Killing our cousins: The plight of the orangutan

I have been obsessed with primates for as long as I can remember. My infatuation led me to travel to Borneo in 2002 to visit the Sepilok Orangutan sanctuary, and subsequently inspired me to volunteer at the Gibbon Rehabilitation Project (GRP) in Phuket, Thailand, several times. My experiences with the gibbons at the GRP were intense and life changing. The gibbons at the project are victims of the illegal wildlife trade - most have formerly been abused as pets and tourist attractions. I gained an intimate understanding of the complexities of rehabilitation and re-release, within the context of the fractured lives and exploitation the gibbons had experienced.

I wrote about the gibbons in a 2011 article for The Scavenger, where I outlined the link between the wildlife trade and the tourism industry in Thailand. I have also written about the torture and total subjugation of chimpanzees in medical laboratories and testing facilities. And another piece I wrote in 2011 spotlighted the impact of Indonesia's staggering rate of deforestation and proliferation of palm oil plantations on orangutans and other forest species.

My latest article for Discordia, Killing our cousins: The plight of the orangutan, revisits the issue of palm oil, and the alarming violence being inflicted on orangutans to keep the wheels of industry - and its huge profits - turning. I also reflect on my time in Borneo, and an intense encounter with two orangutans.

I suspect that this won't be the last time that I am compelled to write about primates!
-------------

Killing our cousins: The plight of the orangutan

A baby’s cries penetrate the air as the mob surges forward to continue its attack. The focus of attention is the baby’s mother, an adult orangutan, whose lifeless body the infant is desperately clutching.

Earlier, the mother orangutan had fought bravely to protect her infant while sustaining savage beatings with sticks and rocks, despite the tight ropes encircling her limbs. Finally, she was thrust head-down into a pool of water, to be wrenched out only after losing consciousness.

Now thrown into a makeshift pen, the mother slumps forward as her baby grasps her rust-coloured fur and cries out in panic.

Many local residents were incensed that the mother orangutan had entered the village to scavenge for fruit. But like increasing numbers of her fellow species, her ever-shrinking habitat had presented little other choice. 

Shockingly this brutal event in Borneo, culminating in the courageous mother’s death, is not an isolated incident.

In the line of fire

Approximately 5,000 orangutans perish each year as a consequence of forest destruction, hunting, and the illegal pet trade. A mere decade could see one of our closest living relatives wiped off the face of the Earth.  

In Indonesia and Malaysia, the expansion of the palm oil trade and prevalence of legal and illegal logging have eroded enormous forested areas, leaving orangutans residing within fragmented and shrinking pockets of vulnerable rainforest.

78% of forests inhabited by orangutans in Borneo are unprotected, with a large proportion made up of logging concessions or slated for conversion to palm oil and timber plantations. The insatiable economic interests of these industries and the livelihoods of wildlife such as the orangutan are intrinsically incompatible.

Escalating encroachment onto orangutan habitat is not only having a devastating impact on the species, but has seen an unprecedented level of violence perpetrated against individual orangutans.

The palm oil industry considers the endangered primates a hindrance to production, and some companies have employed ruthless measures to destroy them - even going to the extent of bankrolling their extermination. 

Disturbingly, monetary incentives have been offered to bounty hunters to seek out and kill orangutans. Last year it was reported that a Malaysian company was paying their workers one million Indonesian rupiah ($100 AUD) per dead orangutan. Mass graves of orangutans have also been discovered on palm oil plantation sites.

Captured orangutans are often viciously attacked and tortured to death.

Uncontrolled burning is also regularly employed by palm oil companies to rapidly clear land, placing orangutans in the line of fire. Burning of forest has a comprehensively damaging effect on the species: it shrinks their habitat, destroys their food sources, and often kills them directly.

An encounter

Eleven years ago I travelled to Malaysian Borneo to visit the Sepilok Orangutan Rehabilitation Centre and Labuk Bay Proboscis Monkey Sanctuary to indulge my fascination with primates.

