|Air Date: July 16, 1996||Program 9629|
MARY GRAY DAVIDSON: This is Common Ground, a program on world affairs and the people who shape events.
LALITA KRISHNASWAMI: My name is Lalita Krishnaswami. I am the vice president of the Self-Employed Women's Association, SEWA.
DIANA LEE SMITH: My name is Diana Lee Smith. I am part of the Women and Shelter Network, which is a worldwide international coalition of organizations that work with poor women in slums and squatter's settlements across the world.
GERTRUDE MONGELLA: I am Gertrude Mongella, the secretary-general for the Fourth World Conference on Women.
DAVIDSON: Most of the world's homeless are women and children. Every day some 50,000 people, again mostly women and children, die as a result of poor shelter, polluted water, and inadequate sanitation. On this edition of Common Ground we continue our coverage of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, with a focus on the women working to build homes and communities around the world. Common Ground is produced by the Stanley Foundation. I'm Mary Gray Davidson.
[music] This women's quartet from Turkey entertained at just one of the hundreds of events held this June during the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul. But women were anything but background at Habitat II, as this world gathering was commonly known. Since the United Nations Environment and Development Conference in Rio a few years ago, women's groups from around the world have been pushing for a gender perspective as the male-dominated government delegations set international policy. Bella Abzug is a former member of the US Congress and now cochair of the Women's Environment and Development Organization, which was formed because little attention was paid to women in the document prepared for the Rio Summit in 1992. Abzug says women are the conscience of these international meetings.
BELLA ABZUG: We have made a serious inroad. Before we got into it, documents rarely discussed things in terms of gender discrimination. They rarely discussed important issues of sexual and reproductive health. They never really discussed the unpaid work of women and how to measure that in terms of national accounts, and so on. They never really dealt with the right, passionately, of women to credit with our collateral in order to create a productivity that they could engage in, own land, and have a right to an inheritance.
There's now a very accepted view that women must be part of the decision making and the design from the beginning to the end, as in Habitat. It's not enough to say that we want a roof over our heads. What does that shelter mean? It means the right to be protected against economic insecurity, the right to be protected against discrimination, the right to have a decent environment, the right to decent schools, the right to decent water, and the right to decent conditions. Women are projecting that, you see. We used to be global housekeepers. We're now keepers of the flame and the home. That's what's going on. Now we've had a terrific input. I think we have to keep it up, because there's a tendency to sort of forget. Until women have 50-50, 50 percent of the decision making on every level of government and in the private sector, until we have a much larger share (if not 50 percent of the resources), we're going to have to continue to push. And we're doing it.
DAVIDSON: How is Habitat important to American women in particular?
ABZUG: Habitat deals with a fundamental question for every woman, everywhere—the right to housing, the right to have it is a fundamental right, and the right not to be evicted illegally (particularly if you are poor). It does deal with shelter in a much larger sense as far as women are concerned; that is, what role will you play in designing the place you are going to have to live and raise your family? Women want a safe home. How safe will you make it? How protected will you make it in the environment, which women are very concerned with in the United States? What kind of schools? What kind of transportation? All of this affects women directly in every single country, including the United States.
DAVIDSON: The United Nations held the first Habitat conference 20 years ago. This year the world community decided it was time to meet once again to consider how everyone can have adequate shelter and how to ensure livable communities. Two-thirds of the world's people are expected to be living in cities just 25 years from now. And women, young and old, are leaving rural areas in large numbers, says Achola Pala Okeyo, head of the delegation from the United Nations Development Fund for Women. They go to the cities for a variety of reasons: war and poverty, but always they are expecting a better life.
ACHOLA OKEYO: For example, in the Latin American countries that we work in, we know that in a country like Brazil something like 60 percent of domestic workers in the city are women. These women are coming from the countryside to work in the cities. They often live under very difficult conditions. They live in the parts of the city that are very poor neighborhoods that are crime-ridden, have a lot of violence, have very poor water, and have tremendous problems for their own children.
DAVIDSON: Are the women leaving the rural areas because there's no traditional work left?
OKEYO: This is the thing. I think there's a combination. The whole exodus from rural areas to the cities is part perception, but part is a reality. The reality is that when you look at the ratio of doctors, for example, to the populations in the city, virtually every country shows more doctors, more professionals, and more clinics, in the city than in the countryside. So that people living in the rural areas feel that if they are in the city they'll have better access. Of course, when they come is when they realize that there's also the structure of the city that has its own class dimension. You can't just go in and live in the best of all places. However...
DAVIDSON: ...and get the services...
