[Stoves] Fwd: Women's empowerment

Ronal W. Larson rongretlarson at comcast.net
Fri Oct 6 23:13:50 CDT 2017


List and Samer:


> On Oct 6, 2017, at 8:47 PM, Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ron, see below, thanks, SA
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>
>> Date: 7 October 2017 at 01:38:03 GMT+2
>> To: Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com <mailto:samer.abdelnour at gmail.com>>
>> Cc: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>>, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Women's empowerment
>> 
>> Samer:
>> 
>> 	Answering this one is relatively easy -  i don’t know much about the “evidence” for Muthiah’s statistics.  But a few more comments on each below.
>> 
> PERHAPS ENTHUSIASM EXPRESSED FOR THESE MIGHT BE CAUTIONED WHEN BASED ON ASPIRATIONAL ESTIMATES.
	[RWL:   I am not understanding this.  I have stated clearly that I think three of the four are low-balled.  Can you try again here?  Who are your warning what about?

>> 
>>> On Oct 6, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com <mailto:samer.abdelnour at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ron,
>>> 
>>> I would ask you for evidence of the figures stated.
>>> 
>>> 470,000 lives, most of whom are women and children;
>>> As Nikhil has noted too well, estimates of life/health lost (not lives lost, which is incorrect), are based on little to no data, just models.
>> 	[RWL1:  Disagree totally on the last.  I have recently been reading on the WHO material on this topic.   There is much more to health causation statistics than models.  I’ll try to send in some cites ASAP.  I repeat - I trust a large number - this looks too small for a ten year period.  Maybe she meant per month.
>> 
> LIKELY FROM GBD ESTIMATES, BASED ON AN ANNUAL ESTIMATE DERIVED FROM IER CURVES AND AT THE TIME OF THE STATEMENT LITTLE TO ZERO HAP DATA.
	[RWL1’:    IER was new to me.  Samer know this but other should review this one:   http://www.who.int/about/structure/organigram/ier/brochure.pdf <http://www.who.int/about/structure/organigram/ier/brochure.pdf> .  I think Samer is guessing here, in part - when he says “likely”.   GBD are NOT estimates.

>> 
>>>     More than 100 hours per household spent collecting firewood;
>>> This is a regular claim made, and a good example of decontextualized rhetoric. The who and where is missing. For instance, where there are markets I would expect (and have found) that most women purchase fuel, even as NGOs that promote stoves claim otherwise.
>> 	[RWL2:   Also missing is the time frame - which I interpreted Ms.  Muthiah to mean over a ten year period.  I’ll bet we can find examples of searching for wood as being more than 100 possible hours saved per month (not over ten years).  Anyone else able to explain this data statistic?
>> 
> YES, WE CAN ALWAYS FIND A CASE TO SUPPORT OUR ADVOCACY.
	[RWL2’:   I am claiming that the given data does NOT support Rudha’s or my advocacy.  Something is missing from her numbers.	

>> 
>>>     6.2% of household income; and
>>> In Darfur it is much more. Women are grateful for stoves as they enable them to buy cheaper fuels as firewood is expensive and the price highly vulnerable to fluctuations. Again, where does this come from?
>> 	[RWL3:  This would be a good data point also to understand.  My interest is in the use of char-making stoves where the fuel cost can turn negative - a much bigger downward shift that 6.2%
>> 
> FUEL AND FOOD PRICES MAY FLUCTUATE SEASONALLY AND BASED ON MARKET AVAILABILITY OR LOCAL PICKINGS, STACKING SCENARIO, INCOME, ETC. STATIC STATS MASK MUCH HERE.
	[RWL3’:  I don’t believe the problem is “static stats”.
> 
>> 
>>>     The amount of CO2 emitted by 65,000,000 passenger vehicles.
>>> A key reason for this stoves advocacy revealed? Carbon off$et$? With each meal prepared poor women will generate carbon offsets - likely without their knowledge - empowerment or global carbon credit sweat shop?
>> 	[RWL4:   I put this statistic into an entirely different category.  To me TLUDs are a small but potentially early means of doing something about our looming anthropogenic climate catastrophe.   I am sure I “own" legacy carbon whose removal would probably empower hundreds of Sudanese/Darfur women for the rest of my life.  This seems a huge story-distance from being any kind of sweat shop.   I have a very high regard for the Sudanese -having worked there (for USAID) in the 1980’s - and have visited again several times.  Unfortunately,  I only worked with men - all highly educated, but I know that the Darfur refugee situation is dire - and I am sure you know much more than I about that area of Sudan.
>> 	This number also looks too small;  I’ll try to check.
>> 
> ABSOLUTELY. I WOULD LIKE AN ESTIMATE OF THE CARBON IMPACT OF PEOPLE TRAVELING TO AND ATTENDING THE UPCOMING GACC FORUM, LET ALONE THE AGGREGATE CARBON LEGACY OF ALL STOVE EXPERTS, DESIGNERS, CONSULTANTS, ADVOCATES ON THIS LIST.
	[RWL4’:   Two brand new topics being introduced.  I’m not going down that path very far.   But:
	I agree travel needs strong justification - but applaud all who are going.  There are ways to offset the carbon impacts.
	I also applaud the vast majority on this list - who work is highly likely to offset via future carbon neutral and carbon negative offsets the small carbon positives associated with their involvement on this list and in stove improvement activities.
	
