"Then get up girl and let them know you're free"

Nancy Gibbs’ essay in the latest edition of TIME discusses the investment in girls, or lack thereof. The essay, which explodes with numbers pertaining to boys’ rights compared to girls’, is a mindful report of inequality. The bedrock of the essay veers away from revolution from an extremist standpoint, a play off the recent Egyptian uprisings. Those uprisings, which stem from unemployment, aspirations for a new government and economic imbalance, are an escalated event of revolt with powerful demonstrations.  Gibbs’ piece expresses that bloodshed and traditional forms of revolution will undoubtedly occur, but it's not the only revolution worth paying attention to from a global perspective. On the contrary, Gibbs writes that quieter revolutions are slowly progressing as in providing more attention to girls. What’s more, these revolutions can be effective. According to Gibbs, this movement is pivotal to “fight poverty, fuel growth and combat extremism," especially from an activist viewpoint.

Giving more aid to girls is the smart thing to do, says Gibbs. It can boost their wages, escape from marriage at 15 and then getting pregnant in certain parts of the world. Gibbs is preaching development: Give a chance to girls, listen to them.  Instead of pushing aside, which is culturally acceptable in numerous countries, hear their stories and dreams.

A few nuggets from the story:

1-Less than 2 cents of every developmental dollar goes to girls.

2-Roughly 9 of 10 youth programs are directed towards boys.

3-In sub-Saharan Africa, fewer than 1 in 5 girls make it to secondary school.

Gibbs

Gibbs is a wise writer. In using a large platform like revolution – as seen in Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan – she is shedding light on an important subject. This revolution is just as important though atypical in archetypal nature.

There are other thoughts that come into play: Is Gibbs only pointing out failed regimes built by male dictators? Is she insinuating that a female leader could avoid such revolts? Or, perhaps, is she simply saying that because young females do not receive the same treatment (namely, education) they do not have the opportunity to   make a difference? That is a much larger scale and more based on thoughts I had.

Regardless, her writing on revolution and equality being different in methodology is a valid point.