OKEYO: ...and get the services. However, there is evidence that even in the poorer areas the women can walk to clinics and get some kind of help. Or they can organize themselves and take advantage of the new technologies, like to go and present their case to the mayor or mobilize around their area and change the situation that is not good. They can have schools there. Therefore, I think the perception is that if you go to the city things will be better. Of course, they are not always better; and you are not always getting the services. But that's one part of the exodus. The other part is that you really have a tremendous feminization of poverty. Rural poverty is increasing. And when people can escape into the cities they try to do so. The other thing that is pushing women more into the cities is that you have a few more women who are educated than before. As the levels of literacy increase and people search for employment in the cities, more and more women will be going.
What we are finding also is that the majority of poor women in the cities are female household heads, which puts tremendous burden on them; because they have to earn a living for their families. If they live in the poor areas of the cities, they have a lot of difficulty because it has a repercussion on the health of their children, access to food security, and the health of their families and their own communities.
DAVIDSON: Another factor that often drives women from their homes is violence. Suzanne Evening, a member of the delegation from Fiji and the Grassroots Women's Network in the South Pacific, says they're working to change traditional attitudes about violence that takes place at home.
EVENING: When we say domestic violence, they are looking at it as something which is nobody else's business. Now we are trying to say, it's not violence against women anymore, it's assault.
DAVIDSON: It doesn't matter by whom. It's violence.
EVENING: It's violence. It doesn't matter who does it.
DAVIDSON: Is there a problem for women who try to escape the violence in getting shelter?
EVENING: Yes. Because many women don't like to leave their homes, because they have nowhere else to go. They either go and stay with somebody else, which will be another burden to that place. So they would rather stay and try to tell whoever is doing the violence that it's not right to do violence.
DAVIDSON: Are there other problems of shelter for women in the South Pacific, Fiji in particular?
EVENING: Yes. In the cities people are coming from the rural areas, which they already have homes there. Leaving their homes and coming to the urban areas is a problem, which they have to come and look for shelter. They are either squatters or depend on their extended families. Or they are paying a very big amount of rent, which they really can't afford.
DAVIDSON: Women and men have different but equally important roles and responsibilities in society. Women's contributions, however, are often not equally valued or even recognized. Gertrude Mongella was secretary-general of the Fourth World Conference on Women last year in Beijing, China. Even though women head an estimated third of the households in the world, Mongella says women get the responsibilities of the household but not the rights.
MONGELLA: Because they have participated in contributing to the building of homes in all its ramifications, but at the same time they have been the most marginalized, even in their own marital homes. So we have to look into this issue. The other thing is, the women have been contributing in terms of their unpaid labor, which is a gift to their families and which enables other people to construct settlements.
DAVIDSON: What kind of labor are you talking about, when you talk about women's unpaid labor?
MONGELLA: I'm talking about even cleaning the settlements. The women do a lot of the cleaning. Keeping it clean and throwing away the damages other people do—the industrial damage which is done in the settlements. The women do it. They take care of the people who live in these settlements; but they have not been given their due consideration, not even in designing the homes they live in. Habitat II is very important, particularly after Beijing. In Beijing we did get the mileage to the advancement of women, to the equality of women in development in the world, but we need the strong results of Habitat to be able to ensure the empowerment of women—economic empowerment and political participation. We cannot as women hope to be equal, hope to participate in all the decision making, if we don't have homes or if our settlements are not conducive to the working conditions of women and to the eradication of violence against women.
DAVIDSON: What do you see as the next step now for women after Habitat?
MONGELLA: The most important thing is that I don't want to see women as victims when it comes to the question of habitat and the settlements. I want to see women's talents—women's capacity, women's decisions—being brought in in the settlement areas. If women had to plan the settlements, it would be a different world altogether. I couldn't imagine myself planning a school away from my residential area, because I have gone through (as a parent and as a mother) working and running to pick kids up from school and running back to the office. I have gone through the headache of commuting when I have babies to breast-feed. So I wouldn't plan the workplace to be very far away from the residential areas. I would make a settlement which has a combination of satellites of cities within one big city, where at least people can live comfortably working and doing all the activities in almost the same areas. That would be my vision of a settlement. I would also give more land for play for the children, because it's such a trauma for a mother to have to deal with babies in a very congested apartment where you cannot let the kids run around and do whatever they want to do.
[Woman singing. ...for women everywhere: equality, development, and peace...]
DAVIDSON: We'll pause for a short break. When we return we'll continue our coverage of women's participation at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements held this June in Istanbul, Turkey. You're listening to Common Ground, a service of the Stanley Foundation. Printed transcripts and audio cassettes of this program are available. Listen at the end of the broadcast for details on how to order, or for information about the Stanley Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that conducts a wide range of programs meant to provoke thought and encourage dialogue on world affairs.