> 
>>> Your grandchildren are lucky to have you. But would you ever imagine a domestic technology being a source of empowerment?
>> 	[RWL5:  Re second sentence - yes absolutely.  And some stove types much more than others.  Charcoal-consuming stoves (common in Sudan) are the worst.
>> 
> I DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT CHARCOAL IMPROVED MUD STOVES, BUT THE KANOON TRAYS USED BY TEA LADIES ETC, YES, THE WORST.
> 
> AS FOR THE LATTER, WHAT STOVES WILL YOU BE EMPOWERING YOUR GRANDDAUGHTERS WITH?
	[RWL5’:   My statement about charcoal-using stoves was based on the horrible efficiency and horrible non-flared gases used to produce most char illegally out in the boondocks (worldwide and especially Sudan, I believe).  Overall those char-using stoves in Sudan probably do not have 10% efficiency.  But where can I read about “CHARCOAL IMPROVED MUD STOVES”?  I also don’t know the “Kanoon tray”  - can you give a cite on that?

> 
>>> Forgive the example, but if a hair dryer or kettle saves your granddaughters time getting ready in the morning, under what circumstances is that time saved empowerment?
>> 	[RWL6:  This is a dialog ONLY about stoves.  Applies to your next comment also.
>> 
> NO. THIS IS ALSO DIALOGUE ABOUT EMPOWERMENT. PLEASE LETS NOT REDUCE THE TOPIC TO ONE OF A TECHNO-FIX OR WORSE, USE STOVES TO AVOID CRITICALLY EXAMINING THE MORE SUBSTANTIVE REASONS FOR PROMOTING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
	[RWL6’:   Repeat - I am limiting my discussion to stoves - not hair dryers or contraception.   Reason - this is (or is identified to be) a list dealing ONLY with biomass cookstoves.  This still leaves plenty to talk about on empowerment.


