Sep 18

Women’s Rights in the Media: What’s the Real Story?

As I started working on this post, I did my usual scroll through twitter and a few of my favorite sites searching for a topic about women to write about.  And as I’m sure you’re aware, there’s A LOT of information regarding women’s issues available these days. But as I was searching, something really struck me. Why was the story so one-dimensional in the mainstream media? There were articles everywhere highlighting successes in women’s movements. But where was the rest of the story? I knew there were still areas we needed to improve on, but those stories were much more difficult to find. So that got me thinking: why is that the case? What are the potentialconsequences of this shortcoming? And how can we fix it?
To listen to the conversation happening in the media, women are making giant leaps forward in the fight to gain rights. Yes, certain, politically salient issues will occasionally come up, but for the most part women are portrayed as having more or less achieved equality. And with elections coming up this November, the story has become even more skewed. Both political parties are trying exceptionally hard to appeal to women. So of course, President Obama and Mr. Romneyespecially, have been highlighting their achievements and downplaying any shortfalls. But if you look at the facts, there’s a lot more to the story than we’re really seeing. For each step we take forward, there’s almost as many steps backward to go with it. And yet these areas receive significantly less media coverage.

Take for instance a law recently upheld by the Supreme Court in South Dakota. Doctors are now required by law to inform women seeking an abortion of a link between abortion and suicide. Except that there is no concrete scientific evidence demonstrating that the connection actually exists. So doctors are now essentially obligated to lie to their patients. This clearly infringes on women’s rights in my opinion. But have you heard anything about this law? Not likely.

Or what about the new law the Utah state legislature passed, which increases the potential punishment for feticide? A good idea in the abstract, but what’s exceptional about this law is the new possibility for a woman to be prosecuted if she miscarries. According to the statute, any “risky” behavior that threatens the life of the fetus could result in imprisonment for the mother. Of course a pregnant woman needs to be careful and take care of herself, but is it really right for a woman to face criminal charges for potential accidents? Again, this seems to be another example of the state limiting women’s rights and decisions.

But somehow neither of these cases, or others like them, have received much media attention. Which given the issues at stake and the outrageous nature of the laws, I find shocking. So why does mainstream media insist on highlighting progress but ignoring setbacks? Is that really in our best interest? I honestly don’t think so. In fact, I think this misrepresentation of the current situation in women’s rights has greater potential issues than simply inaccurate news coverage. If we focus only on the positive, we run the risk of becoming complacent. I know not everyone will, but many people could. It’s an easy trap to fall into and one we need to avoid at all costs if we’re going to continue working to improve our lives.

Don’t get me wrong. There really is some great work happening right now in the women’s rights arena. Both in the government and through other organizations. So the stories we see aren’t wrong per se. But Continue reading

Share

Sep 10

Who Owns the Media?

Everybody knows about “the media”. Everybody talks about “the media”. However, how many people know who actually owns the media?

In 1983, there were 50 companies, which owned approximately 90% of the American media. However, the media landscape has changed dramatically in the last thirty years due to globalization, commercialization, and large-scale consolidation. Currently, there are six, count that – six – main media giants, which control 90% of the American media. These six media conglomerates control 90% of what we read, 90% of what we watch, and 90% of what we listen to on a daily basis.

Who are these six media giants exactly, and which companies do they own? Take a look.

  • Time Warner: HBO, Time Inc., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Sports Illustrated, Fortune, Marie Claire, People Magazine, TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, TMZ, MapQuest, Castle Rock
  • Walt Disney: ABC Television Network, Disney Publishing, ESPN, Disney Channel, A&E, Lifetime, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Miramax Films, Touchstone Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios
  • Viacom: Paramount Pictures, Black Entertainment Television (BET), Comedy Central, Country Music Television (CMT), MTV, Nickelodeon, Spike TV, The Movie Channel, TV Land, VH1
  • News Corporation: Dow Jones & Company, Inc, Fox Television Stations, The New York Post, FX, TV Guide, Speed Channel, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, DIRECTV, The Wall Street Journal, HarperCollins Publishers, The National Geographic Channel, STAR
  • CBS Corporation: CBS Television Network, 60 Minutes, Jeopardy, NFL.com, CNET, Showtime, CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations), Infinity Broadcasting, Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
  • Comcast: E! Entertainment Television, Style Network, Golf Channel, NBC Sports Network, NFL Network, Bravo, Syfy, CNBC, Oxygen, Plaxo, Fandango

As always, profits are the name of the game. And for all these multinational corporations, huge profits come in the form of advertising revenue. Given the dependency that media corporations have on their sponsors, many networks will refuse to report on anything that even remotely threatens their relationship with their fellow advertisers. And therein lies the problem. At the end of the day, the companies’ loyalty lies in the hands of the sponsors – both the advertisers and the government alike – who are funding their operations, rather than in the public interest.

