Skip navigation

Weekend Reading on Women's Representation September 21, 2018


Dear women's representation enthusiasts,
There was a very interesting story in ISS Today about women's representation in Somalia which has been increasing since the introduction and reintroduction of quotas - while compliance and implementation have been a challenge, women are 'claiming their place in Somalia politics":

Women’s participation in Somali politics has traditionally been low, and a controversial topic in the country. Somali society typically ascribes to more conservative notions of a woman’s role in family and community life, rarely envisioning a position of political leadership in a male-dominated system. This has been changing, but there’s a long road ahead.

Politics is just one indicator of the larger dynamics regarding women’s empowerment in Somali society. In the 2016/17 selection process for a new parliament, Somalia enacted a 30% quota for women’s participation. Of the 329 prospective members for both houses of parliament, at least 99 should have been women.

This 30% quota was declared for previous Somali electoral cycles, but with limited results. In 2012, women garnered 14% of parliamentary seats, less than half the required amount. That was an improvement from the 2000s, however, when women occupied approximately 8% of seats.

In 2016/17, the quota was enacted again, but with renewed vigour on the part of women’s groups, who pushed for the fulfilment of the 30% threshold. Women’s representatives from organisations like Save Somali Women and Children, Somali Women Development Centre and Somali Women’s Leadership Initiative said they talked to key political leaders like the president, prime minister and speaker of parliament, to push the issue.

They also frequently met with the international community, and conducted outreach with community leaders in the Federal Member States, where many of the elections took place. Muna Hassan Mohamed, a local activist, told the Institute for Security Studies how her persistent lobbying annoyed elders in Beledweyne – but it kept the issue on the agenda.

The renewed efforts resulted in the selection of 80 women, or 24% of parliamentarians. This was up from 2012, but still didn’t meet the legal requirement. In some cases, men occupied seats that were reserved for women. The electoral teams blocked a few of those results, but others went ahead, showing that one of the key issues lay in the lack of enforcement mechanisms.

Generally, women in Somalia who wish to pursue a political career struggle with a number of factors. One is the Somali clan system which permeates political life and is a male-dominated institution. Clan elders are almost exclusively male, and clans themselves struggle to accept changes to this. One activist told ISS: “The clans would rather have a bad leader who is male, than a good leader who is female.”

The relationship of women to their clan is also a delicate subject, especially for those who marry into another clan. There are questions as to whether she represents her husband’s clan, or that of her maiden family. Being unable to secure the full support of their clan puts these women at a financial disadvantage when it comes to political participation.

Another dynamic relates to whether women represent themselves as women first, or their clan. One activist in Mogadishu said that during a vote for a top position in the House of Representatives, her organisation tried to mobilise female parliamentarians to unite around a single candidate, to ensure women’s representation.

This failed, as many women chose to vote along clan lines instead. This shows that female politicians should not be viewed as a homogeneous group solely based on gender, and that advancing female representation is not everyone’s priority.

Women are also at a disadvantage in terms of religion, given the preference for male leadership, and the voices of some religious figures who view the quota as a Western imposition.

Some female activists told ISS that Somalia could never have a woman president due to the perceived notion that Islam prohibits women’s leadership. Somali women, they said, should instead aim for the vice presidency. Other female interviewees discounted this, saying it was based on faulty interpretations of Islamic scripture.

Despite these challenges, women’s groups like Save Somali Women and Children are demanding their fair share – not content with just 30% of the vote, but advocating for 50%. The increasing share in each passing election signals their success, but also the engrained difficulties in reaching this quota.

More hurdles, however, are on the horizon. The 2020 election is planned as a one-person, one-vote process. Previous elections relied on clan elders or other delegates to select candidates – a restrictive process in which 99% of the country didn’t vote. The next election aims to open voting to all, although questions remain as to whether this will be possible in the time frame.

Woman activists are concerned that without the 30% quota being enshrined in Somalia’s constitution, which is currently provisional, their hard-fought gains could be lost. This is because most people (including women) will probably vote along clan lines, and thus for male candidates.

Of course, representation in parliament is just one aspect of the struggle for women’s empowerment in Somalia, which should begin well before a woman considers a political career. As a Somali government representative explained: “If gender equity is not achieved from at least a school level, then the status of women won’t really change.”

Nonetheless, the focus on female participation in politics is seen as one way to ensure women’s rights are respected and developed. That’s been the message of some women’s organisations in Somalia, and one that says the struggle is far from over.