>>> As Nikhil suggests, contraceptives are revolutionary in that they give women (and households) tremendous choice and control with little effort.
>>> 
>>> Again, I don't deny the health and economic benefits of cookstoves, but how these translate to structural change is important to articulate if the claim of empowerment is to be made. Empowerment for whom? By what mechanism? What social or gender changes result?
>> 	[RWL7:  Re “structural change”  -  we are seeing some of that I believe - certainly compared to the status in 1995-1996.   But I think there has been considerable advancement on gender equality.  
>> 	The “whom” is women in general - but especially in developing countries.  
>> 	The “(empowerment) mechanism” is a good question (this is not an area I have been studying) - but since I am obviously a strong proponent of turning the charcoal produced in TLUDs into biochar for soil and atmosphere improvement, perhaps that is a realistic mechanism.  Carbon credits going to those producing and selling/using biochar will certainly be a major empowerment boost for women in developing countries.  97% of climate scientists is a starting category of potential admirers.
>> 	The “social/gender change” result will be huge if women have greater social standing.  Obviously requires more than stoves, but improved stoves can be a leader.
> 
> MORE EVIDENCE, GREATER CONTEXTUALIZATION AND LESS GENERALIZATION REQUIRED. BY WHICH MEASURES IN 95-6 VS NOW DO YOU REFER, AND HOW DO YOU ATTRIBUTE THESE TO STOVES? AT WHAT COST? ARE YOU AWARE OF A CARBON OFFSETTING SYSTEM THAT PUTS MONEY PER MEAL COOKED IN THD HANDS OF WOMEN? IF SO LET ME KNOW. AS FOR THE 97% CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, BY YOUR MEASURE IF THEY AREN’T STOVERS PLEASE DON'T MENTION THEM :)
	[RWL7’:   To remind - the years “95-6" came up because Radha’s article (which I admired) referred a lot to a Beijing women’s conference (which said little or nothing on stoves) at that time.
	Starting at the end - I refer to climate scientists because char-making stoves can accomplish what the 97% want - carbon negativity.  In my case:  biochar.   I defend the use of that phrase on this list - since about half the dialog is on char-making stoves - and has been for 20 years.  Char is a major part of the CDR=carbon dioxide removal part of all serious climate discussions.
	As to the rest,  I refer you and the list to the huge literature at www.biochar-international.org.  Dr.  Anderson’s site is even better for your specific implementation questions - which have come up often on this list.
> 
>>> 
>>> And when does a technological object actually address structural inequalities? For instance, suggesting women use improved stoves to reduce rape reminds me of police chiefs telling women not to wear skirts but pants to avoid provoking attacks, which happened spawning the global slutwalks events. Here the stove/pant fix fails to address the underlying structural problem that oppresses.
>> 	[RWL8:   I have made no effort to study the rape issue - where I know you are expert.  It is not part of my “elevator speech” on the benefits of stoves producing biochar.
> 
> THE SHORT PITCH FOR YOU: GENDER VIOLENCE IS A MACRO PROBLEM, FIREWOOD COLLECTION JUST ONE MICRO CONTEXT WHERE IT OCCURS. FOR INSTANCE, IN REFUGEE SETTINGS IT IS REGULARLY REPORTED THAT A GREAT PORTION OF ATTACKS OCCUR IN CAMPS, ETC. SO KEEPING WOMEN IN CAMPS MAY REDUCE CERTAIN RISKS BUT INCREASE OTHERS. THE IDEA THAT STOVES REDUCE RAPE IS BASED ON A NARROW VIEW OF VIOLENCE AND INFLATED ASPIRATION OF EMPOWERMENT AND A TOUCH OF SAVIOR COMPLEX.
	[RWL8’:   I think (not sure) that you may be the only one to raise the stove-rape issue on this list.   So I hope you are not referring to anyone on this list in your last sentence.  Since I am mainly defending Radha and GACC in this exchange,  I found these from googling: 
	 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radha-muthiah/millions-of-refugees-need_b_7621586.html <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radha-muthiah/millions-of-refugees-need_b_7621586.html>
	https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/RESOURCE/file/000/000/272-1.pdf <https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/RESOURCE/file/000/000/272-1.pdf>
	https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-07-25/clean-cookstoves-protect-women-and-environment <https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-07-25/clean-cookstoves-protect-women-and-environment>
		(and there seem to be many more)
So I am inclined now to think you may be overly minimizing the rape problem (that is - I now see some large numbers associated with wood gathering - and I haven’t heard you say these are exaggerations.
	I can certainly agree that improved stoves are not going to solve the rape problem,  but I don’t believe that greater efficiency is at all harmful.  And rape minimization does look like a rationale for LPG or something other than a biomass stove.  My own preference is for solar cookers (and I spend much of next week at an ASES meeting in Denver  - on that topic).

>  
>>> Women in Darfur want LPG stoves, they are fast, cleaner burning, and easy to control. Similar to how many people elsewhere would want to be connected to the grid. We should subsidize energy infrastructure so that poor and rural girls can grow up like your granddaughters, energy at the flick of a switch. So that a girl in a camp in Darfur can safely prepare tea in the same way as a girl in the US. That would be empowerment, no?  
>> 	[RWL9:   I am not willing to say that LPG stoves are the key to empowerment.  Nor electricity.  But making tea with a TLUD whose operation is paid for in part by you and I, with most of those funds controlled by the stove (female, likely) user (and not by the male head of the household) could easily  be called empowerment.
>> 
> WHERE HAS THIS OCCURRED? HAVE YOU DOCUMENTED THESE CHANGES WITH BASELINE STUDIES, LONG TERM MONITORING, STUDIES OF CHANGING SPENDING PATTERNS OVER TIME, AND GENDER OUTCOMES? PLEASE SHARE ON THE LIST!!
	[RWL9’:  You are not at all picking up on the climate side of this dialog.  The needed carbon incentives are missing - and we can only look at a few voluntary schemes.  Again - look at Dr. Anderson’s TLUD site for details.  Or this list’s 20 year’s record of past dialog on (income-generating) carbon-negative biochar as a reason for TLUDs.

