Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« Bill Moyers on the Man Behind the March | Main | Obama's Strategy for Afghanistan... and the Next Election »

Women Making A Difference

(Photo by Robin Holland)

In this week’s JOURNAL, guest host Lynn Sherr talked with Kavita Ramdas, President and CEO of the Global Fund for Women, about women’s contributions to building a better world.

Ramdas said:

“People are realizing [that] women and girls are not just simply victims, but are really standing up and are leaders in their communities and are standing up to be able to stand by us, the rest of the world, to make change... I just have stopped using that term, ‘women’s issues.’ I really don’t know what that is. What issues should 51 percent of the world check out on? Do we not care about peace and security? Do we not care about health and education? I think what we are talking about is the right of every human being, including the 51 percent that hasn’t had much voice for the past millennia, to be at the table to make decisions about the changes that we want to see in the world... Women are not just waiting to be filled up with resources – they’re ready to put their resources on the table to be able to lead towards a different world.”

What do you think?

  • What unique contributions are women making in the fight for a better world?

  • Are there specific women that you believe deserve recognition for their efforts to advance women’s equality?

  • Ramdas said that she no longer uses the term “women’s issues.” Is the term relevant to you? If not, what would you suggest?

  • TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    Brooksley Born, former chairman of the CFTC is a Backbone-Standup-American hero! PBS' Frontline's "The Warning" by M. Kirk shows how strong & correct a leader she is.

    Chairman Born stood up to Greenspan, Rubin, Sommers, & the Washington Dummy Congress & did not flinch!
    Greenspan told her that FRAUD should not be proscuted!! She did not back down, but Clinton & Bush were not smart enough to see--or else--not brave enough to deal with Greenspan (now self admitted) & his Stupid Idiot ideas.

    Ya' got to see the program!

    Billy Bob, Florida

    With institutionalized poverty firmly entrenched through MODERN slave labor techniques even before women had a chance to climb out of slave labor status in the OLDEN slave labor paradigm, the case is being gleefully made by politicos that as far as the eye can see, a woman won't have a shot at running for President again.

    Analyzing WHY, lo and behold, the USE of organized religion AGAINST women is not even mentioned.

    Looks like it's back to cleaning up everyone's diapers, from cradle to grave, since the choice is being made to AFFORD health insurance companies instead of AFFORD hands-on health care.

    Why not wear a black tent - it helpes hide the face of a human being who never held the status of "intellect"....

    That's, of course, if you BUY their analysis.

    Everybody should write themselves in as an alternative "other" candidate at the next local election :-)

    I haven't met a single women - agnostic, atheist, church lady, wiccan, spiritual-no denomination - who in the uniquely persistance way women dig in against "injustice" - is really starting to push back against RELIGION being used to create a new slave status...Jack Martin called it the "evangelical christian taliban" - indeed, if anyone wants a copy of the "counter-insurgency" manual, let me know :-))

    Men have no special rights to be both "government" AND "religion" in such a way that excludes half of the species.

    Let's get 'em on the "relgion" argument :-)

    Hello Ms. Ramdas and BM Journal.

    I am not finding the debate about Obama receiving the Nobel prize very interesting or informative. What I would like, as a typically underinformed American, is to hear more about the nominees who did not receive the award. I would especially like to hear about Senator Cordoba of Colombia and others in that country struggling for basic human rights. (Please feel free to give AFRODES a plug as well.) Perhaps the Nobel committee did US(A) a disservice by awarding an American. Now Americans are focused once again on our own internal politics and prejudices.

    Rockford, IL
    Hometown of Jane Addams

    Someone, on a completely irrelevant topic, is bringing up the rape of "Native American" women.

    If "Native American" women were raped by outside tribes and invaders, then the outsiders did nothing that "Native American" MEN also did to their own women. If "Native American" MEN had empowered their own women to defend themselves, then all that "raping" would NOT have been an option - would it?

    Stop blaming OTHER men for something you, yourselves, were doing to your own women.

    All I asked, Peter, was for EVIDENCE that in the USA the police have an institutional mandate to beat up women. The Saudis and others do not hide their permission - why not go be a man and scold them for their institutional "brutality" towards women based on "religion"? Why are you choosing to beat up on me, instead? Rhetorical question, I know the answer.

    I, nor any of my family for at least 10,000 years, have been involved in any kind of genocide. The fact that we have managed to ward off endless invasions of filthy, thieving hordes from all corners of the Eurasian continent is NOT something I will ever apologize for. Yes, military skill runs in t he family - as DEFENSE. Even as late as 1910, when USA was providing free passage to USA for the people in my parent's village, no one accepted the offer. Why leave Paradise?

    Our downfall came when USA armed the CRIMINAL CLASS in the countries of both of our neighbors with weapons.

