The typography of it all!

But seriously, although, no, it's not quite THAT simple (we're going to have to spend a lot of time explaining, no, it's not the concept of husbands and babies that is at fault here---it's a self-perpetuating system of status-quo-or-less we're talking about), it's to the point. Invest in the untapped potential of half the human race and a lot could happen!

Oh bummer. I saw that ages ago. (I'm a Flash developer and the site won an award.) I really should have sent it in.

As a photographer I was glad to donate money to buy film to help girls in Kiberia learn photography -- as a Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultant, I told my team leader about the site to pass it on to other MK women -- we make it a point to help women around the globe to become independent.

That was disappointing. Giving a cow to 600 million women isn't innovative. It just contributes more to global warming and environmental degradation, problems that sustain poverty, particularly in third world nations. It ignores the facts that cows eat all the food and drink all the water that people in third-world countries don't even have reliable access to, and that most people living in third world countries cannot digest lactose. This is a failed idea all around.

I get why you liked it... it´s kinda sweet. But then again - it's too optimistic and naive, too - placing the burden of development of sanitation, education, economic growth, etc on 'a girl's' shoulders. Especially the HIV part. Insensitive, almost, come to think of it. There's dangers in denying third world women (symbolic violence etc) agency but let's not get lost in dreams of rosy futures if the reality of oppression is oftentimes brutal still.

Wow, I'm shocked at how pessimistic some of these comments are! And theminutepast, if you checked out the website they don't want to give out 600 million cows, that was just an example. There are so many ways to help a girl. I'm really shocked and saddened by the lack of excitement from this feminist community there about this project.

What I intended to say here was that I went to the website and wanted to donate or help this cause in some way but I went through the whole site and just kept getting the video. There was no place I could find to actually donate. If anyone knows a link please let me know!! Thanks!

I liked the video too.

You can donate here: http://www.globalgiving.com/girleffect.html?rf=girleffect2008

I don't think the critical posts are remotely pessimistic. I think, while the message of the video is positive, it's context is really important, and before donating to this organization you should understand what they do, and if you only saw the video, you wouldn't really know what they did at all.

The organization is a donor organization that makes grants and funding available to non-profit orgs doing pro-girl work. It is also run by Nike Corporation, which I personally find a little problematic given the very pro-business/capitalist messaging of the video. And also that Nike has a pretty stained human rights and labor record.

The video is simplistic, and, while not way off-base, it's basically an advertisement for the Nike Foundation, and just as commercials general are, it way over simplifies in an effort to get you to give. This isn't necessarily a terrible thing, but to me the complex and diverse women and the cultures in which they live, particularly those in the developing world, deserve a little more consideration than this video affords.

Mostly, it's important to be critical, yet hopeful when considering donating to non-profits and institutions. And, as someone who's worked with non-profits that seek such funding from large institutions, it's important to realize that to a large extent they, not local or grassroots non-profits, drive intervention priorities. So, you might consider looking into pro-girl organizations that you like the message/action of and donate directly to them, rather than donating to a corporate foundation.

Yes Vanessa, I did tear up. And I'm surprised to see how unexcited most people commenting seem to be about it. Bummer. I felt like I was watching a rose bloom in slow-mo as I was watching that. I also don't get why everyone has to nitpick and ask for these ads to 'consider the many shades of experience of women all around the world', when this ad is (rightfully so) trying to appeal to the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time possible. I don't think it's insensitive to simplify a grand idea so that as many people can understand it and be moved by it as possible.

For those of you who are critical of the video, Heifer International has been doing something very similar for a quite a while now and had had a very positive influence.

I'm a little surprised by the tone of the discussion surrounding this video. Why is it that if we disagree or see things differently, we automatically become defensive or bristle. You can like the video, see positive things in it, and I can find some fault with it and critique it, and we can both be right, AND we can both recognize each others' opinions as valid. And further, recognize the importance of the experiences and world views that everyone brings to the table, and learn from them -- to be a little cheesy.

I'm so glad to see someone else teared up! (I just got done watching that on Shakesville and thought I was crazy for getting teary eyed)

I found the vid to be inspiring. Even in it's simpleness.