“At the time of the first Persian Gulf War, CBS was owned by Westinghouse and NBC by General Electric. Two of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers owned two of the major networks. Westinghouse and GE made most of the parts for many of the weapons in the Persian Gulf War. It was no surprise, then, that much of the coverage on those networks looked like a military hardware show. We see reporters in the cockpits of war planes, interviewing pilots about how it feels to be at the controls. We almost never see journalists at the target end, asking people huddled in their homes what it feels like not to know what the next moment will bring. The media have a responsibility to show the true face of war. It is bloody. It is brutal. Real people die. Women and children are killed. Families are wiped out; villages are razed. If the media would show for one week the same unsanitized images of war that the rest of the world sees, people in the U.S. would say no, that war is not an answer to conflict in the 21st century. But we don’t see the real images of war. We don’t need government censors, because we have corporations sanitizing the news”.  –Why Media Ownership Matters, The Seattle Times

Ownership matters. The media matters. And considering we are a nation hooked on the media, we have to take a more critical eye when it comes to our own media consumption, and specifically where our media is coming from. It is imperative that we halt the increasing consolidation of media companies all across the country. We need to protect our local newspapers, radio stations, and networks from going out of business, or being bought out by larger corporations. Diversity is key if the media is to protect its local citizens. Some individuals have already picked up the fight, like Free Press, an organization which uses a combination of grassroots engagement and public advocacy to promote public interest throughout the media.

The media doesn’t have to be an all-encompassing oppressive force, dictating what we should buy, what we should wear, what we should look like, and even what we should believe. It is now – but it doesn’t have to be.

Share

Aug 20

Education in Refugee Camps

It’s that time of year again: back to school. Parents and kids all over the US are preparing for another school year. And what do they do to prepare? Buy snazzy new clothes to impress their friends and classmates, stock up on binders and pencils, and wind down summer activities like camp and family vacations. It’s a privilege to be able to do all of these things because for many refugee children (and adults) in camps around the world school and all the trappings that go along with it are not an option.

 

Education has been identified by the UN as a fundamental human right that is crucial to the development and wellbeing of the individual. But, for refugees who have fled conflict, natural disasters, poverty, or environmental crises for the (supposed) safety of a camp, education can only be considered a luxury. Now this general statement definitely doesn’t apply across the board to all refugee camps. The 2011 UNHCR report ‘Refugee Education: A Global Review’ shows the variability of children’s educational enrollment rates in refugee camps ranges from 0-100%. This discrepancy points to how some camps like those reported in Pakistan offer no education while in other camps, like some in Chad, every refugee has access.  You can’t get a bigger gap than that, now can you? So, some kids luck out and some don’t. That’s just not fair.

 

Access to education in camps varies camp to camp, country to country and depending on the humanitarian organization running the operation. This in and of itself makes it difficult to create some sort of guarantee through standardization that all refugee camps provide education to all refugees that want it. As does the fact that refugee camps are known for lacking such basic necessities such as: food shortages and malnutrition, lack of water, poor sanitation and adequate housing. When camps are struggling against hunger, disease and dehydration; how can you expect for them to bother worrying about the other basic human right, education, that won’t immediately kill refugees if they go without? Education is long-term and must be built up over time, whereas basic survival must be met short-term to avoid dire consequences.

 

So, how do refugee camps provide adequate education for hundreds to tens of thousands of refugees all at different levels of education? That’s a HUGE and complex question to take on. It requires dealing with logistics, funding and resources; and without Continue reading

Share

Aug 17

Effective Peer Mentoring

At the end of 2010, it was reported that about seventeen million women around the world are living with HIV or AIDS. Since that was only two years ago, it is possible that number has increased even more. Awhile back, I wrote a post about implementing an integrated healthcare program that incorporates both family planning and HIV/AIDS care at one health clinic. This type of program would also benefit HIV positive women who are considering pregnancy, are pregnant or simply want to be in control of their reproductive health. There are not many health resources for women in developing countries, because of lack of infrastructure and funding.

