Re:Gender works to end gender inequity by exposing root causes and advancing research-informed action. Working with multiple sectors and disciplines, we are shaping a world that demands fairness across difference.
This lecture explores the place of culture in debates about women’s rights in South Asia, in particular, the nexus between human rights reporting on South Asia, feminist legal theory and gender asylum testimony.
Location: McKenzie Hall, Room 125, 1101 Kincaid St., Eugene, OR, University of Oregon campus
American women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts.This gap in earnings translates into $10,622 less per year in female median earnings. The effect of the wage gap is even more substantial when race and gender are brought into the picture; African-American women and Latinas earn 61 cents and 52 cents, respectively, for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men. Although enforcement of the Equal Pay Act as well as other civil rights laws has helped to narrow the wage gap over time, it is critical for women and their families that the significant disparities in pay that remain be addressed.
For the first time in 2010, the US Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report will assess efforts made by governments and others within the United States to address trafficking. Because the Center has led the way to assist state legislators in the 50 states to develop effective laws and policies, we believe that our comments to the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Office will be invaluable to this assessment.
On April 20, 2010, the Department of Education issued a new policy document revoking the harmful 2005 Additional Clarification that weakened schools’ obligations under Title IX to provide women and girls with equal athletic opportunities.
Too often, discussions about Comprehensive Immigration Reform fail to acknowledge the important economic contributions of the more than 18.9 million foreign-born women currently residing and working in the United States.
President Obama issued an executive memorandum yesterday ordering the Department of Health and Human Services to write new rules that will mandate equal visitation rights for all hospitals that participate in Medicaid or Medicare.
In the memorandum, Obama writes that the new rules must require that "participating hospitals may not deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability."
The enduring European gender imbalance has led Norway to mandate that 40% of directorships go to women — a legal quota that other governments also are rolling out. It's not going to happen organically. A comparison of surveys indicates that women make up less than 9% of boards in France's leading firms, compared with about 12% in the U.K., 13% in Germany and 8% in Spain. E.U.-wide, women made up less than 10% of top boards in 2009. That trails the 15% figure in the U.S. — where a quota is a nonstarter — and drops to just over 9% once Norway's female board members are factored out.
Rumor has it that President Obama’s current shortlist of three potential nominees includes two women – Solicitor General Elena Kagan and appellate court judge Diane Wood. This hope of a more just representation on our national bench is welcome news.
But if Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation taught us anything, it is that President Obama will meet special opposition in nominating a woman. Last year, media commentators voiced their opposition to the first Latina nominee with a slew of sexist and racist comments.
This week I was invited to a lunch at which former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the Supreme Court was the speaker.
On the issue of needing more women on the court, O’Connor said: “Our nearest neighbor, Canada, has four women on its nine-member court, and one is their chief justice. And they’re a great group. Now what’s the matter with us? You know, we can do better.” Indeed, we can and should.
We don’t need more women because legal outcomes necessarily would be different, but specifically because they wouldn’t. The question isn’t why more women, but rather why not?