Ron
> 
>>> Thanks for entertaining my rumblings, and for the discussion.
>> 
>> 	[RWL:  Ditto.
> 
> CHEERS, SA
>>> SA
>>> 
>>> On 6 Oct 2017, at 22:06, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dr.  Abdelnour and list:
>>>> 
>>>> 	1.  I thank Tom Miles and Crispin for additions today also - but they were not looking at Samer’s question on Radha’s report (I stated below:  “ I liked what I saw from Rudha Muthiah at  http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-06-2015-adoption-of-clean-cookstoves-and-fuels-boosts-gender-equality.html <http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-06-2015-adoption-of-clean-cookstoves-and-fuels-boosts-gender-equality.html>  .  I hope they and others will also answer Samer’s several questions.
>>>> 
>>>> 	2.  Q1:  Why I liked the message.  Short answer:  It states much of what I would say on the coupling of the terms “stoves” and “gender equality”.  Having five grand-children who are all girls is part of the reason.  To save list members time and space I include her message all here - separated by my “why” inserts.  
>>>> 
>>>> Cooking is one of the most dangerous activities for girls and women in the developing world, where more than half the population still cooks food over open fires.
>>>> 
>>>> 	RWL1:  I like and believe “most dangerous”.  This not limited to your expertise on “sexual attack” - where I claim zero expertise.   I can’t think of a more dangerous activity.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Without access to cleaner cookstoves and fuels, women endure incredible hardships. They are exposed to deadly smoke that kills over 4 million people <http://cleancookstoves.org/impact-areas/health/> every year and causes cancer, pneumonia, and lung disease. Women and children also must risk their safety, health, and sometimes their lives, to search for and collect fuel. In many cases, women walk for hours to find firewood and have to carry heavy loads, putting them at risk for physical and sexual attack, dehydration, and physical injuries.
>>>> 
>>>> 	RWL2:   Again, I believe all 3 sentences - and especially the second on multi million annual deaths.  Men are not doing their share in cooking.
>>>> 
>>>> While there is much to celebrate for women and girls since the original Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action <http://beijing20.unwomen.org/en> was created, one crucial driver of gender equality and women’s empowerment was completely omitted from the framework – access to cleaner household energy.
>>>> 
>>>> 	RWL3:  I was not aware that the Beijing Declaration had left out stoves.  When I read this, I thought of Hillary Clinton who may have helped GACC so much because of that earlier failure, where I believe she had a strong role.   
>>>> 	
>>>> Clean cooking energy access is a critical global gender issue cutting across several Beijing Platform for Action areas of concern; it is especially important for achieving success in the areas of (1) women and health, (2) women and poverty, (3) women and the environment, and (4) women and the economy.
>>>> 
>>>> 	RWL4:   The 12 action areas are listed at http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/csw59/feature-stories <http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/csw59/feature-stories>.  Four sounds OK;  I guess Radha was saying here that stoves are really in the Beijing document.  But stoves are certainly not called out in the way I believe this list would have done 22 years ago
>>>> 
>>>> There is a growing movement of companies, individuals, non-profits, and entrepreneurs focused on creating awareness about the clean cooking issue, on enhancing the performance and availability of technologies and fuels, and on strengthening enterprises so they can scale production and distribution.
>>>> 
>>>> 	RWL5:  Radha is perhaps here saying that the GACC is real.  I personally am impressed with the GACC - especially their ability to raise funds and increase visibility on the stove topic (including gender inequality).
>>>> 	
>>>> Together with our more than 1,000 partners, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves has an ambitious goal to foster the adoption of clean cookstoves and fuels in 100 million households by 2020, and to help create a world where there is universal access and use of cleaner energy and cookstoves by the year 2030, with women actively contributing to and benefiting from this vision.
>>>> 
>>>> 	RWL6:   Probably mandatory to get these GACC goals in as one is talking about gender equity.  Much better to have goals than not.  My perception is that GACC is doing a good job involving women in GACC programs.
>>>> 	
>>>> Adoption of cleaner cookstoves and fuels by 100 million households will have broad impacts on women’s empowerment. Over 10 years, it will save:
>>>> 
>>>>     470,000 lives, most of whom are women and children;
>>>>     More than 100 hours per household spent collecting firewood;
>>>>     6.2% of household income; and
>>>>     The amount of CO2 emitted by 65,000,000 passenger vehicles.
>>>> 	RWL7:  The 2nd item (100 hours) seems like a typo.  Anyone have an idea where that (and the others) came from?   I would guess we are taking time savings several orders of magnitude larger.   The first three are clearly gender-oriented.  My stove interest is largely on the fourth - and I am still glad to see it in a gender-oriented document.
>>>> 