    We still do not bend our knee in homage to any of the "gods" who are rich today because they have turned earth into their private hell.

    I believe that, in time, all will be revealed and there will indeed be a "final war", just not the one people think will happen reading those books from WalMart.

    Your words have no effect on me, Peter, as "judgement" because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

    My men kiss even the hand of little girls as a charming sign of respect. They just do not leave us unarmed since we left our "Paradise" to come and walk among the "history" of USA.

    What do the men in your culture DO FOR women...? Scold them with PCism psychobabble? And then find the men in your tribe who enjoy physically assaulting the women?

    Indeed, most of the world is seething with thoughts of revenge against murdering psychotic greedy "armies". It will have to be a WOMAN who finds the way to JUSTICE.

    P.S. Another thought, who's bullying who? Are men bullying women, or are women bullying men? No comments.

    Dear Bloggers,

    Thank you for all your comments. As far as I am concerned, we are having a civilized conversation. I throw and have no anger towards anyone. What I say are my opinions from my personal life and observations. Please do not attacks me personally, as I do not do this to anyone here on this blog or anyone per say. People that place personal attacks on any blogs are bullies per say, they are violent people, and perhaps should be banned! Please take this to the bank Mr. Moyers. No one should have the privilage of bashing another person whether they are this sex, religion, or cultural background. On the other hand, please take that back. Lets not censor, but let's hear the rage and anger against humanity exposed here and there so we are aware of what people that feel they have the right to destroy the rest of society have to say. I am all appalled to hear their perspective. And no one has the right to banish me from the US of Amerika. If anyone does, I'd like to hear from the Native Americans, to whom this land belongs to, whose people have been raped and brutalized, by the like of Militants such as Anne. Please repent for your Violence Against Women and Brutality Against Men and Children Anne. Otherwise, please go to another blog and Bully People There.

    Thank you,

    Jack Martin wrote, in part, "Anna is innocently clairvoyant, and in dealing with Peter may have detected a message about "mini-women" in his suggestion of police aggression."

    I am neither innocent of the machinations of social engineers like you nor, god-forbid, clairvoyant.

    It is OBVIOUS what you two are up to both here on this topic and out in the world. The attendant psychobabble you bring in, Jack, says it all. You keep forgetting, Jack, that I also have that list that you have that locates all the gears and levers of civilization that need to be twisted by "oligarchy" to create hell on earth.

    Police ARE allowed to beat up women in the streets in MANY countries around the world for crimes such as exposed wrists. There's "religion" for ya...

    I am so happy that you, Jack, actually believe that with enough psychobabble blogging and "economic sanctions" you can create a similar police state here in the USA. Makes my job easier.

    As for the kinks that form in the male mind over time, more eduaction on the part of women who are mothers of boys would help a lot. Controlling an uncontrollable "member" certainly gets the knickers in a bunch. A mind forming neural pathways connecting actions with reactions is how pain and pleasure get cross-wired with "words".

    A new fashion statement is needed - togas for men should make a come back :-) Sure you can control blinking your eyelids, but what's the point? Especailly now that there are helpers like Viagra, a lifetime spent on finding "thoughts" that can raise entities from the deadness of a lifetime of loveless bodily functions is not needed. Meaning, fetish creation as a means of mass miind control will no longer work.

    But here's the archtype filled character play being created on a "blog" - the misogynist, a classic coward filled with fear and loathing, immortalized in every "holy book" wrought from the ancient bowels of the Mediterranean Basin's self-worshipping institutionalized "religions" with WORDS such as "thank god I was not born a leper or a woman" - here we are in 2009 being threatened by the misogynist with the IDEA that police are beating up women on the streets of USA.

    In "Darkness Visible" William Styron describes his acute depression by saying that the objects for suicide (ropes, knives, pills) took on a lascivious context, like sexual cues before a sex-starved person. Mental pain alters point of view.

    I have often considered David Letterman's chronic depressive state that cannot be overcome by the advantages of wealth, fame, or even nurturing Harry, to be an illustrative tragedy. (Stay up a little later to witness the same illness in Craig Ferguson.) Men especially, and some women, use conquesting promiscuity as a self-medication for an emptiness and pointlessness they feel. Depressed feelings naturally result after life goals are attained and found vacuous. Van Morrison said it so well:
    "What do you do when you get to the top, and there's nowhere to go?" (Back On Top)

    Now, as for Peter and Anna's police culture question. I believe there exists a culture of sado-masochism among some police officers. (I was briefly employed in a sworn officer position.) I see such an adaptation as self-preservation among people who regularly deal with violence, and people with a need for this excitement are sometimes drawn to police work. Sophisticated police evaluate "sick fixes:" as weak and childish. Women per se are an unlikely brutality target of police on the job, but stressed out police (and soldiers) have a higher likelihood of getting abusive or violent with spouses. And there are damaged spouses who are episodically drawn to violence. It does seem more extreme when women protesters (smaller, frailer and less likely threatening) are brutalized at demonstrations, but then we have so few confrontive events these days not state or corporate or party sponsored, thus needing little policing.

