfortunately had later come true. After the show aired in March, a study conducted in April of the same year showed that there was an increase of 29% in suicide rates in America alone. The story of this family is one example.

That link, however, is correlational. Although the show is associated with the sudden spike in rates, it does not prove cause and effect. That is where health experts draw the line between shying away from conversations about suicide (in fear that they cause the Werther Effect) and initiating them in a responsible manner that brings awareness to mental health instead.

The Papageno Effect.

This is where the Papageno Effect comes into play. It is named after a character in Mozart’s opera The Magic Flute, who was contemplating death while in despair until three characters appear and convince him that there are other solutions to his problem. Papageno being advised not to take his own life, parallels the different reaction media could have on vulnerable individuals when discussing suicide.

When reports about suicide are carried out responsibly, the results are positive. Talking about suicide in ways that normalize seeking help, and encouraging mental health conversations generate the Papageno effect of a reality where individuals are not afraid to speak, and reach out for the support they need, without being looked down from society.

Author: Nour Nachoua Nait Ali.

Why We Need More Female Decision Makers

July 30 2020

politics, women

Women are often dynamic ambassadors of change. Their full and active participation in decision making equal to men is essential to ensure greater responsiveness to citizens’ needs and to build and sustain democracies over the world. Yet women still have far to go towards equal representation in positions of power and leadership, whether in corporate boardrooms or presidential cabinets.

Throughout history, women leaders have been extremely rare, but progress has certainly been achieved. Today, we have more women legislators than ever before. The proportion across the globe increased from 13 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2020. Some regions have experienced greater gains, such as Africa, where the number of women legislators increased from 11 to 24 percent. The Arab states also have witnessed a significant increase, from 3 to 17 percent. The share of women parliamentary speakers has also doubled over the past 25 years. Women are now serving as parliamentary speakers across all regions of the world with the exception of the Pacific.

Still, the equal presence of women, their leadership and perspective in parliaments are underrepresented in political offices almost everywhere across the globe. On average, women only make up 23% of national parliamentarians according to global data on national parliament.

Despite these gains, women still rarely hold leadership roles. Progress towards achieving gender balance across the globe is slow and uneven. By the dawn of 2020, women were leading just 20 of 193 nations and occupying a quarter of parliamentary seats globally. Women share an equal majority or more in only four parliaments around the world: Rwanda, Cuba, Bolivia, and the United Arab Emirates. Global female representation is still below 30 percent – the benchmark identified as the crucial level of representation to achieve a “critical mass” of female legislators to enable a significant impact, rather than a symbolic few. Discriminatory laws and practices hold women back, as do limits on education, income and time away from caregiving. While women have made inroads in many areas, at the current pace of change, we won’t see gender parity in governments, parliaments or peace tables until the next century.

That women occupy only a quarter of parliamentary seats across the world is a stark reminder of the pervasive and persisting nature of gender inequality. It is also indicative of the power dynamics within societies. Still, some may ask why do we need more women involved in all aspects of the political process? Simply, it matters because women’s representation is necessary to ensure that democracy functions as effectively as possible!

Women are not a minority; they are half of the world’s population. For political institutions to be democratically legitimate and responsive to all citizens, they must be inclusive of the plurality of groups that exist within the population. This requires a greater representation of women in national parliaments and broader diversity. Once in leadership roles, women can make a difference that benefits whole societies. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has found that women politicians give more attention to social welfare and legal protections, and improve trust.

Since 1995, the world has made great strides towards achieving gender equality. For example, over the last 10 years, 131 countries have passed 274 legal reforms in support of gender equality. These include laws towards eliminating violence against women, childcare, and universal healthcare. Research indicates that these achievements have coincided with an increasing number of female legislators around the world. One of the reasons for this is because women legislate differently compared to men. Even when women appear to be in limited numbers within the legislature, and economic and political dynamics make the task more difficult for women, findings suggest that women still legislate differently by placing a greater priority on women’s and children’s rights.

Survey evidence shows that public childcare is a higher priority for women than for men (Wippermann 2016) and that female labor supply is highly responsive to the availability of childcare (Gathmann and Sass 2018). Margot Wallstrom, a former Swedish foreign minister, citing examples from Norway, Germany and New Zealand of women with low-key, inclusive and evidence-based leadership said: “Women lead often in a very different style from men”

Wallstrom also noted that public health is a traditional “home turf” concern for many women leaders. Grant Miller, an expert in health economics at Stanford University, found that as states, one by one, granted the vote to women in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, those states then also invested more in sanitation and public health saving some 20,000 children’s lives a year.

So, to conclude, why do women in politics matter? First and foremost, it is a matter of equity and human rights – both of which are cornerstones of a democratic society. Second, a broad representation of women in parliaments has an enormous impact on what issues are raised and how policies are shaped. Third, it creates room to reform and revise discriminatory laws against girls and women.

General

2020: Has It Really Been that Bad of a Year?

Scotland Became the First Country to Provide Free Period Products

China Banned the Production Of and Trade in Wildlife for Human Consumption

Water on the Sunlit Surface of the Moon!

The Conversation Around Mental Health is Louder than Ever

The Earth Could finally Take a Break to Breathe

No More Wild Polio in Africa!

An opera company performed for an audience of plants

The Rashomon Effect: Is Truth Accurate?

What is the Rashomon Effect?

Is Truth accurate?

The Rashomon Effect addresses memory subjectivity.

The Rashomon Effect: a term for unreliable eyewitnesses.

Author: Nour Nachoua Nait Ali.

Separating the Art from the Artist: A Debate

J.K Rowling wasn’t the first person whose art became questionable.

To some, it is imperative.

Not everyone holds this same view, though. To so many others, art is an inseparable characteristic of the person that created it.

An alternative: a case-by-case basis.

Copycat Suicide: Does Talking About Suicide Increases its Rates?

Media and Suicide.

The Papageno Effect.

Author: Nour Nachoua Nait Ali.

Why We Need More Female Decision Makers

Author: Rania Boublal.