>>>> The 20th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action <http://beijing20.unwomen.org/en> opens a new opportunity to acknowledge the critical role access to clean cookstoves and fuels plays in achieving gender equality. As we look toward Beijing+20 and commemorate International Women’s Day <http://www.un.org/en/events/womensday/>, now is the time to commit to working together to achieve our 2030 vision of a world where cooking does not kill and women are not disadvantaged in their homes, their communities, and their countries because of the lack of access to clean cooking energy.
>>>> 
>>>> 	RWL8:  It is now more clear to me that this whole piece was timed for the 20th anniversary.  Glad to see Radha pick that timing to place emphasis on the strong relationship between the GACC program and gender.   I would say that (globally) stove activities are at least 80% oriented toward women.  And the remaining 20% for men is probably the reason that stove research funding is so low.   
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  	3.  Re “evidence of empowerment or equity”   I have these thoughts (new - not when I wrote that I liked this Radha short effort at tying GACC to gender topics):
>>>> 
>>>> 		a.   This is a good time to call attention to this site:  https://www.devex.com/news/clean-cookstove-market-needs-wholesale-reappraisal-rachel-kyte-91045 <https://www.devex.com/news/clean-cookstove-market-needs-wholesale-reappraisal-rachel-kyte-91045>, where Rachel Kyte called for more than a 100x increase in annual stove funding - to more than $4 billion.   This is only on the order of $2/yr per (woman) biomass stove user.  Good for Ms. Kyte to put the global stove problem in perspective.  Few men would dare recommend such a huge change.
>>>> 
>>>> 		b.  Radha’s emphasis on the Beijing documents’ failure to address stoves would seem to be evidence of empowerment by someone.  I give more credit to GACC (and Radha at its helm) for that big (still insufficient) growth in support for stove improvement.
>>>> 
>>>> 		c.  Re “equity”,  I believe that Radha is describing improvement over the Beijing period (which occurred just about the time this list got under way).  I doubt anyone working in the stoves arena believes we have achieved gender equity.  Equity, equality, and empowerment are all tied together in the substantial improvement in funding since the Beijing occasion that prompted this short editorial.
>>>> 
>>>> 	4.  Your thoughts on this article?  (or anything related to “gender equality” - the article’s title?)   Or any list member?
>>>> 
>>>> Ron
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 6, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com <mailto:samer.abdelnour at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Ron, 
>>>>> Thanks for the links. Perhaps you can elaborate more thoroughly on why you like the message of Radha you forwarded, and what idea or evidence of empowerment or equity you feel it demonstrates?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> SA
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 6 Oct 2017, at 02:38, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Samer and list, cc Nikhil:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	Thanks for the response. I believe you have opened an important topic for discussion.   I confess I have not yet figured out your own perspective on this stove-gender topic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	I suggest that the NY Times piece is not the right place to focus our discussion on this tope.  The reason - I see no mention of stoves.  There are more than 250 comments to the Times on this (today’s) article - and most quite strongly both pro and con.  Therefore probably something that is not too helpful for this list.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	The new one from Samer in the Atlantic also barely mentions cooking, as it concentrates on electricity availability.  I think there are so many differences between PV for developing countries and stoves that I don’t believe we can have much helpful dialog there.  Or not?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	Nikhil’s mention in his last paragraph of “contextual design and promotion of clean biomass stoves”, probably refers to a UN Bank effort in Indonesia - with that title.  See  https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25129 <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25129> .  I may be agreeing with Nikhil here - but I have not read that study yet..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	But there is a wealth of gender-based stove discussion at the GACC site.    I liked what I saw from Rudha Muthiah at  http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-06-2015-adoption-of-clean-cookstoves-and-fuels-boosts-gender-equality.html <http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-06-2015-adoption-of-clean-cookstoves-and-fuels-boosts-gender-equality.html>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	Others from GACC are at:   http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/223.html <http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/223.html>  and https://energypedia.info/images/6/69/Jennifer_Tweddell_%28GACC%29_-_Gender_and_Improved_Cookstoves.pdf <https://energypedia.info/images/6/69/Jennifer_Tweddell_(GACC)_-_Gender_and_Improved_Cookstoves.pdf> .  And there are more.