    Anna is innocently clairvoyant, and in dealing with Peter may have detected a message about "mini-women" in his suggestion of police aggression. "Mini-women" are a subspecies or magical animal posited by misogynists and chauvinists. Peter may be neither but may have stepped into a bear trap cleverly concealed in the underbrush. Moyers "Talkback" sometimes resembles a board game. Fascinating!

    Peter wrote, in part, "Many women per say have been brutalized, et al. by law enforcement in the US."


    You can't say stuff about police brutality towards women in the USA and NOT present FACTS about when and where and how it was, at most, the ACT of one psychologically disturbed individual. It certainly IS NOT what police DO!! I have NEVER heard of INSTITUTIONALIZED police brutality being even a THOUGHT in the USA - not even a thought.

    You have TOO MUCH to learn about what it means to be an American and what the role of the FEDERAL government IS to lecture or comment about getting "our" house in "order".

    But I agree it's time to stop talking with you as all you continue to do is insult. You are perfectly free to go back to your own country, where ever that is...

    Dear Anne,

    I won't argue with you on this or that. The facts are as they are. That doesn't mean new generations of both genders are to blame. And I would be very appalled if more women were in leadership positions. This is and has been the case in Europe and other parts of the World. As far as things are concerned this has not been the case in the US of A. I abhor all injustice and oppression no matter where the roots originate from. Please see the greater light. This is not a War of Emotions, this is a war for Truth and Justice. It doesn't matter where origins of those being active in the promotion of Truth and Justice Originate from. What matters is the sincerity and cause of promoting Human Rights for Everyone. We are not India, China, Saudi Arabia, et al.... We are the US of A and we should do much more work in terms of promoting those rights at Home First. Doing that in other regions of the World if our house is not in order serves the Status Quo, not people per say. Yes, we should support the cause of Human Rights in other parts of the World, but the people should decide for themselves about what is Justice. Foreign Interventions does nothing, but stains the Flag of the US of A with the blood of the Innocent!


    Peter wrote, in part, "Many women per say have been brutalized, et al. by law enforcement in the US."

    I have no idea what you are talking about - seriously.

    The only case of police NOT doing their job in Arizona was in Colorado Springs Arizona. The police were on the receiving end of the $$$ from Warren Jeffs which Jeffs got from one of the millions of Bush cabal's bad ideas called "faith based" federal funding to religious organizations (MY MONEY as a TAXPAYER).

    If you are trying to SELL the idea, as part of your revisionist history story telling, that women are constantly being brutalized by "law enforcement" here in USA you might be smoking something strange and confusing what you supposedly lived with in the USA with some time spent in Saudi Arabia, maybe?

    Cops in USA do not have permission to beat a woman for showing her wrists - or wha'ever....

    And Mr. Jeffs is in jail and they threw away the key - as a matter of fact, POLICE in Las Vegas, NV captured Jeffs. So even the police in "Sin City" have boundaries that can't be crossed by "faith-based " initiatives.

    On a lighter note, thanks to a comic, David Letterman, recently the target of blackmail, it got me thinking about what a waste it is to have unequal distribution of $$$ with men (gay and straight) having the lion's share of it...even a super RICH man can't come up with better activities than the same one the poor man wrestles up for

    If woman had more $$$, I betcha that "sex" would not be in the top ten things that "rich" people "buy"


    Peter wrote, in part, "To your other question, I may be European of origin, but I have grown up and been educated in the US. This makes me an American per say."

    What cracks me up is the pretense on the part of other "tribes" or "countries" that ONLY the USA is sticking its nose in other people's business. Complete spin.

    Not until after the countries of Europe were completely and utterly proven wrong - ala WWI and WWII - did they start to adopt what was GOOD about USA's IDEALS. An "EU" finally started to form.

    I believe you are on this site re-writing "history", Peter. And you are being called out on it...

    Something for YOU to contemplate is that whole "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, to God what is God's" argument. REAL Americans know the difference.

    JUSTICE and FREEDOM OF RELIGION (same as FREEDOM OF SPEECH) do NOT, I repeat, do NOT belong to Caesar. Granted, it has been a while since ANY "leaders" in Occidental civilizations have ELECTED a "Caesar" with the wisdom to know the difference, but the stresses of a unique situation on earth - 7 billion people - will get us ALL to take a look at who "owns" what.

    "Militarism" stays.