Sometimes it is tradition that makes women homeless, or at least without proper housing. In many countries women are not allowed to own land or inherit it, even from their husbands or fathers. And we live in a world where ownership is key to power and status. We also live in a world where women are more than half the population, yet own less than one percent of its wealth. Diana Lee Smith is with the Masangari Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, and part of the Women and Shelter Network, which works with poor women in squatter settlements.
SMITH: Despite women being in charge of the home and managing it, they have no equal rights to inherit land and property as men do. In the Third World countries, where custom prevails, land and property are only inherited by the boys from their parents. So the girls are dispossessed. As you move into a money economy, with this tradition girls are pauperized, because they do not inherit a saleable commodity-land. Worse than that, if a girl is born into one of these families and she does not marry a man with land or doesn't marry a man at all, she has children and her children are automatically homeless. They have no rights. This is a very important issue. They are forced into urban poor settlements.
DAVIDSON: Earlier today you were talking about the feminization of poverty and the lack of inheritance rights being the true root cause of that.
SMITH: Yes. Obviously, if you move into commodity relations or money relations from a customary life based on the family, then land becomes saleable. So men inherit capital; women inherit nothing. That is the cause of the feminization of poverty in my opinion, which people are not aware of. They talk about income-generating projects, and they talk about enabling women to buy land. But why the hell should women have to buy land when men get it free?
DAVIDSON: Do you have any idea what percentage of the world does not allow women to inherit?
SMITH: Certainly all of sub-Saharan African, a lot of Asia, and a lot of Latin America. So you're talking about a lot of poor women. Understanding the cause of that, the basis of that, is unequal rights to inherit property-housing and land. This is what we're trying to address. We are shocked, really shocked, in our network. There is not one single government in conference that was willing to stand up and put forward, even put forward for consideration, this word "equal." They are afraid to do that, because UNESCO has decided in a meeting in Paris that they do not want to offend tradition. There is opposition from the Islamic governments, and we understand that. We are discussing that with the Islamic communities, because the Koran allocates a certain proportion of land to women.
In my country where I live in Kenya, in fact women convert to Islam in order to inherit property in urban areas. Islam does recognize inheritance rights for women, and they give women that status. We are fighting for equal rights on the principle of the international human rights conventions, because we believe women and men are equal human beings. We know it's a difficult issue for Islam, because it's their holy book and it is given by God (this ruling about who inherits how much property). Nevertheless, we want to open up this debate about whether men and women are both human beings, and why women are only considered a function of men; that is, they are dependents of men. We understand how this arose in history and arose in the Koran, but we still want to debate and question it.
DAVIDSON: Increasingly, women throughout the world have the dual responsibilities of both reproduction and economic production for their own and their family's survival. Yet their responsibilities at home often prevent them from going out to find work. The Self-Employed Women's Association of India (known as SEWA) has built around the theme "My Home, My Workplace" says Lalita Krishnaswami, SEWA's vice president. SEWA has been in existence since 1972, organizing the poorest women of India into unions and cooperatives with over 220,000 members today.
KRISHNASWAMI: We are working in the informal sector. In the informal sector, women are working. Either they are doing embroidery at home, or they are using a hand loom (generally making cloth), or they are making yarn, or they are making incense sticks, or they are small vegetable vendors, or they are hawkers to supplement their income. Some of them are even heads of households. They are working. They are not recognized as workers. That is the important thing which SEWA is trying to do, to say that these self-employed are workers and contribute to the economy. Therefore, it is very important that when they are working that income which is generated should be in the hands of women. Therefore, where should they keep their money? So the women got together and formed the bank where they could have access to credit, where they could keep their income, and where they could get loans to enhance their business enterprises.
DAVIDSON: Do you have any sense of what percentage of women in India are the heads of households?
KRISHNASWAMI: The general survey which SEWA has done found that at least 26 percent of the women are heads of households. I'd like to say one thing for Habitat, and that is that we demand that women should be considered important. Important for financing for housing, because that is building the asset. When it builds the asset, they have security. When the security is there, the productivity is better. Therefore, it is very important that women have access to finance and are also able to form their own financial organizations in terms of cooperatives where the investment is made in them and they are able to invest in their own homes. Suppose in their homes that the water is seeping through from the roof. They don't have a window; it's a mud floor. And if you invest in the house, if the loans are given for the house, then better the homes.
For example, a hand loom weaver could not weave properly, because the water seeped from the floor. The yarn got wet and the product got bad. The rains came, and they were not able to even live properly. When the money was given to build, she built her a brick, thatched roof home. She made the room with a cement floor, and even the loom was kept in proper balance. The seepage from the floor stopped, so her product was better and she had a higher income. She was able to make a toilet, which to have your own toilet is a very important thing. Adding facilities to the home is also enhancing the income and better quality of life. It is not only a consumption loan, but it is a productive asset. We consider a home so women who sit at home and work, who are self-employed, as a very important place where they can store, make their things, and also sell them.