Gender quotas are also having an impact on corporate boards in Germany according to this article in Handelsblatt Global Edition - this piece reminds me of the potential for a public/private partnership for parity to fortify the efforts to adopt and implement gender targets across sectors:
Germany’s gender representation law is starting to bite, with significantly more women on company boards than three years ago. But senior management remains overwhelmingly male.

Ceramics manufacturer Villeroy & Boch has been around since 1748, but it recently faced a very contemporary problem. The company was forced to leave a position on its supervisory board vacant for several months, because it was unable to find a qualified female candidate.

Franziska Giffey, Germany’s minister of family affairs, said Villeroy & Boch’s problem was good news, a sign that the country’ mandatory quotas on women’s representation were working. “Old boys clubs in management are unfair and unmodern,” said Ms. Giffey, whose brief includes equality and women’s issues.

Monika Schulz-Strelow, head of FiDAR, a group campaigning to see more women in the boardroom, also welcomed the news. “That vacant seat showed that the law has more teeth than we thought,” she said. Firms without women at the top were risking damage to their corporate image, she added.

Since 2016, German law requires a minimum quota for women on companies’ supervisory boards. At all publicly listed companies, and those with workers’ participation in corporate governance, at least 30 percent of boardroom positions must be filled by women.

Report or pay up

Companies must also set and publicly report their own targets for women’s participation in the boardroom and senior management. The results are monitored by the government. Failure to report gender statistics could lead to a fine of up to €10 million ($11.7 million) or 5 percent of annual revenue.

On the whole, the business community is not a fan of legally enforced equality measures. Iris Plöger, a senior figure at the Confederation of German Industry (BDI), told Handelsblatt that legal quotas and deadlines were counter-productive. For one thing, companies may be reluctant to appoint a woman to their board because of the difficulty of eventually finding another to replace her.

But supporters of quotas say they have made a real difference in accelerating change. Ms. Giffey points out that, among companies affected by the law, the proportion of women in the boardroom has risen from 25 percent to 31 percent in the past three years.

That success has led some to call for new quotas focusing on women in senior management. Here, progress has been stubbornly slow. Among Germany’s top 200 companies, measured by annual revenue, just 8 percent of senior managers are women.
Continuing on the theme of the impact of gender quotas there was an interesting article in The Mandarin about a jury made up of citizens in the state of Victoria in Australia that has given the 'thumbs up for gender quotas for women in public sector leadership positions':

A citizens’ jury has given the thumbs-up to gender quotas for public sector leadership positions, though not without some dissent.

The jury of 83 randomly selected people met over the weekend to hear from experts and discuss what gender quotas are fair and how they should be implemented.

This forms part of the Victorian government’s consultation on its forthcoming gender equality bill, which proposes new obligations to plan and report on gender equality for all state government departments, public sector entities with over 100 full time employees, and local governments.

While the Victorian public sector outperforms most industries, the gap in wages between women and men is still 12%. The gender pay gap is influenced by a number of factors, including a lack of women in senior leadership positions.

Targets introduced with the bill, expected to be introduced into parliament in early 2019, could include ensuring 50% of VPS executive and public sector board appointments are women.

“International evidence shows that gender equality legislation in the public sector generally improves gender equality overall, including outside of government,” says Minister for Women Natalie Hutchins.


I was very excited to see this piece from The Peninsula Qatar about political parties' obligation to tally the number of women and people of color running for office:

LONDON:  Political parties in Britain should be forced to reveal how many women and minorities they put up for election to parliament, lawmakers and campaigners said on Wednesday.

They said the government should take action after a recent law compelling many British companies to share the gap between how much they paid male and female staff provoked debate and pledges of change.

"We don't have equal representation in politics and there's a distance between citizens and politics as a result," said Helen Pankhurst, the granddaughter of British suffragette campaigner Sylvia Pankhurst.

"There's a double standard, or a bit of hypocrisy, if you demand accountability elsewhere and aren't accountable yourself," Pankhurst told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Despite sex discrimination being outlawed in the 1970s, women hold just 208 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons and are also under-represented in senior business roles. Just over a quarter of the House of Lords upper chamber members are women.

Campaigners have called on the government to bring into force existing legislation that would compel parties to make public how many of their candidates are women.

The Government Equalities Office declined to comment, saying in a statement that it "continues to work on supporting groups to participate in politics".