    We can all see how Russia is NOT recovering normally because of Stalin's purge of 37 million citizens who he believed were smarter than him, surely you can not expect other "empires" - like China, Persian and USA "Roman" to follow that STUPID playbook of "isms" with something as ludicrous as PCism...?

    Once so-called global "corporations" presumed to become a "person" with special privilege and "economically sanctioned" the SMARTEST people whose inventions and labor they STOLE, they started to pull a "stalin"...contrary to the "history" everyone wants to re-write, the smart (and, yes, the smart-aleky) are in it to "win" back the fruits of our labors.

    Surely you and I can agree on one other "fact", Peter? There certainly IS, also, an "existential" threat against the "normally smart" rising up from the ranks of the most inane, vociferous, and INCOMPETANT PCism class (the "new rich")?

    P.S. Regarding India and China: These are totally different regimes and we should not generalize discrimination in those region to the effect it takes in the US. Many women per say have been brutalized, et al. by law enforcement in the US. These very people are immune to prosecution by the police interest mafia. Let justice be served, lets concentrate against mishaps at home, lets not hold anyone immune, and lets justice be served :)))

    Dear Anne,

    For once we have come into an agreement. Exploitation is not a gender bias concept, it is mutually administered by the Status Quo against those with lesser buying vote per say. What is needed is a unification of all peoples against the exploiting powers per say. I made a general statement, but it was not stereotypical, it was meant to demonstrate how far the exploitative powers reach. Those being exploited are both women and men of a lesser voting power who can secure votes by being exploited by those with the capital. The exploiters are people with the capital power to coerce and exploit those who are worse off. I did not mean for my argument to be bias in the gender sense. Everyone deserves a chance to prosper and live; yet this chance is hindered in many ways by the special-interest Status Quo. Please stop the gender way; it is not a battle between men and women; it is a battle between special-privilege and oppression. It has no gender bounds! You are a sensible person Anne and I admire people with a strong outspoken personality such as yourself. To your other question, I may be European of origin, but I have grown up and been educated in the US. This makes me an American per say. I also have a very good working knowledge of US history and military interventions. US history and military interventions have not been very friendly in terms of women rights are concerned. I advocate that there still remains much stigma in society against women per say, but that stigma cannot be used to divide the genders and destroy the authority of those who advocate for equality amongst diversity of humanity. So please think about it and I will be waiting for your response.

    Thank you,

    Very aptly put, it is time that the `other half` had a strong statement made on their behalf. The term `male` is a metaphore for domination which from the days of the hunter/digger headed the `list`. Now we are finding that this sweeping generality is no longer solvent.

    Hey Peter,

    Maybe I should send to Ms. Ramdas the video clip from China that was filmed yesterday at their celebration and is being "shared" with the world today - the parade included large battalions of red mini-skirted, white knee-high boot-wearing women with carrying a machine gun (?)across their arms - a picture is worth a thousand words :-)) "Pretty" militarism...

    So, Peter, are you also asking some woman in China that you met on a "blog" to explain why the world-wide parasitic under-class of drugs dealors and female exploitation (slave/prostituion) is somehow ALSO being blamed on the USA for ORIGINATING it? That's definitely NOT it? I believe that "confessing" to a crime I actually DID commit is correct, but I will definitely NOT allow YOU or anyone else to pin the crimes of an under-class on MY, supposedly, tacit agreement to the situation. Not fair, Peter. I have been known to ask for an "army" now and then to beat back some stuff and the men have always obliged...they know I'm not crying "wolf" when there is no "wolf"...but the men have never left me UNARMED, either.

    Which brings me to point #2 - thanks to the REAL religious freedom we have in the USA, MEN do not have "moral authority" over women. We go back and forth with each other - which is the only way to evolve TRUE culture and civilization. So whatever you think you are seeing as "evidence" that we are all "prostitutes" via FICTION movies and god-knows-what-else in "pornography", WOMEN here do call such money-laundering (media) business MEN sluts, whores, pigs, prostitutes, and worse, but this is a PG site :-) It's an UNDERCLASS in our social structure (both the men and the women) and just because they have cash does not mean they have moral authority or special privilege.

    The whole schtick with blackmail/coercion using ILLEGALLY obtained details about people's PRIVATE lives is a whole other game that is also about to get worked over and thrown out as a means for achieving unearned wealth - stay tuned.

    You see, it really is pretty hard to figure out what is REALLY going on between a man and a woman when both of them have "moral authority" over each other so don't ASSUME, if you are not USA born and bred, that you KNOW how we talk to each other, in private.

    Now, I'm off to e-mail the marching Chinese women video clip to all the women I know who have been practicing passive-aggressive "praying" and talking way too much to the voices in their head to do a little mischief by triggering their "jealous" gene and focussing it on the REALITY of the situation.