DAVIDSON: Maybe the United States can learn something from the women of SEWA, says Jan Peterson, who is the American chair of the Women, Homes and Communities SuperCoalition at Habitat II.
PETERSON: Today somebody was raising the whole issue of ownership of land, housing, and credit. If you look at it here, obviously, women can own land. If you are the poorest group, with our feminization of poverty, the fact is you can't get credit from the bank. So when you think about the fact that there are groups in India, as we heard before, like SEWA or the Working Women's Forum, that have 200,000-400,000 members running their own savings clubs, credit unions, and banks, and these are the poorest of the women, who are illiterate, it might give you the idea that maybe poor women in the United States could form small groups, savings clubs, and credit unions and banks and create a more focused economic base.
Because even the policies of the Ford Foundation and our big funders are into these CDCs, the big Community Development Corporations. They are focusing on a certain kind of path, that is very big on housing and community development, but women don't have a voice in that. There may be women there, and they use women as clients, but not women in terms of women owning, controlling, and running their own institutions. Almost no consciousness in gender again. There are a lot of issues that the women are focusing on here. Of course, we are coming here at a time when our whole domestic policy is in shambles. Dole is running for president saying that public housing is the last bastion of socialism. We have public housing women leaders here and presidents of tenant associations who can begin to see a vision of running and operating their own public housing.
DAVIDSON: Why do you think there isn't this gender consciousness in US policy debates?
PETERSON: Actually, it's been fascinating to me, because the country that led the development of women's perspective in terms of development was the United States. It was Charles Percy in 1972 that passed the bill that required all of our foreign money, USAID money and other monies that go abroad, to be reviewed in terms of how that money impacted on women.
DAVIDSON: Charles Percy, the Republican senator from Illinois?
PETERSON: Yes. Think about it. So we have had a split, schizophrenic policy direction in our own country. Internationally, in developing countries, we foster a woman's perspective and look at poor women as leaders capable of running and operating organizations. In fact, we forced countries that were not dealing with women leaders to begin to look at women as treasures and activists and partners. In our own country we get to the domestic, there is no gender at all. We focus all of our issues around poor women into this welfare reform consciousness, which means that we look at poor women as clients and problems and needing social workers. What do we call it? Case management, to move from poverty to self-sufficiency, which is half the rhetoric of the time; instead of remembering that every day almost every poor community in this country, the last remnants of it, is held together by all those women that are tenant leaders. PTA presidents. All these people are the army of who is holding it together. We do a very contradictory thing, not only by not looking at development from a woman's perspective in HUD but by seeing welfare reform as an individualistic up and out form of moving poor women, instead of looking at women as leaders and helping them build their own community organizations—being able to run and operate it and stay and anchor those communities—instead of "Now I got my money, I run," which has been the American way. One is that we don't have a clear idea of how we look at poverty and community development. We foster both. We are going to move women up and out, but we are going to look at community development and really understand the leadership structures of communities and strengthen it.
DAVIDSON: Gloria Thurman hasn't abandoned the housing project she lives in in Washington, DC. It was a long journey for Thurman from the Highland Addition housing project, but she said she learned in Istanbul that the problems of public housing are universal. Thurman traveled to Istanbul as a delegation member from the International Women's Democracy Center, and she was able to share what works in her community with activists from around the world.
THURMAN: We offer training in leadership, conflict resolution, and stress management. We deal with everything that we think they will come up against. A lot of times that includes job sharing programs; that includes skill transfer programs. It opens an opportunity for them to rise from where they are. Maybe they finished school, and they want further education. Maybe they know how to type, but they want to learn how to do computers. As a result of them helping to build their communities, we help build their personal lives and get them more involved in policymaking that will affect their lives and their families.
This opportunity is one of such magnitude it's hard to express what we learned and what we feel we have to share, not just in coming here but with the jewels that we are going to carry back to our community. You often hear people say, "Diamonds in the rough." Well, these diamonds have been fine-tuned, and we're ready to meet our full potential.
DAVIDSON: In our next program in this series about the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, we'll visit the host country of Turkey and look at Istanbul as a case study of urbanization. For Common Ground, I'm Mary Gray Davidson.
Cassettes and transcripts of this program are available. The transcripts are free and cassettes cost $5.00. To order a tape or transcript or if you'd like to share your thoughts about this program, write to us at the Stanley Foundation, 216 Sycamore Street, Suite 500, Muscatine, Iowa 52761. Be sure to refer to Program No. 9629. To order by credit card, you can call us at 319-264-1500.
Our theme music was created by B.J. Liederman. Common Ground was produced and funded by the Stanley Foundation.
|Copyright © 1996, The Stanley Foundationfirstname.lastname@example.org|