Politicians compete ahead of five-yearly elections to be chosen as a candidate for their party, with the final decision taken by party members in the local constituency.

Speaking at a round-table event hosted by the Centenary Action Group, lawmakers from the three main British parties said they had run up against sexist assumptions and stereotypes when forging their political careers.

Nicky Morgan, a member of parliament (MP) with the ruling Conservative Party, said when she first put herself forward, the members "still had a concept of what a candidate looked like as male, often married with children".

Jo Swinson, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, said she had been quizzed about whether she planned to have children when competing against a man with a young family.

"The gender pay gap has put pressure on companies - people are asking questions and I think we need the same thing with political parties," she added.

Britain stands at number 39 in an international index charting women's representation in parliaments, below Rwanda, Cuba and Bolivia.

Campaigners said forcing parties to be more transparent would increase pressure on them to nurture female candidates and those from minority backgrounds.

Labour MP Dawn Butler said that would result in a "more robust type of policy".

"It's important to have that intersectionality, to have different voices, not people who all went to the same school and have got all the same friends," she said.


The Pew Research Center released a fascinating and challenging report on the partisan and gender divide on the underrepresentation of women:


Two years after Hillary Clinton became the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major U.S. political party, and with a record number of women running for Congress in 2018, a majority of Americans say they would like to see more women in top leadership positions – not only in politics, but also in the corporate world – according to a new Pew Research Center survey. But most say men still have an easier path to the top and that women have to do more to prove their worth. And the public is skeptical that the country will ever achieve gender parity in politics or in business.

Republicans and Democrats have widely different views about where things stand today and what factors are holding women back. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more than twice as likely as Republicans and those who lean Republican to say there are too few women in high political offices (79% vs. 33%). And while 64% of Democrats say gender discrimination is a major reason why women are underrepresented in these positions, only 30% of Republicans agree.

There are also wide gender gaps in views about women in leadership. About seven-in-ten women say there are too few women in high political offices and in top executive business positions; about half of men say the same. And women are far more likely than men to see structural barriers and uneven expectations holding women back from these positions. About seven-in-ten women – vs. about half of men – say a major reason why women are underrepresented in top positions in politics and business is that they have to do more to prove themselves. And while about six-in-ten women say gender discrimination is a major obstacle to female leadership in each of these realms, smaller shares of men say this is the case in the corporate world (44%) or in politics (36%).

To a large degree, these gender gaps persist within parties. Among Republicans and Democrats, women are more likely than men to say there are too few women in political and corporate leadership positions, and there are substantial gender differences, particularly among Republicans, in views on the obstacles holding women back from these positions.

Despite the surge of female candidates this year, women are increasingly doubtful that voters are ready to elect more female leaders. A growing share cite this as a major reason why women are underrepresented in high political offices: 57% of women now say voters not being ready to elect women is a major reason, compared with 41% in 2014. Men remain much less likely to see this as a major impediment (32% of men do so).

The survey also finds that Americans largely see men and women as equally capable when it comes to some key qualities and behaviors that are essential for leadership, even as a majority (57%) say men and women in top positions in business and politics tend to have different leadership styles. Among those who say men and women approach leadership differently, 62% say neither is better, while 22% say women generally have the better approach and 15% say men do.

Still, there are areas where the public sees female leaders as having an advantage. In both business and politics, majorities say women are better than men when it comes to being compassionate and empathetic, and substantial shares say women are better at working out compromises and standing up for what they believe in. Similarly, more adults say female political leaders do a better job of serving as role models for children (41%) and maintaining a tone of civility and respect (34%) than say the same about men. In each of these cases, only about one-in-ten or fewer give men the advantage. Male leaders are seen as better than their female counterparts when it comes to willingness to take risks; about four-in-ten say men in top executive positions and in high political offices are better than women in this regard.

Looking specifically at corporate leadership, 43% say women are better at creating a safe and respectful workplace; 52% say there is no difference, while just 5% say men are better at this. And while majorities say there is no difference between male and female leaders when it comes to valuing people from different backgrounds, considering the impact of business decisions on society, providing guidance and mentorship to young employees, and providing fair pay and good benefits, those who do see a difference tend to give women the advantage.

Overall, the public sees benefits to female leadership. Majorities say having more women in top positions in business and government would improve the quality of life at least somewhat for all Americans (69%) and for women (77%) and men (57%) specifically. Women are far more likely than men to say having more women in top leadership positions would be beneficial. Two-thirds of women say having more female leaders would improve the quality of life for men at least somewhat, compared with 47% of men. And while majorities in both groups say this would improve the quality of life for all Americans, women are far more likely than men to say this is the case (78% vs. 59%).