    Let me know what the Chinese chick says to you (if you find one polite enough to spend time on you and your insults) when you accuse her of living in a society where men get to turn all the women into slaves.

    Kind regards.

    Peter wrote, in part, "Your militarism only serves the power structure."

    With 7 billion people in the world, at least 6.5 billion want the "militarism" that would give them the power to come and take it all, so maybe I am okay with having "militarism".

    I am, however, absolutely AGAINST the abuse of that kind of power which is what a pre-emptive war IS.

    Make no mistake about it, the people who scratched and clawed and murdered their way into position to USE "my" military for a pre-emptive strike are NOT AMERICANS. And they will be brought to justice, so stay tuned. Right now, they are on a very short leash and under "house" arrest, so to speak...

    Dear Anne,

    Who is stealing? The greatest thieves are those that have the greatest military power. In that sense the greatest thieves are the Status Quo and Power Elites. Women are the utter most victims of this power. The serve these Elites through stripping, prostitution, and other services. Justice will only be served when all men, women, and those that hold power have an equal saying in international decision making. Your militarism only serves the power structure. "IT IS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PER SAY." Without profits there would be no thieves! And thieves come in all forms and shapes an they do include women :(



    It is not confusing or complicated. Even a male "Roman", in conversation with me yesterday, admitted that stupid people have only one "idea" for getting what someone else earned for themselves through labor and creativity - they go about strategizing how to steal "it" - up to and including "identity".

    It's ludicrous to expect that some "idea" about us all being "one" is going to convince everyone that theft should be perceived as "sharing".

    Until people come up with a better philosophy for living other than stealing (forced "sharing"), "militarism" will remain a necessity.

    The modern problem, imo, is that "militarism" still needs to be employed against theft and the drugging of minds, and as noted by another, thinking "militarism" is THE problem is delusional.

    If people stop stealing, people will stop fighting.


    "Exactly, so why is Ms. Ramdas's version of "militarism" ignorant of those
    historical facts?"
    I have no answer to "why Ms. Ramadas's version of "militarism" ignorant..."
    As a child, living through WORLD WARII and after the WAR in EUROPE I see only
    death, suffering, misery destruction into oblivion - the stone age and
    economy in a depression. I may be wrong, but I suspect it will get much worse!
    Therefore I am against any war, killing, destruction etc.
    If they bring back our men, women, sons, daughters at this very moment, I will be very
    happy. I see no justification for any country to engage in a war, for there are no winners.
    Perhaps, some one may be able to give an explanation to the question!
    I do agree, many women are just as capable as men, to run the country or corporation.
    There is a proof of that.
    I would like to see you step to the plate, put the fire gear on, get the LEAGE of
    WOMEN VOTERS and the people to support you. Yes, you can clean the mess.
    Yes, only women knows how to clean a house, the OLD fashion Way!
    I believe in you! Yes, you can do it! You can not do any worst, than it is now.

    Dear Ann, et al.,

    I am very confused; people don't need and want anymore Militarism. Militarism is a factor that plays a significant part in dividing people and plunder. Militarism is violence per say. It is violence against women, against children, and against men of the opposing group. It is hypocrisy and propaganda against humanity. These are tactics that serve the elites such as those who profit from shares of the FED, Big Bankers, Big Business, and the Private-Government-Industrial-Complex. The solution to human oppression is simple. We are all humans. We are all brothers and sisters. There are no blocks that divide us. Those of us who stand on the enlightened side of justice need to unite and prosecute injustice that oppresses and impoverishes the whole of humanity at its roots in an international tribunal of human rights. Militarism does nothing to resolve the problem; it just puts those who are prone to oppression, discrimination, and violence into the Status Quo and power category. Enough is enough. The cycle will not end as long as those who are prone to the very thing we dread hold power and the Status Quo.

    Pertaining to women having "power and control" it has been going as far back as
    Queen Cleopatra, Victoria, Elizabet, Chancellor of Germany and others.

    Posted by: Chris

    Exactly, so why is Ms. Ramdas's version of "militarism" ignorant of those historical facts?

    Women DO put together armies, set the mission, and achieve victory.

    Granted, women might be more likely do set missions based on animal instincts called "protecting the young"...and I see nothing wrong with that instict finding its way back INTO "militarism" via a female mind, so to speak.

    Women might have less moral ambiguity, as a biological unit in search of "survival" than men do, who knows?

    Men are more successful, yes, even as armies, when the collectively social moral ambiguity is clarified by the female "lust" for "power".

    Ms. Ramdas has not used her power to clarify the moral ambiguity of the very "economics" she believes will "raise" woman's lot on earth from slave status to human soul.