The Sepilok centre aims to rehabilitate orphaned orangutans, and provides supplementary feeding to recently released orangutans within the forested reserve. At Labuk Bay, the quirky looking proboscis monkeys living in the vicinity are given supplementary provisions to strengthen their community in the face of dwindling wild food options.

In Borneo, the reality on the ground was confronting.

Peering out of the window during car trips on the island, I’d often perceive a sudden change in landscape. The view would come to be dominated by derelict tracts of land; what our guide explained were palm oil concessions.

My stomach would tighten as my eyes focused on desolate wastelands which formerly hosted lush and vibrant rainforest. The situation was more desperate than I could have imagined.

One day at Sepilok, I slowly proceeded towards the viewing platform where the orangutans were fed. As I meandered along the wooden walkway through the forest, absorbed in the bird songs and jungle chatter, my eye caught a bright spot of colour. I lifted my head up to focus on it.

I froze. In front of me, perched on the wooden handrail, was a mother orangutan. In her protective arms an infant was snuggled to her breast. The mother sat still as we quietly contemplated each other. She seemed unruffled by my presence; her calm manner surprised me. But what happened next surprised me even more.

The adult female grabbed her baby under the arms, and swivelled the infant around to face me. She held her baby up, in what I interpreted as a proud mother showing off her gorgeous child. They then both sat, unmoving, observing me in the shadows of the buzzing forest canopy. We remained like this for several minutes, eyeing each other with peaceful curiosity.

And then they scampered off, up towards the trees which would afford them distance from prying human eyes.

I will never forget that spine-tingling encounter. But I now sometimes wonder: did this mother ever have to flee from the sinister hands of humans? Or risk her life to protect her baby?

Did they, like many of their species, become virtual exiles in their own land?

While certain industries view their interests as in conflict with orangutans and other forest species, we need to reject this mentality. The reality is our interests are in harmony with these species.

Their habitat, which is being so recklessly destroyed, is also our precious environment. Apathy towards the fate of their children is indifference towards our own children.

And ultimately, violence against our fellow primates is an act of violence against us.

***With Easter around the corner, keep in mind that palm oil is a common ingredient in chocolate and can sometimes even be found in hot cross buns. See The Orangutan Project’s website for more information about the current threats to orangutans.

Clean Up Australia Day & McDonald's: An unpalatable alliance

I was quite stunned recently when I discovered that McDonald's has been a long-time sponsor and partner of Clean Up Australia Day. This is an annual event which encourages people to clean up general waste in their local area and waterways. 

I was struck by the incongruity of Clean Up's association with a corporation such as McDonald's, which generates large volumes of waste and which is a key contributor to Australia's rubbish problem. My latest article for Discordia, Clean Up Australia Day and McDonald's: An unpalatable alliance, looks at this issue. 
----------------

Clean Up Australia Day and McDonald's: An unpalatable alliance

March 2013

The man on screen flashed a cheerful smile, and implored fellow Australians to join him in the environmental campaign. Clean Up Australia Day was approaching, and a year’s worth of refuse clogging the streets and waterways was awaiting an army of eager volunteers.

His manner was friendly, his work was admirable… and his shirt was adorned with the unmistakable golden arches logo.

Recovering from my initial shock, I decided the ad was a spoof. What a great satirical clip, I thought. McDonald’s partnering with Clean Up Australia Day – now wouldn’t that be a laugh?!

But then the ad rolled to a finish, with no disclaimer in sight.

After some searching on the Clean Up website, I discovered that McDonald’s has been a sponsor, a “founding partner”, of Clean Up Australia Day since 1989.

Who knew? I certainly didn’t, and thinking myself a bit ignorant, I quizzed a bunch of friends. None of them had known either.

Rubbish

I haven’t frequented a McDonald’s store since resigning as a grossly underpaid teenage “crew member” of the food giant in the mid-90s. As an employee, I was privy – and party to - the sickening scale of food wastage generated by McDonald’s each day. Much of the food that was cooked was destined for the bin from its inception. 