The nationally representative survey of 4,587 adults was conducted online June 19-July 2, 2018, with support from Pivotal Ventures, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel.1

Among the key findings:

Gender gaps on views of women in leadership are particularly wide among Republicans

By 20 percentage points, Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts to say there are too few women in high political offices (44% of GOP women vs. 24% of GOP men) and in top executive positions in business (49% vs. 29%) in the U.S. today. And while most Republican women say it’s easier for men to get these positions, closer to half of GOP men say the same.

Republican women are also far more likely than Republican men to point to uneven expectations and structural barriers as major reasons why women are underrepresented in political and corporate leadership. For example, a majority of Republican women (64%) – vs. 28% of GOP men – say women having to do more to prove themselves is a major reason why there are fewer women than men in high political offices. About half of Republican women point to many Americans not being ready to elect women (50% vs. 18% of GOP men), gender discrimination (48% vs. 14%) and women getting less support from party leaders (45% vs. 27%) as major reasons.

Among Democrats, majorities of women and men say there are too few women in political and business leadership positions, but this view is even more pronounced among women. And there are significant gaps in the shares of Democratic women and men who point to women not being encouraged to be leaders from an early age (63% of women vs. 42% of men) and to sexual harassment (56% vs. 41%) as major obstacles for women in politics.

Younger women less satisfied than older women with the number of female leaders and more likely to see gender discrimination as a major obstacle to reaching top positions

Majorities of women across age groups say there are too few women in high political offices and in top executive business positions and that it’s generally easier for men to get these positions, but these views are more prevalent among women younger than 50. About three-quarters of women ages 18 to 49 (74%) say there are too few women in top political offices, compared with 63% of women ages 50 and older. And while eight-in-ten women younger than 50 say it’s easier for men to get elected to high political offices, 68% of women in the older group say the same. The patterns are similar for business.

The age gap among women is also sizable when it comes to views about the role gender discrimination plays in the underrepresentation of women in politics. About seven-in-ten women ages 18 to 49 (68%) say gender discrimination is a major reason why there aren’t more women in high political offices, compared with 50% of older women.

Men’s views do not differ as much by age – younger men are no more likely than older men to say that there are too few women in top leadership positions in politics or business, that discrimination is holding women back, or that it’s easier for men to get top positions than it is for women.

About half of Americans want gender parity in political and business leadership; few want women to overtake men

A majority of Americans (59%) say there are too few women in top leadership positions in politics and in business today, with about half saying, ideally, there would be equal numbers of men and women. Much smaller shares say there should be more women than there are now but still not as many women as men or that women should outnumber men in these positions.

About a third of adults say the number of women in political and corporate leadership positions is about right, and fewer than one-in-ten say there are currently too many women in top leadership positions.

Women are more likely than men to say there should be equal numbers of men and women in top leadership positions. This is particularly true of Democratic women: 68% of Democratic women say that, ideally, there would be equal numbers of men and women in high political offices (and a similar share say the same about top corporate positions).

Still, many Americans are skeptical that women will ever be able to overcome the obstacles keeping them from achieving gender parity in business and political leadership. About half (48%) say men will continue to hold more high political offices in the future, even as more women run for office, and a similar share (46%) say men will continue to hold more top executive positions in business, even as more women move into management roles. Men are more likely than women to say the U.S. will eventually reach gender parity in top political and corporate leadership positions.


Majorities of men and women say that men have an easier path to leadership positions

Two-thirds of Americans say it is generally easier for men to get elected to high political offices (67%); just 5% say it is easier for women, and 27% say there is not much difference. Views are nearly identical when it comes to top executive positions in business.

Majorities of both men and women say it is easier for men to get top leadership positions in politics and business, but this view is particularly prevalent among women. About three-quarters of women say it is easier for men to get elected to high political offices and to get top executive positions in business (74% each), compared with about six-in-ten men who say the same. Relatively few men or women say it is easier for women to get these positions.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say men have an easier time getting top leadership positions. Democratic men and women are fairly united in their views on this, whereas there is a sizable gender gap among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republican women say it’s easier for men to get top positions in business, compared with 45% of Republican men. Among Democrats, 77% of men and 81% of women hold this view. (The patterns are similar for political leadership.)