    "If you choose, that women are the source of all evil--..."
    First, I do not choose "that women are....". Second I do not think "that the women
    are the source of all evil." I never stated that.
    Though some religious believer states, "taking the apple from the tree by Eva, was evil!"
    The Front-line documentary video: "BRAKING THE BANK" shows the evil that
    far exceed the damage, than "taking the apple of a tree!"
    I do look upon any person as human. Persons who have
    knowledge about matters that I do not know, I do ask for their help.
    I do believe the women under the wing of "League of Women Voters,"
    missed opportunity to set the agenda, the issues and the direction of the country!
    Pertaining to women having "power and control" it has been going as far back as
    Queen Cleopatra, Victoria, Elizabet, Chancellor of Germany and others.

    What else you got?
    In 2007 3 (three) banks failed; In 2008 25, and in 2009 as reported by CBS news
    95 banks, for a total of 123! It is not over yet! Do good-ers on rampage!
    These are "facts not "lies!" The SINS of someone else - ... very Old Testament is:"
    "I did not see it, I did not hear it, I was not there, I did not know they were failing!"
    A bank states, "The bank has chosen to focus our resources on the communities we serve..."
    meaning if you do not live in a particular community you could not purchase
    instruments that pays higher interest. Simply, a "rule" authorizing discrimination
    in a "free trade global economy." Still waiting for the principle and interest
    to be paid on the bonds that mature 10 months ago. Corruption, confiscation and
    fraud by way of deregulation and bankruptcy are common practices in the ... system,
    the fact why no one " have been shunted out of the building in a heartbeat," "I did not see it... "
    Besides the 123 failed banks there are 126 corporation in chapter 11 bankruptcies!
    "The basic function of commercial banking... —linking savers
    to borrowers—should never have been confused with the casino-like function
    of investment banking."
    "Proposed reforms is inadequate to the task, even if adopted."
    It is over a year and there are no substantial reform.
    "The nation and the world will almost certainly be plunged into the same crisis
    or worse at some point in the not-too-distant future! "
    With over 35 millions unemployed they are not even close to solving the problem.
    "Besides set them up to fail and then blame them for the failure, Chris?" It is no
    comfort to my heart and soul.
    Only "empty hope," amend the CONSTITUTION with rules construed very "STRICLY."


    I agree with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s remark: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

    So, as I see it, you’re free to believe “[i]t was the ‘LEAGUE of WOMEN VOTERS’ that used their ‘POWER and CONTROL,’ to mandate only two party presidential candidates debate”--or to believe, if you choose, that women are the source of all evil--even though the record shows this opinion is not a fact.

    The bipartisan (vs. nonpartisan) Commission on Presidential Debates took control away from the League and has raised the barrier to third-party candidates.

    We don't need anymore stereotypes and hatred and that's exactly what Ms. Ramdas is doing.

    Posted by: Peter

    I agree. But she doesn't KNOW that she is doing it!

    It's a brand new list than the "traditional" one you brought out - the "mono cause" views of reality - smokers, animals have souls, gay people deserve special privileges, "environment" - I don't see the peeps of the world coming up with anything other than new age MATERIAL and POLITICAL reasons (wearing a MASK of "spiritual") to start a "war" over....

    I also agree that in the long term, we'll stop making lists of people to kill off, one way or another, but RIGHT NOW, without the new "non-materialistic" language, so to speak, in place - who is in charge of how the "material" is going to flow...?

    Chris wrote, in part, "It was the women power
    of the FDIC that turned blind eye under her control, that resulted in 123 banks failure
    since September 2007 and there is no end in site...!"

    Man oh man, this is just too easy now, ain't it?

    Providing a "whipping boy" to blame for the SINS of someone else - how very Old Testament.

    One reason and one reason alone why your "facts" are lies - IF there was a woman or man or dog or alien or even god himself in those "regulatory" agencies like the FDIC who was stupid enough to attempt to do their job and regulate, they would have been shunted out of the building in a heartbeat. THE TRUTH.

    What else you got? Besides set them up to fail and then blame them for the failure, Chris?

    Dear Kavita:

    Yes, it absolutely DOES MATTER where the money comes from. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan make their money in the first place by stealing it when frontrunning high-frequency trading software, manipulating markets, and creating global debt-slaves. You'd better bet that along with all of your other stats, WOMEN are hurt the most by the actions of Goldman, JPMorgan, and Corporate America in general. Taking their money is synonymous with claiming that stripping is an okay job for women, because it "empowers" them.

    There are many roles that women can play to work for more equitable and just societies, but the best way to make use of women's contributions is to first fundamentally restructure the way that society is organized in the first place. That means challenging power and demanding real changes--not just fighting for a return to the status quo so that we can ask Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan(who ought to be gone after with anti-trust laws) to give us some pocket change (that they already stole from us) for women's causes. After we root out corruption, restructure banking, and get some REAL regulations back in place again, then women can set about restoring the neglected commonwealth.