As food such as burgers were generally not made to order, but rather cooked en masse and allotted into a timer system, those which exceeded their (brief) use-by-date in the absence of a purchase were tossed into large bins. I recall carrying out the nightly back-breaking task of emptying the bins - absolutely brimming with wrapped, untouched burgers - into one massive disposal unit.

I still often encounter the junk food corporation’s trash, in the form of its branded packaging, strewn carelessly along streets and gutters. According to a Keep Australia Beautiful study, 10 per cent of all litter in Australia originates from McDonald's. When communities lodge opposition to a proposed McDonald’s store in their area, concern over rubbish is usually a chief point of contention. 

This is despite McDonald’s Australia’s Clean Streets program, where lucky crew members supposedly do regular trash-duty around a store’s surrounding streets. 

Conscious or culpable?

The ubiquitous fast food chain does not enjoy a healthy environmental track record. McDonald’s uses an inordinate amount of packaging, the majority of which is used only fleetingly before being discarded. Also, its ardent agenda to lure children in-store means that plastic “Happy Meal” toys and their accompanying packaging are perpetually on the menu.

Even more alarming are some of the less visible aspects of its operations, such as the impact of the company’s transportation and food refrigeration, and the steep carbon and ecological footprint of their sale of resource-intensive meat and dairy products. 30% of the Earth’s entire land area and 70% of all agricultural land are appropriated for animal agriculture. Animal husbandry is also a primary driver of soil erosion and sedimentation, high levels of pesticide use and freshwater pollution.

It is almost impossible to find reliable figures of annual food wastage generated in Australia by McDonald’s. I’ve been told by a recent Australian customer that McDonald’s now makes a range of its products directly to order, but I’m aware that the timer system is still used for various items, and I can’t comment on the company’s practices overseas. 

However, try as they might, it would be difficult for Clean Up to deny that McDonald’s is synonymous with immense waste, environmental degradation, and a throw-away culture. Yet, Clean Up has counted McDonald’s as a sponsor for more than two decades, and McDonald’s proudly cites its yearly support of the Clean Up Australia Day program.

The chain’s Australian operations also proudly claim to participate in the Sydney Water Every Drop Counts initiative, but it could be argued that this is a convenient diversion from the exorbitant water usage of the animal agriculture industries on which McDonald’s so heavily relies.

Through its association with these “green” initiatives and programs, and its much-publicised (but arguably, inadequate) recycling and packaging changes across some markets, McDonald’s has cunningly cultivated an image as a “green leader”. Its relentless PR machine ensures a wealth of media releases and column inches are devoted to reporting on the company’s latest “eco-friendly” innovations.

But McDonald’s, which serves 69 million customers a day, is NOT an environmental organisation, or a company producing “eco-friendly” products. It is a corporation driven by an insatiable profit motive, which peddles junk food with a colossal environmental, health and ethical toll.

An odd partnership = a confused message

Many undoubtedly believe that the food giant’s involvement in Clean Up Australia Day should be applauded. That at least McDonald’s is taking some steps to clean up the country’s rubbish, of which it’s a significant contributor. But let’s be real here - the motives are not philanthropic.

McDonald’s benefits from the association in more ways than one: it portrays an image of environmental concern and vigilance, while increasing its advertising reach. The arrangement is mutually beneficial, as the sheer monetary power of McDonald’s would equate to healthy sponsorship funds and unparalleled promotion for Clean Up Australia Day.

Maybe Clean Up could not achieve this level of exposure without the backing of such a high profile company. BUT – what is the campaign’s long term message? Shouldn’t it be to reduce waste, the production of unnecessary items, and littering in the first place? Clean Up Australia Day is, after all, a campaign which is ultimately a band-aid measure in the context of the wider problem of over-production, consumerism, and an unsustainable use of resources.