HIV has great impact on a woman’s life, especially if the woman is pregnant. Mothers are able to pass the HIV virus to her child during pregnancy, birth, or even through breastfeeding. Mother to child transmission is often a problem in developing countries because of the lack of information available to these women. Without treatment during pregnancy, fifteen to thirty percent of infants that are born to HIV positive women are more likely to be infected with the virus. Also, five to twenty percent will be infected through breastfeeding. However, mother to child transmission can be prevented if the women have the knowledge, resources, and the healthcare. Many women do not know that transmission can be prevented, and that they can have healthy babies. I recently learned about this great organization called Mothers2Mothers. It is a non-governmental organization that developed a peer mentoring and education program for women who are HIV positive in Africa.

Mothers2Mothers selects HIV positive women from different villages who already have the experience of being a HIV positive mother. These women are further trained to be health educators and peer mentors in their own communities. The peer mentors are able to support and educate other HIV positive women who do not know about medications and what they can do to reduce the chances of transmitting the virus to their child. Peer Mentors organize group meetings and one on one meetings with pregnant women who are living with HIV. This model helps provide a simple support system for these women. The Mothers2Mothers peer mentors also help out at understaffed health clinics as well.

The best part of this program is that Mothers2Mothers is empowering women with information and resources. Pregnant women with HIV can easily connect to mother mentors because these individuals are from their own communities and are more familiar with the culture and surroundings. For women that are HIV positive, being pregnant can raise all types of fear and anxiety.

Continue reading

Share

Aug 16

A Culture of Violent Masculinity: Part Three

“..Contemporary sports entertainment which treats ‘professional wrestling’ as an action/adventure soap opera. With the sexuality of ‘90210,’ the subject matter of ‘NYPD Blue,’ the athleticism of the Olympics, combined with reality-based story lines, the WWF presents a hybrid of almost all forms of entertainment and sports combined in one show.” -Vince McMahon, head of the WWE
Over the last couple weeks, I’ve explored the role that violent masculinity plays in our culture. It’s a topic that has hit close to home lately due to the many violent crimes that have taken place. There was the Aurora movie theatre shooting. The Sikh temple shooting. And just recently, a student from my own school died due to gun violence. Violence is everywhere in our culture, and it’s everywhere in our media.

However, one form of entertainment stands out to me above the rest. It is one that doesn’t just condone violence, but supports it, even thrives on it. It needs violence in order increase its ratings, and thus its profits. What am I talking about exactly? Professional wrestling, specifically the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). The WWE has long thrived on making violence the norm, celebrating both violence and bullying as trademarks of masculinity. What else is the WWE teaching us as a society, about ourselves and the dominant narratives in our culture? Let me explain.

  • Masculinity: First and foremost, the WWE is about masculinity. A masculinity that can be defined simply through physical strength and dominance. Brute force is a measure of success. Violence is used as a means of leveraging one’s strength, power, and control. The wrestlers never back away from a confrontation, instead racing towards it as a way to prove their worth. Violence is used to settle scores, win conquests, and ultimately defend one’s honor.
  • Violence: In what some would refer to as “happy violence”, the wrestlers of the WWE are subjected to gruesome punches, kicks, and throws, however never end up with even a scratch. In the WWE, no one ever gets hurt. Not really. The spontaneous recovery of many of the wrestlers can be attributed to the fact that almost all the moves in the WWE are choreographed, allowing the wrestlers to “act out” a sequence for the audience rather than engaging in a real fight. The problem is – this doesn’t happen in real life. In reality, there is no script, no choreographer, no producer behind the scenes. In reality, there are real consequences to violence.
  • Bullying: What’s the WWE without a little bullying? Not much, if we’re looking strictly at the time schedule. In professional wrestling, very little time is actually dedicated to the fight itself. The majority of the broadcast is spent setting up the narrative, as wrestlers verbally taunt and threaten their opponents in order to belittle them, calling both their courage and manhood into question.
  • Femininity: Which brings me to my last point – femininity. In most cases, women are placed in a supporting role, used only as “tokens” for the men to win as a reward for their physical accomplishments. The few women who go on to become professional wrestlers in their own right are painted as highly sexualized female aggressors, used simply for the pleasure of the male viewers at home.