    What is the definition of true religion? Anybody remember?

    "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless, orphans, and widows in their affliction, AND to keep himself unspotted from the world."

    The Holy Bible
    Book of James 1: 27

    (Thank you for beginning to answer a prayer.)

    "She cares about power, control...."

    It was the "LEAGUE of WOMEN VOTERS" that used their "POWER and CONTROL,"
    to mandate only two party presidential candidates debate. It was the women power
    of the FDIC that turned blind eye under her control, that resulted in 123 banks failure
    since September 2007 and there is no end in site...! It was their mandate,
    "POWER and CONTROL," to denied the majority of independent 55 percent
    of the people to vote, to EXPRESS their WILL, their choice for an independent
    party candidate.
    Had the third party, the independent and other parties candidate participated ,
    the outcome might have been "DIFFERENCE" and/or much less problems now!
    An option with "two bushels of rotten apples" which one would you pick?
    It dose not make much difference which bushel - they are all rotten!
    The color of the lipstick does not modify the test of the apples!
    The Women made sure the "status quo" - OLIGARCHY continue!"

    J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs et al. as agents of change for women?

    A book review for Ms. Ramdas's and your consideration: .

    P.S. Anne we don't need anymore wars and militarism. We, as the peoples of the world, desire to coexist together in peace and harmony. It is the political propaganda machine that creates conflict and divides people one against the other. We don't need anymore of it! There is a whole industry anxious and ready to deceive, militarize, and destroy; there are big profits to be made. So once again no to materialism, not to militarism, no to stereotypes, no to hatred, and most of all, no to profits over peoples.

    Thank you for your comment Anne. Material success is precisely the antithesis to human rights. Material expanse by creating distortions and biases is precisely what allowed for the slave trade, allowed for discrimination against women, allowed for the overwhelming divide between rich and poor parts of the world, and created a TOP-DOWN society of the aristocrats and the beggars. We are living in a different world now and laundry, cooking, and household chores are not the sole responsibility of the female gender. In fact, some males have a greater share of chores around the house than females. Personally I believe all work should be equally divided and efforts equally acknowledged. We don't need stereotypes and gender wars. I would suggest Ms. Ramadas opens her eyes and stops making arbitrary and general statements. This problem definitely needs to be brought out into the light; but blaming everything on men is like saying all Arabs are terrorists; all Germans are Nazis; all Americans are barbarians; all Jews are thieves and liers; all Russians are Communists; et al. We don't need anymore stereotypes and hatred and that's exactly what Ms. Ramdas is doing.

    Peter, you wrote, in part, "Ms. Ramadas doesn't care about women's rights; she cares about power, control, and coercion."

    I'm not sure about that. I'll agree that she has the "blind ambition" for material success that is an absolutely necessary character flaw if one is to become an invited TV "expert" for the corporate agenda, but what I discerned was that she has yet to discover what the flaws of the ancient caste system in India are, and have always been.

    As for the white chicks, who ARE in the MIC, granted, it has been a while since an Elizabeth or a Mary or a Catherine or a Joan have led an army to VICTORY, but maybe that's what "militarism" needs right now - the woman's touch :-) Indeed, it takes the coordinating and cooperative "feminine" skills to DEFINE the "mission" and get it done in time to go home and cook dinner for the family.

    With you there, Peter. :D

    A relationship, much less a family unit, is not the place to vent fury at historical gender-bias, perceived or actual.

    The considerable dangers of an opaque broad-brush approach are better avoided by adopting a more precision family human-rights compliant approach.

    All too often arbitrary state intervention worsens, not eases problems, causing disproportional family rights restrictions, on both sides of the pond, which is lamentable.

    To move towards achieving justice and equality we must all first learn to work together.

    Education and therapeutic intervention is the key in all but the most serious cases dependent on precise risk-identification and its subsequent management.

    This includes being given the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and to move forwards meaningfully.

    I have always been a proponent of women's, children's, and human rights in general as they concern all peoples. Ms. Ramadas rhetoric and beliefs are full of misconceptions, bad research, and bias. Instead of uniting humanity and looking at the problem objectively, she tends to blame all the problems on one gender. This is not a unigender issue, but the issue of violence is universal. There are as many violent women as violent men. There are also as many poor men as poor women and children. Statistically speaking, the top 20% in the USA earn over 92.5% off all the income; while the next 80% are left with 7.5%. Lets talk about hypocrisy here. Ms. Ramadas doesn't care about women's rights; she cares about power, control, and coercion. Such people are a shame to women, children, and humanity in general. For the most part, on some levels in the developed world, men tend to be at a disadvantage in terms of employment compared to women. This is especially true for poor men. Finally, aside from a few cases of out of control types of both genders, men typically don't go out taking their anger and frustration out on women and their bodies after drinking. More than often men are actually attacked by their spouses for drinking. Either way, the same goes for the other sex. Thank you for showing and exposing this hypocrisy. Now we must all do our part in educating the public, uniting the genders, and bringing an end to this industrial-complex disguised under humanitarian causes and spitting poison upon humanity. Violence is not only an interpersonal, racial, or social problem; it is also international, political, and economic. It is a plaque of our culture and civilization. To categorize violence in any one category is pure hypocrisy. Humanity must take the better path if she is to survive; otherwise she will destroy herself in this never-ending cycle.