I would like to see Clean Up partner with companies which promote sustainability and environmental protection along their entire supply chain. Clean Up’s association with McDonald’s promotes a message that tokenistic gestures are adequate, thus undermining their credibility as an environmental campaign.

I do believe that Clean Up’s work is commendable. 16,000 tonnes of rubbish was collected during the 2012 event. But the message of reducing and taking responsibility for waste is fundamentally incompatible with the business operations of a company such as McDonald’s. 

The junk food chain may have undertaken some tweaking and tinkering of their operations, but there’s no escaping the fact that they are far from the benchmark of an environmentally-friendly business.

Let’s recognise this partnership for what it is: just another attempt at greenwashing.

Postscript: Obtaining accurate figures about McDonald’s and its waste production proved difficult. Furthermore, many of the web search terms related to the topic led directly back to McDonald’s and its PR apparatus.

Hopeful heart: Contemplating Cambodia’s street kids

[Originally published February 2013 in Discordia online magazine]

I spent six weeks in Phnom Penh in 2006, while I was volunteering at the Free the Bears sanctuary. In the years before this trip, I had travelled to several other developing countries in the Asian region, but I wasn't prepared for the vast poverty of Cambodia. I was struck by the amount of street kids and the hardship of many people's lives. 

In this article, I reflect on my time in Phnom Penh, and the street kids I came into contact with.
---

Suddenly he was standing beside my table at the dingy café on the bustling riverside road. His bare feet and tiny frame had ensured I didn’t detect his approach, and absorbed in my own thoughts over a solitary lunch, his face had initially startled me. But as he peered up at me, I softened.

I surveyed his face, framed by a rumpled mop of black hair which fell unevenly across his forehead. His broad smile gleamed up at me, as his large dark eyes flickered with hope. His beauty caused my heart to flip.

And there, outstretched toward me, was his upturned hand. I grinned down at him, and without hesitation reached for my bag. I presented his delicate hand with a couple of notes, which he swiftly clutched into a fist. 

Delight began to spread across his face, conveying a silent thank you. Then the shoeless little boy in the faded blue t-shirt, the spirited child who had captured my heart, turned his back and skipped out of the café.

A warning

Upon my arrival a week earlier, in preparation for a six-week volunteer stint at Free the Bears Fund’s Cambodian sanctuary, I had grabbed some free magazines from a rack at the airport. Alone at the volunteer quarters in a grand old house in central Phnom Penh, I pored over the reading materials’ contents.

I came across a short article by a Western aid worker which advised tourists to avoid giving money to begging street children. The article claimed that adults often exploited these desperate children, waiting in the wings to seize their earnings.

In theory, I comprehended the integrity of the advice. But on the heaving streets of the city, this turned out to be much easier said than done.

Each day I would travel in a truck with Free the Bears staff to the grounds of the animal sanctuary. During the 50 kilometre journey, my eyes darted furiously in all directions as scene after scene competed for my attention. My mind raced as I digested the chaos of the traffic, observed families of six balancing on speeding motorcycles, cast my eyes over ramshackle slums, watched street vendors jostling for business, and spied skinny children playing in filthy gutters.

Then all of a sudden the bedlam would slide behind us, its crude features shrinking in the rear view mirror as our wheels devoured the road ahead. The scenery would transform into luscious green fields, showcasing flourishing plant life and the occasional ornate temple.

But the poverty still stalked us: when our vehicle slowed to enter the sanctuary’s gates, toothless elderly women appeared at the car door, pleading for coins under the oppressive sun.

Back in the heart of Phnom Penh, the legacy of decades of war still shrouds the city. Many try to eke out a living on the streets, and land mine-injured amputees, often treated as pariahs, beg at tourist hot spots. Savvy street kids sidle up to travellers, aiming to impress with their limited knowledge of English and fast facts about the visitor’s home country. “You’re from Australia? Kangaroos and koalas!”, they shriek.