Many people laugh at the notion that we should take the WWE seriously, stating that everyone should relax because it’s just entertainment. Isn’t that part of the problem? Entertainment is one of the most powerful influences in our society. It transmits values, fosters ideas of normalcy, and is a main tool in socialization for our youth. You might know that the WWE is one of the highest rated cable programs on television. However, did you know that the primary audience of the WWE is young men? The target market for the WWE is both children, and men ages 18-34, as both demographics are ultimately its biggest money makers.

What is the WWE really teaching us? It’s teaching us a storyline of masculine domination. Feminine inferiority. And violence as a cultural norm. Yet, the WWE television shows all continue to hold a simple TV-PG rating. Parental guidance simply suggested. Seems awfully soft for a show based around the themes of violence, sexuality, and intimidation. Isn’t it time we switch it back to a TV-14 (parents strongly cautioned) or TV-MA (mature audience only) like it belongs? As a show that should be left for adults, who (hopefully) can realize the theatrical nature of the show, and filter its harmful content. What is your opinion on the WWE’s current television rating? Do you think it should be changed?

Share

Aug 15

NYC’s Answer to Sex Trafficking: Use Cab Drivers?

As I’m sure you heard, human trafficking in the United States is unfortunately on the rise again. It’s become an ever-increasing problem and New York City has decided to take steps to stop it. But again, just like with their “Latch on NYC” program, I fear the City Council is doing it the wrong way. In this case, they’re addressing a periphery issue (transportation) instead of the root causes behind human sex trafficking. So though well intentioned, I don’t think the new law is going to have the desired effect and could instead have some serious negative consequences. Let’s look at the specifics of this law. As it stands now, cab drivers can potentially get their licenses’ stripped if they knowingly transport anyone involved in the sex trade. The new law keeps this possibility but adds a $10,000 fine. In order for the law to make sense, cab drivers will have to profile women to determine if they are prostitutes or not. Which they’ll learn how to do through training programs given by the city. So essentially the City Council’s big response to the upturn in sex trafficking is to restrict their movements using cab drivers. And they using approximately $2 million to do it.

I have to say I’m having a hard time deciding where to begin talking about everything I see wrong with this law. Don’t get me wrong. I believe sex trafficking is a huge problem. And I think its an issue we desperately need to address. But it’s because it’s such an important issue that we can’t support this law. By implementing this program, New York City is more or less wasting $2 million that could be used to ACTUALLY end sex trafficking. They’re really just trying to use a “bandaid for a heart attack” and avoiding taking the larger necessary steps.

Just think about it. Do you think discouraging cab drivers from transporting prostitutes is really going to have a significant impact on the overall sex trade? Even if the new law does discourage sex traffickers from using cabs as transportation, it’s not going to affect their business in any other way. They’ll simply find a different means of getting around. And does it really seem like a good or even reasonable idea to place the burden of profiling women on cab drivers? They’ll be encouraged to look for signs like inappropriate dress, older boyfriends, and angry or tearful demeanors in women they’re transporting to determine if they’re prostitutes. But that description could apply to any number of women whether they’re involved in sex trafficking or not. They can easily make mistakes and incorrectly profile a woman. Maybe that doesn’t seem like that big an issue to you. But think about what could happen if cab drivers misinterpret the situation.

Imagine you, your daughter, or your friend live in New York City and you’re coming home late one night. Maybe you were out with friends, working, or doing any number of things. And maybe you decided to dress a little more “racy” or “sporty” than your average citizen. You try to wave down a cab, but the driver takes a look at you and won’t pick you up. You may not actually be a prostitute but the driver thinks you look like one. And because of the new law, he won’t risk picking you up. So now you’re stranded. Late at night. On the streets of New York City. I don’t know about you, but that would be scary for me. And this could easily happen to any woman in the city under this new law. All because of a superficial decision made by a cab driver. Sure, it’s not THAT likely you’ll get denied transportation. But it’s a real possibility now.

At the end of the day, Continue reading

Share

Aug 15

What can be Done about Acid Violence in Colombia?

Acid attacks on women, and occasionally men, are unfair and horrific acts that commonly occur in Southeast Asian countries like India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, among others. Surprisingly reports of this type of violence have started to spring up in the Western Hemisphere in the South American country of Colombia. Any case of an acid attack anywhere is heinous and deserves due attention; but the fact that they’ve never been reported in Latin or South America is attention-grabbing (although this doesn’t mean that they just have been occurring and haven’t been reported). The numbers of attacks in Colombia started emerging in recent years and have rapidly increased in the past months at an alarming rate.