    mike: When a majority of women are victimized by the same injustices and structural violence, they are not only entitled, they are obligated to act in concert. Hannah Ahrendt defined power as "the ability to act in concert." Employers, and corporate leaders, and cliques of men certainly act in concert, mostly with bad ends.

    I believe there were instances in human history where men and women were more equal in responsibilities and power than at present. I believe it is in our sense of justice and in our nature to reinvent gender equity. I have found that taking on some duties traditionally allocated to women can be enlightening and rewarding. Women were historically paid less to to "women's work." It rises in status and compensation when men do it. American women are stretched to the limit today trying to earn while making a home. I am tired of seeing overseas sweatshops full of young women and girls, with their men paid to become gun-toting thugs, or discarded as addicts and perverts, trashed. The malevolence we see in these instances is a mirror of our own cruelty and prejudice here at home, where we keep women and their children in unnecessary poverty, neglect and ignorance using ever more sophisticated rhetoric. No person is property, no matter how wealthy and privileged the purported owner.

    Do you own anyone, mike? Who owns you? When it comes to "women's issues" it falls to women to define them and make strategy. I only fall in behind, ashamed of my upbringing and trying to overcome. Women as a class have been struck in the face. Sadists call it a "love tap." Don't draw back your stupid arm, mike. We're watching.

    the whole concept of "womens issues" is an arrogant sham from the late 60s and early 70s when a group of women decided that their views were universal to all women and that any woman who disagreed had been brainwashed by male chauvinists. Like men, women have diverse viewpoints on war, taxes, healthcare, abortion, etc. and to assume all informed women automatically share the same agenda is backwards and incredibly sexist. This guest was arrogant and very unthoughtful -- how about bringing on a woman with a different point of view?

    Only three comments so far, with two of three pointing out the contradictions of women ascending the corporate hierarchy. Women's wealth and incomes are polarized too, and wealthy women often have an oligarchic agenda. (Think about Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Virginia Foxx, not worried about families living in campsites or dying from impacted teeth.)

    Here we are in a country that cannot tame its own pseudo-Christian taliban (often for corporate business reasons) and we point our fingers and blame the global poor. The "husbands" are throwing the fire extinguishers at the "wives" while their house burns. Women (if they are truly different and more humane and caring, beyond childbearing, average physiology, metabolism and brain organization) have barely asserted themselves in western post-industrial nations.

    I found this program atypical and aberrant for the Journal (especially the corporate plugs for oligarchic parasites), and found very little positive in it. Bill left Lynn Sherr to haul the corporate garbage, maybe because such repulsive tasks are now woman's work.

    And now a word from our sponsor, Goldman Sacks who help bring you more greedy global gluttons that make our troubled planet and people more impossible to manage. The good intentions of these multinational behemoths are plugged too often on PBS.

    Inspirational! One thought I had while listening to Kavita Ramdas is that I have heard this century is going to be one where the acknowledging of the feminine powers in each of us are very important. What she spoke about with regards to change really resonated with me. I think women bring to the table a certain versatility and flexibility that is good for being able to adapt to change by approaching it in a multi-faceted way that yields resilience. It is funny but the 2nd question "What unique contributions are women making in the fight for a better world?" to me actually is a question that is worded in a very masculine manner. The whole point being that women may not use the same terminology as men. Men maybe, think of things in terms of "a fight" whereas women look at things in terms of how can we collaborate/work together? This is what we can bring to the table. In a time of great change, we need to be able to work together for a better world, not FIGHT more for it.

    The question left unanswered is whether she thinks women in places like Afghanistan will be benefited by the presence of more American troops, or just hurt by more Taliban troops? Women have been the agriculturalists before recorded history so it ought not come as a surprise to anyone, even Bill Clinton, that they still do a lot of it. I think this conference shows very nicely what I've always contended, that women are behind market society, etc. To be fair, we should therefore hold them responsible for the havoc that has created, but like stimulus pkgs, more women is always the answer.

    Post a comment

    THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

    A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

    Your Comments


    THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

    Click to subscribe in iTunes

    Subscribe with another reader

    Get the vodcast (help)

    For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

    © Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