On the streets by the river, raggedly dressed kids shadow me along the path, displaying the same glint of hope in their eyes as the barefoot boy. They charm me with their sweet faces and street smart banter, and hawk their wares - postcards, books and jewellery - to passersby. An ever-smiling shoeshiner, a handsome deaf and mute teenage boy who offers to clean my sandals, approaches me most days.

I didn’t often spot adults lingering around, though I don’t know if they materialised once money was in the children’s possession.

Right or wrong

As a visitor to Cambodia who was devastated by the glaring poverty and sheer numbers of street kids, I found it difficult to set firm rules governing my response to beggars. This is a country where over one third of people live under the poverty line, forced evictions and dispossession of entire communities are commonplace, and child homelessness is escalating. 

The problem of child prostitution is also rife, with pimps soliciting both locals and tourists to bankroll this heartbreaking trade. Street children are particularly vulnerable to being caught in the clutches of this industry.

The claims in the article I read on my first night in Cambodia are well supported: buying trinkets from children and giving them money can put them at risk and trap them in a cycle of poverty on the streets. And I am under no illusions regarding the existence of exploitation by adults.

But the issue is complex, and with charities stretched thin some children are left with little option but to beg to survive from day to day.

Also, I know first-hand that the situation is not always black and white…

As the little barefoot boy exited the café, money in hand, my eyes followed his petite frame outside. There, I spotted him approaching a street vendor selling nuts from the back of a truck. The little boy handed the vendor the crumpled notes, and received a bulging bag of nuts in return. The boy then sat down on the side of the road and gleefully ate the contents of the bag, the whole time with a shining smile on his beautiful face.


Originally published February 2013 in Discordia online magazine]

Lamenting the normalisation of Botox

My January piece for Discordia, Lamenting the normalisation of Botox, was written in frustration after I noted that positive stories on Botox were increasing in incidence in the mainstream media.
------------

Lamenting the normalisation of Botox

January 2013

Of late, I’ve noticed that Botox has become heavily embedded into the cultural consciousness. So much so, that mention of it in print and online publications is not only prolific, but very often casual in tone.

Articles about Botox are stunningly prevalent, with beauty editors fawning over its apparent age-reversing properties, and even health publications devoting many inches of copy to extolling its “miracle” effects. The web is brimming with personal experience stories on blogs and big title women’s magazines, lauding the substance’s apparent benefits for restoring youth.

Worryingly, it appears to me that the use of Botox for “age management” has become normalised. Evidently, there is now little stigma attached to admitting that you have had it done. But, frighteningly, there is a stigma attached to ageing - particularly for women - and a sinister stigma associated with not “managing” it.

I recently came across a short round-up of 2012’s notable beauty trends in SMH. Although the title, “A year of beauty: best and worst of 2012”, promised a fairly mundane piece of writing, I was absolutely struck by one of its paragraphs:

“More women are acknowledging that they have had Botox treatment outside sitcom world, albeit strictly to one another. But, it's a start when you consider that any woman over 30 worth her hard-earned disposable income has had it done” (my emphasis).

The paragraph sits incongruously in a section of the list labelled “Sisterhood”. Here, the “sisterhood” refers to a peculiar concept – the apparent solidarity signified by women’s admission to each other of having Botox done. I have to confess that when I think of the term sisterhood, and what it represents for me, cosmetic surgery revelations don’t immediately spring to mind.

Happily, the author was lambasted for her statement in the comments section. The responses reflected many of my own thoughts – I am over 30 and am not considering Botox, I have more pressing things to spend my “hard-earned” income on, and I don’t view Botox as a necessity, as the article seems to imply it is.

At its core, the comment is simultaneously ageist and elitist. There is the disturbing inference that Botox is not negotiable for women over 30 (that magic age where we are subjected to age-related fear-mongering, and told we’ll be rendered invisible to the male gaze unless we take measures to restore our youth).

