And this is what a ‘systematic evacuation‘ looks like.
The video shows the disgusting treatment of migrant women and children, protesting against their eviction. Nothing calls for this shameful brutality, which appears to be yet another instance of state sanctioned racism.
“We are suffering the consequences of 50 years of insufficiently regulated immigration which has led to a failure of integration,” Sarkozy added helpfully, in case anyone was in any doubt as to whom he viewed as the greatest threat to stability within the republic.
It’s the first TEDwomen, which will bring women and men together to discuss women as agents of change in the world. It will look as women as “change agent, intellectual innovator, idea champion …”. “From the developing world, where a single micro-loan to a single girl can transform a village; to the West, where generations of educated women are transforming entire industries.”
One might have a problem with that contrast: developing world village girl vs. educated generations of women in the west. But do you have a problem with the general idea of a two day TED conference on women as change agents in the world?
Huffington Post has an interview with the “host” of the conference, Pat Mitchell. They raise some of the issues that have been put forward on blogs, including whether there should be a TEDmen. (I’m not sure Mitchell understood the implied objection, which seemed to be a reductio of the whole idea.)
TEDWomen will focus on the ideas and innovations championed by women and girls. These cover everything from community development to economic growth to biodynamic farming to robotics to medical treatments to the use of technology for personal safety and peace making. Men and women speakers will take the TEDWomen stage with ideas that are reshaping our future, and matter deeply to all of us.
But unfortunately she then said:
First, the intent behind the conference is to explore in depth a subject we find fascinating and timely. We’re seeking out talks about women and girls (not just by them).
In depth? Isn’t this the sort of case where one says that the speaker confuses breadth with depth? The question I don’t want to answer alone is this: Since the only common feature among the innovators will be their sex, is the separate and distinct importance of what is being done by women diminished by emphasizing the common sex of the innovators?
What do you think?