Most say women having to do more to prove themselves is a major barrier to female leadership

Americans see similar obstacles for women who are seeking top leadership positions in politics and in the corporate world. About six-in-ten say a major reason why women are underrepresented in high political offices and top executive positions in business is that women have to do more to prove themselves than men. About half say gender discrimination is a major barrier for women in each of these realms. Substantial shares also say that many businesses are not ready to hire women for top executive positions (47%) and that many Americans are not ready to elect women to higher offices (45%).

Perceptions of what contributes to the underrepresentation of women in political and business leadership positions vary widely across genders. At least seven-in-ten women, but closer to half of men, cite women having to do more to prove themselves as a major reason why there are fewer women than men in top business and political positions.

A majority of women also point to gender discrimination and voters not being ready to elect women as major barriers for women in politics. In contrast, roughly one-third of men see each of these as major reasons why there aren’t more women in higher office. In turn, men (31%) are more likely than women (23%) to say women simply aren’t as interested in holding top leadership positions in politics.

Majority of Americans say women and men have different leadership styles, but few think either gender has a better overall approach

A majority of Americans (57%) think men and women in top positions in business and politics are basically different when it comes to their leadership styles; 43% say they are basically the same. Among those who see a difference between men and women in this regard, most (62%) don’t think either gender is better; 22% say women have a better approach and 15% say men do.

Again, views on this differ significantly by gender. Women are more likely than men to see a gender difference in leadership styles (63% vs. 50%). Among those who see a difference, about one-in-four women (27%) say that women have a better approach, while 10% say men are better. Men are more evenly divided on this: 22% say men have a better approach, 15% say women do.

Among Republicans, men and women have substantially different views on this issue. Roughly a third of Republican men (32%) who see a gender gap in leadership styles say men have the better approach, while only 6% say women have a better approach. Republican women are more evenly split: Among those who say men and women are basically different, 15% say women have a better approach and 18% say men do.

Many see men and women as equals on key leadership qualities, but those who see a difference tend to say that women are stronger in most areas

Majorities of Americans see little difference between men and women on a range of specific qualities and competencies that may be required for effective leadership. Among those who do see a difference, however, women are perceived to be stronger in most areas in both politics and business. Being compassionate and empathetic and being able to work out compromises are prominent examples of this. For their part, men are seen as having a relative advantage in being willing to take risks and negotiating profitable deals.

Among the traits Americans see as most essential to being a good business leader – creating a safe and respectful workplace and being honest and ethical – higher shares point to women as having the upper hand rather than men. Still, many say there is no difference between men and women in both cases.

Women are more likely than men to say female leaders outperform men on several leadership dimensions. For example, 71% of women say that women in political leadership are more compassionate and empathetic than men, while 50% of men say this is the case. Similarly, women are more likely than men to say that women in high political offices are better at maintaining a tone of civility and respect (41% vs 27%). For their part, men are more likely than women to say gender doesn’t make any difference for these and several other aspects of leadership.

When it comes to business, there are wide gender gaps on two items that relate directly to workplace culture. Women are significantly more likely than men to say that female business leaders are better than their male counterparts at creating a safe and respectful workplace and providing mentorship to young employees.

Most say women and men are equally capable of handling key policy areas and running companies across industries

Americans see only modest differences when asked about men’s and women’s abilities to run different types of companies. Still, many in the public associate some industries more with one gender than the other. Roughly three-in-ten adults (31%) say a woman would do a better job running a major retail chain. Only 6% say a man would do a better job at this. And the public is about twice as likely to say a woman would do a better job running a major hospital (19%) than to say the same about a man (8%). Men have a relative advantage when it comes to views of running a professional sports team – 45% say a man would do a better job at this, while 2% say a woman would be better.

The public doesn’t see either gender as having a significant advantage over the other in handling several key policy issues. On immigration, gun policy, the economy and the budget deficit, majorities of Americans say there’s no difference between male and female political leaders in their abilities. And among those who do see a difference between men and women in these areas, opinions are fairly evenly divided. There are two exceptions, however. By a margin of 42% to 4%, the public says women in politics do a better job handling social issues such as education and health care. The opposite pattern holds for dealing with national security and defense – 35% say men are better on these issues, while 6% point to women.