 

When acid attacks are targeted at women they can occur for a wide range of reasons including domestic violence, behavior considered inappropriate, dressing ‘immodestly,’ or refusal of a male’s advances. These attacks can maim, disfigure and even kill a person; leaving permanent scarring and blindness that make daily life difficult to impossible for a victim to function in a normal life (especially if the victim lives in a place with poor medical care and no social support). Psychologically, the effect can be devastating and subject the victim to social stigma.

 

What’s most disturbing about these attacks is the underlying issue of gender-based violence (GBV) rooted in societies where power is held in the hands of men and runs deep in the cultures of these countries where this type of violence happens. Acid attacks are just one more example of GBV, like Continue reading

Share

Aug 14

Prisons: United States vs. European Union

I’ve written a lot of articles over the past few months surrounding the US prison system. The problems I see. How they came about. Changes I think we should make. But I’ve never discussed prison systems outside the United States. And I’ve never actually described what an alternative prison system could look like. But just take a look at the images above and you’ll see how much different our prisons could look. More importantly how much BETTER they could look. There aren’t that many differences between the European Union and the United States. National governments have similar control over their justice systems to the way states do here. We have similar population sizes. And we have comparable crime rates. But somehow we have significantly more people in prison and have more people returning once released than they do. I’m not saying we need to mirror the European approach. But there’s clearly a problem with the way we’re currently operating compared to European success.

 

Prison doesn’t have to be the truly horrendous experience it currently is in the United States. Being locked up is punishment itself. Ask anyone who’s ever actually been inside. So why not reform the system to make it better and more effective? To learn more about our current system check out some of my previous articles on the death penalty, felon voting, and the War on Drugs.  I want to help start a discussion surrounding possible prison reform efforts. But I need your help in order to do that. Join the conversation today.

Share

Aug 14

Olympic Coverage: Are These Really the “Games of the Girls”?

The media has self proclaimed these London Games to be the “Games of the Girls”. For the first time in Olympic history, all 204 countries were represented by both male and female athletes. With the addition of boxing, women were finally able to compete in all Olympic events. In the United States, in particular, female athletes won 58 medals, including 29 gold medals, which means that if they were their own country, they alone would be third in the gold medal count. Team sports in particular were the name of the game for the United States – which won gold in women’s basketball, soccer, water polo, and numerous relays of both track and swimming.

It is true – women ruled these Games. They dominated the last two weeks. However, what else dominated these Games? Negative publicity for many of these women. There were numerous news reports worldwide, which questioned the weight and fitness of many of these athletes. A public mockery was made about the physical appearance of certain other athletes, who didn’t “fit the mold”. Unfortunately for these women, a little success landed them with a lot of criticism. Here are some of the less-than-uplifting storylines from these “Games of the Girls”.

  • Lolo Jones: American hurdler Lolo Jones was ripped apart in a New York Times article last week, in which her talent and athletic skills were called into question just days before competing in the 100 meter event final. The author stated that Jones cared more about gaining publicity than finishing on top of the podium. She proved the author wrong by going on to get a respective fourth place finish in the world during the final. However, it was clear that the article had already done its damage, as her eyes welled up on a Today interview the day after the final, as she stated, “I work six days a week every day for four years for a 12-second race, and the fact that they just tore me apart, it was just heartbreaking,” Jones said. “I am the American-record holder indoors. I have two world indoor titles and just because I don’t boast about these things, I don’t think I should be ripped apart by media.
  • Gabby Douglas: The average lifespan of a tweet is 90 minutes. The amount of time the media has spent dissecting the tweets about Douglas’ hair? Almost two weeks. While the tweets directed at her hairstyle during the gymnastic competition were unnecessary, the media coverage about the tweets has been blown out of proportion. The media should have focused on the positive – like the fact that Douglas was the first American gymnast to ever win gold in both the team and all-around final, and the outpouring of support that she received online because of that rather than latching on to a few negative tweets.
  • Fat Talk: A common theme during the Olympics was the rampant “fat talk” directed at all different types of female Olympians by coaches, officials, and the media alike. The Brazilian soccer team was called “a bit heavy” by the Cameroon soccer coach shortly following a match. British heptathlete Jessica Ennis was accused of being fat by a high-ranking UK athletic official (and then proceeded to win gold for Britain in the heptathlon). Early on in the Olympics, Australian swimmer Leisel Jones was slammed by a local Australian paper for being too heavy to compete (despite being a nine time Olympic medalist). Luckily, many of her fellow teammates, athletes, and fans alike came to her defense, using #layoffleisel and #goleisel on Twitter as a way to show their support. And then there’s British swimmer Rebecca Adlington, who told reporters that she avoided reading comments on Twitter altogether during the Olympics because there were so many insults against her appearance (even though she won two bronze medals during the Games).