Wow, I felt like such a loser for tearing up at that. Last night I was tearing up at the home videos of the McCain Palin rallies in Johnstown, PA. I find this to be a much better feeling. So often I feel like all of the problems are so big, and their protectors so powerful like nothing can every be fixed. Its nice every so often to see that there are people out there who are just as concerned as I am.

Was anyone else disturbed by the "FLIES FLIES FLIES" around the words "Girl" and "Baby?" Is this how we're supposed to picture people who live in the developing world? With flies around their distended bellies like on the commercials for charities? Yes, I know it's meant to appeal to the emotions- but come on. Reinforcing this image of kind hearted Westerners going in to "save" babies with flies around their faces is so problematic!

I think we can all agree that this ad over-simplifies the issues it talks about in order to get its message across forcefully. That's doesn't mean the campaign is not worthy of support. More importantly, it doesn't mean that talking critically about the ad and trying to address the things it neglects makes us unsupportive or pessimistic. It means we have strong critical faculties. It means things aren't black-and-white, and that we know that failing to mindlessly praise something does not equal condemnation of it.

OK. So. Now I've got that out of the way, here are some things I thought were wrong with this ad:

1. "It's not the internet. It's not science. It's not the government. It's not money." Well, yes, actually, it's all of these things, especially, in this particular case, the first and the last. This ad is an internet campaign asking you essentially to donate money. Without either of these two things, this campaign would not be able to exist. Plus, it is governments and money that allow the microloan companies that this process hinges on to be established.

2. I find it naive and insulting to my intelligence and world-awareness to suggest that giving a young girl a cow so she can make money for her village will result in the (male) elders inviting her onto the village council. Children all over the third world toil at this kind of work, and I'm sure it's quite common for the responsibility of managing the family livestock or whatever to fall on a girl's shoulders. Yet we don't hear about millions of pre-adolescent girls joining the village council because they've earnt respect for successfully getting the four family cows through the tough winter, or for saving up money and buying milking equipment, or what have you. I don't see how a girl getting a loan and buying a cow would be significantly different. Surely we, as self-aware, critically-thinking feminists, know now that just because a female does something positive, does not automatically mean she will earn respect or even praise for it.

Having said that, I did tear up a little bit when the words "WHERE SHE CONVINCES EVERYONE THAT ALL GIRLS ARE VALUABLE" flash across the screen to the sound of elated piano thumping. It might be an overly-optimistic scenario, but this statement is just so powerful in its simplicity that it sort gives you a little jolt. The graphics and music of this ad really do make it very powerful and affecting.

Okay, I really like the idea that 1 girl could save her village, but really...

Who says her cow won't die from starvation? I mean, if they had food, they'd eat it themselves, wouldn't they?

Who says the men will respect her and invite her to the village council? They'll probably still think a woman can't handle it.

Who says all people will be convinced that girls are equal to boys?

I'm not a pessimist, and I'm not saying that we can't help them, but this... sorry, I think they're after money.

Ok, let me elaborate on my pessimistic view on this ad.

It´s not really that it´s too optimistic to think you can solve basically anything from bad sanitation to gender inequality by giving one girl (or 6 million of them) a cow. What I am saying is that the burden of all these things is now put on a girl's shoulders. Of course, changes start at the bottom level of society as well, yet we must bear in mind that unequal trade agreements, corrupt governments, persistent misogyny etc all substantially lower any girl's chances of phsyical and mental survival.

Maybe I am being too european here, but it reads like the american dream all over; but there's only so much individuals can do in the face of structural oppression (on the basis of sex) and structural inequalities (in terms of class, ethnicity, etc).

Especially in the case of HIV (which is transmitted, in lots of countries in Africa, generally via unprotected sex, often rape), I find it offensive to suggest a link between 1. a hard working self-sufficient girl and 2. lower numbers of HIV infected individuals in these countries.

Husbands and babies are not the problem. Wow, to toss those away like they're baggage? What crap.

Elephlux, I don't think the campaign is saying that the husbands and babies should be gotten rid of, but that basic education should be promoted over marriage and breeding for very young (barely pubescent) girls. I.e., not a retroactive strategy for ridding married 14-year-old mothers of their husbands and babies, but a preventative one that aims to have young girls in school instead of married. This is based on the premise that education generates productive, autonomous young people, as opposed to the cycle of poverty and limited choices that is characteristic to the lives of girls married and breeding at a young age.