Americans have different ideas on what traits might be helpful (or harmful) to men and women seeking leadership positions

When asked whether certain personal traits or characteristics would mostly help or mostly hurt men and women seeking to succeed in business or in politics, about seven-in-ten adults say being assertive and ambitious would mostly help a man’s chances in both realms. Closer to half see these traits as helpful to women who are trying to get to the top. In fact, about a quarter say being assertive and ambitious mostly hurts a woman’s chances of getting ahead in politics and business.

An attribute that’s viewed as more helpful to women than to men is being physically attractive. Six-in-ten adults say this helps women get ahead in politics, and an even higher share say it helps women succeed in business. Fewer say being attractive is helpful to men.

Showing emotions is seen, on balance, as being more harmful than helpful to both men and women. Still, more say this hurts female leaders than male leaders. About half (52%) say showing emotions hurts women in politics, 39% say this about men. Smaller shares say this helps men (24%) and women (17%) in getting elected to higher office. The patterns are similar for business leaders.

The Washington Post and The New York Times both had excellent stories about the women running for office in the general election this November - both have great graphics that are better viewed in the original format so I will share the links here:
Hopping on a flight back to Eleanor Roosevelt Airport - ERA - now in our nation's capital after a productive week meeting with reformers and visionaries in Colorado. (Still zero major airports named for a woman in the US - please sign and share: 
Have a terrific weekend,
P.S. I have been reading as much as I can find on indigenous women's representation this piece about women's representation in the treaty process caught my eye:
(Image depicting Iroquois women watching suffragists march from 1914 & described in the article below)
In my work with treaties, I have noticed there has been little speculation about women and treaties. In the past, across the Indigenous nations found in the United States it appears very little was known about women and their involvement with treaties. What I have learned is that their presence was rarely spoken about, and their voices were minimally heard among the U.S. government officials during the period of treaty making. In more recent times, women have spoken about treaties and their knowledge in relationship to their own nations is coming from a great depth.

Germaine Tremmel, a board member at Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center in South Dakota, stated in 1995 that, "many tribes were based on matriarchal societies. Women were chiefs and leaders and some were warriors. However, the point of view of Christianity and the early colonizers, including the military, was to change the roles for women in order to break up the tribe. Women became to be considered less than men and to be treated as slaves for the household. Now women are ignored in the political process. Since we as women had no representation in the treaties, we consider ourselves non-signers of the Indian Treaties and we declare the treaties invalid."

Treaties were originally peace agreements written to represent entire nations in negotiations between those nations and the U.S. government. What they in fact became is quite different, especially since Indigenous Nations lived up to those treaties while most treaties were broken and were never honored by the U.S. government. From that time to present, Indigenous treaty councils meet to discuss the "law of the land" and stress the importance of their treaties as part of their ongoing history with the U.S. government.

There are many variations of how treaties originated, how women were treated before and after negotiations and how they look different from tribe to tribe. For example, the federally recognized Indigenous communities in the Southwest designated as Pueblo at the time Spain ceded territory to the U.S. after the American Revolution are legally recognized as Pueblo by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Some of the Pueblos came under jurisdiction of the U.S. by the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico. Mexico had briefly gained rule over territory in the Southwest ceded by Spain after Mexican independence. The treaty in and of itself resulted in Mexico losing more than half of their original land base that extended into the U.S. southwest territories. There is no distinct reference to women in this treaty, although Pueblo Nations of the southwest are matriarchal.

In North and South Carolina, the treaty interactions among the Cherokee from early contacts were hostile and (treaties) peace agreements did not stop the wars. The women had less than ideal conditions and were treated poorly, which left them with little or no opportunity for negotiations. However, for good or bad, they did express themselves. As far back as 1776, Nancy Ward, known as the "War Woman," broke the sacred code of silence and warned local settlers by letter that the Cherokee were about to attack several settlements. Another view of the presence of women occurred during the American Revolution when Americans began setting up slave auctions and sold Cherokee women and children to raise money for their militia.

In closing, the women's suffrage image "Savagery to Civilization" was published by Puck Publishing Corp. in 1914, depicting white women marching for their rights, while Indigenous women are seen higher up on a rock, having already obtained that very equality. The image now resides in the Library of Congress. Set inside the image are these words:

"We, the women of the Iroquois

Own the Land, the Lodge, the Children

Ours is the right to adoption, life or death;

Ours is the right to raise up and depose chiefs;

Ours is the right to representation in all councils;

Ours is the right to make and abrogate treaties;

Ours is the supervision over domestic and foreign policies;

Ours is the trusteeship of tribal property;

Our lives are valued again as high as a man's."


Continue Reading

Read More