Why do we, both men and women alike, feel that we have the right to tear down our fellow female athletes? Why are we the ones to decide if they’re not pretty enough, small enough, or skinny enough? We can’t continue to celebrate their accomplishments one moment, and then insult their appearance the next. The media has a responsibility to end this vicious cycle, and actually start focusing on how a female athlete does rather than how a female athlete looks. And if media outlets aren’t held accountable, then it is our job to counter this irresponsibility by writing letters to the editor, making comments online, or starting a twitter handle like #layoffleisel in the case of Leisel Jones. I’m all for it being the “Game of the Girls”. However, my hope is that we leave that nickname for a time when all female athletes have the freedom to compete, no matter how they just might look in that bathing suit.

Share

Aug 13

APYDCON, Social Change and Youth

Last week, the SISGI group’s Alliance for Positive Youth Development hosted its 2012 Best Practices for Youth Conference from August 6th to August 10th, 2012. Many youth development professionals, educators, and young people attended this virtual conference to discuss issues that are important to youth today. All key issues such as girls and society, youth development, higher education, employment, civil development and social change were discussed at this conference. I had an opportunity to attend few conference sessions throughout last week as a social media correspondent for the conference. One positive aspect of the conference was that it was easily accessible just through the internet. I attended an global health conference a few months ago, and there was so much planning associated with it. I had to rent out a hotel room, and drive to the location. It was extremely time-consuming. Instead, I was able to listen to very interesting and thought-provoking presentations just from the comfort from my own home. Because of my summer classes, I had to miss few of speakers that presented earlier in the day. However, I was able to go back and view the prior presentations that I missed. Overall, it was a very pleasant and informative experience. In this blog post, I’ll like to further discuss one of the main takeaways that I got from the conference.

One of the key takeaways from the conference was to push for more opportunities for young people to engage and create social change whether in existing non-profits or creating their own projects. I highly support this idea because as a young person myself, I know it is difficult to find opportunities in existing organizations and to find resources to develop my own project. Two workshops I attended, “Starting Your Own Non-Profit As a Young Leader” presented by Clarie Charamnac, and “Engaging Through Passion” presented by Leora Freidman were very resourceful. The best part of this conference was that young people like me were presenting and sharing their experience. I was learning from my own peers and was able to relate to their experiences more easily. I learned a lot of useful information that can help me implement my own project in the future.

Leora Freidman is the cofounder of Music is Medicine, which is an organization that uses the power of music to make a difference in the lives of seriously ill-children in local hospitals. One of the key lessons I learned from her workshop is using the latest trends in pop culture in your marketing strategy can be beneficial to your project. You can tie in those popular trends somehow into your cause and engage more youth to participate in your cause. This small tip can really help your project make a better impact and get more exposure.

Another presenter, Clarie Charamnac shared her story of co-founding an organization called Women Lead which focuses on giving leadership and development training to women in Nepal. She provided useful first hand advice about the process of starting a nonprofit organization. One thing that she pointed out was that it is very important to conduct market research and learn about other organizations that are involved in the same cause. You always do not need to create a non-profit organization to solve a problem, and you get involved in other organizations that are passionate about the same cause. However, that does not mean that you cannot start your own organization, but it important to assess how different your own approach is in tackling the problem you are passionate about. I agree with this completely because there are so many nonprofit organizations out there that have similar goals and are approaching issues similarly. We do not need more organizations dealing with the same problems similarly. We need new approaches to solve these problems.

Both of these speakers gave very insightful advice for youth to engage in social good and to make a difference in the world. Overall, it important to push for more social good opportunities for young people. Young people are going to be the leaders of tomorrow, why shouldn’t we offer as many as opportunities we can for them to make the world a better place?

Share