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	Is there agreement or disagreement that GACC is on the right track on this stove/gender topic?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com <mailto:samer.abdelnour at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks Ron and Nikhil,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Indeed, the piece cautions generic claims of empowerment based on the dissemination of some form of techno-solution -- be it chickens or cookstoves -- and as I read the piece I drew so many parallels with the generic rhetoric spewed by cookstove-gender enthusiasts. Hence, I am a bit surprised the link to how cookstoves are promoted as an empowerment tool is not more evident.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think the piece challenges us take into critical consideration the aspirational messages that hold cookstoves to be a universal solution to issues poor women face. Even if they are effective in one context or intervention, benefits are rarely universal. Here I don't speak about tangible health impacts such as reduced burns and exposure to smoke when stoves fit the contexts of their use, or money saved by enabling households to use less fuel, but the more generic apolitical rhetoric of empowerment. As Nikhil reminds us, the origins of the empowerment discourse is indeed more complicated and perhaps impacts may be conceived of in more basic terms, of which cooks should decide for themselves, and not by advocates or NGOs passing around free stoves.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Here is another piece that you may or may not see a link:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/deloitte-shifts/women-energy-and-economic-empowerment/261/ <http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/deloitte-shifts/women-energy-and-economic-empowerment/261/>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It more appropriately look as the structural issue of energy access, but still, fails to get away from the 'aspirational' rhetoric associated with technology/entrepreneurship that in my opinion distracts us from looking at real impacts. Like the work I have done deconstructing the rape-stove myth, these aspirational memes can become so powerful they are taken as 'fact' and uncritically reproduced even without supporting evidence.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best to you,
>>>>>>> SA
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5 October 2017 at 20:40, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dr.  Samer and list;  cc Nikhil
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 	Since you have highly recommended this article and Nikhil has panned it,  I hope you can add a few words on why you liked it.   I have read (really skimmed)  both the shorter and longer versions - but not seen much that related to stoves.  The exception is on the word “rape”, which you have written a lot on - as relates to stoves.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 	Clearly gender issues should be foremost on this list.  Can you explain more on why you strongly recommended this article?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com <mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sorry, Samer.  These "feminists from the Global South" did not care about the drudgery of cooking in women's lives. The Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 - where Mrs. Clinton led the US delegation if I remember correctly - had nothing to say about cooking. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nor for that matter the World Development Report on Gender, circa 2007/8. I am glad that even with Julia Roberts and Oprah Winfrey, GACC got the feminists to talk about cookstoves. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Those women who understand "“empowerment” as the task of “transforming gender subordination” and the breakdown of “other oppressive structures” and collective “political mobilization.”" usually do not cook and have no experience collecting, transporting and stacking wood.  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Like "clean", women's empowerment is contextual. Take a survey of 15-year old school-going girls among the "households using solid fuels" and ask how many of them want to cook and how many still on open fires. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If the objective of "contextual design and promotion of clean biomass stoves" is defined in terms of cook-friendly service standard - i.e, as "pleasing the cook" - I assure you a pleased woman feels less powerless. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That is empowerment.  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nikhil
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com <mailto:samer.abdelnour at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A great piece for those interested in cookstoves + social impact.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/the-myth-of-womens-empowerment.html <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/the-myth-of-womens-empowerment.html>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>>>>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>>>>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>>>>>>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171006/4ae1381b/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list