A reader in Belgium weighs in on the editor’s comments
Mr. Editor,
What do you mean, 'men have traditionally been the leaders in most societies up to now'? Don't you mean to say: 'women have been discriminated against and oppressed in many societies'? And if this is the case, why do you object to Oprah Winfrey creating a Leadership Academy for girls only?
You do go on to say that more and more women hold their country's top political leadership position; however it should be obvious that this fact says little about the general condition of women in many societies. Only today there was news about yet another Pakistani woman being gang-raped in revenge for the fact that a male member of her family had eloped to get married to a young woman from another family which had not given their consent to this union.
The point about Oprah's academy is not that she is seeking to produce leaders, but trying to ensure that those who achieve leadership positions in the future will have been well educated and well prepared for the challenge. It is a residential academy only because (1) many of the girls are AIDS orphans; (2) most come from towns and villages too far away to travel back to on a daily basis, unless someone were going to pay their airfare twice a day, which seems rather ridiculous. The idea is not, in fact, to separate children from 'underprivileged homes': the academy is residential for purely practical purposes.
There is no benefit whatsoever in separating children from their home environment, unless that environment is violent and/or abusive. We all have to learn to cope with life in the many and varied worlds which make up a single society, so I really wouldn't waste time pitying today's young Kingston College pupils: they are just learning to cope with life, as those who went before them had to, and those who will follow them will also have to.