It also smacks of privilege: we are told that Botox is the domain of an exclusive bunch.  Although it is clear that Botox isn’t a cheap habit to maintain, the author’s implication is an unsettling one indeed. Apparently, those women on the more comfortable side of the economic spectrum are obliged to get it done, and those without a disposable income to play with are presumably not “worth” it.

Botox is relentlessly touted as a miracle “cure” for wrinkles, one of the physical signs of ageing. Rather than simply a natural consequence of life, ageing is increasingly being presented as a medical affliction which needs to be managed. The popular discourse currently surrounding women and ageing suggests that we need to be vigilant and pull out all stops to slow the process down.

I almost couldn’t conceal my shock when I recently overheard part of a conversation in a shopping centre. One young woman (mid to late 20s, at a guess) announced to her friend, “Well, as soon as I get some Botox injected into this face, I’ll be happy”.

The comment was quite disturbing in its nonchalance. But her comment undoubtedly echoes thousands that occur each day between women, who feel constant pressure to look like their youthful former selves.

I am concerned about the insidious nature with which Botox has infiltrated the cultural consciousness. I’ve noticed that articles frequently emphasise the apparent benefits of the injections, while side effects or potential risks are often sidelined. A nuanced social and cultural analysis of the issue is even rarer – at least in the mainstream media.

Don’t get me wrong: I do not begrudge individual women who have made a decision to have Botox. Rather, I resent the culture which positions Botox as a necessity for women of a certain age, and where - correspondingly - the notion of “choice” is distorted.

I can understand why women opt to have Botox. I am definitely not immune to the pressures to maintain a youthful aesthetic: it permeates our society in many forms and can be difficult to elude. It is likely that to an extent, aside from these immense external pressures, humans have a natural fear of ageing and looking older. But my issue is with a system which sanctions and profits from this fear.

She said what?! Why feminism is still relevant

My December piece for Discordia, She said what?! Why feminism is still relevant, was written in response to comments by Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, who had claimed "In my generation we don't need to be feminist".
-----

She said what?! Why feminism is still relevant

December 2012

A collective gasp resounded across social media last week, after former French “first lady” Carla Bruni-Sarkozy was quoted as saying "In my generation we don't need to be feminist".

A torrent of witty and impassioned comments descended. French senator Laurence Rossignol added her voice, tweeting: "For as long as I get asked if I am the senator's assistant, the coming generation will need feminism".

While Bruni-Sarkozy’s remark may be viewed as ill-advised and clumsily delivered, it wasn’t so easy for women to merely brush it aside. On an international scale, Bruni-Sarkozy is a prominent woman of influence. What many no doubt found problematic was that this person 

of wealth and advantage was attempting to speak for them – an entire generation of women.

While Bruni-Sarkozy herself concedes (on her website) that “I was fortunate to be born into a privileged family”, the 44-year-old seems somewhat blind to her privilege, if not a little conflicted by it. In her recent remarks to Vogue which ignited the Twittersphere, she also claimed “I am a true bourgeoise”. But regarding life as the president’s wife and her husband’s exit from office, she said "It was a beautiful adventure, but today I just want to go back to being a citizen like any other".

Bruni-Sarkozy isn’t a typical French citizen, or woman. Born into an affluent family in Italy, she was heiress to her grandfather’s tyre empire and her family lived in a state of luxury. Bruni-Sarkozy was given access to the best schools in Europe, attending boarding school in Switzerland and university in Paris. The wife of former French president Nicholas Sarkozy, Bruni-Sarkozy is a white woman of high social standing.

In the 1990s, Bruni-Sarkozy was a high-fashion model, walking for many of the top couture houses. She was listed among the 20 highest paid models in 1998. Catapulted to a lucrative international modelling career in her late teens, Bruni-Sarkozy has never known the pain of student loans, the week to week struggle of paying rent on a meagre income, nor the challenges of raising and feeding a family on an average wage.  

  

Additionally, her husband has a significant personal fortune, and was also born into vast wealth.

In Bruni-Sarkozy’s adopted country of France, poverty is on the rise. In 2011 it was reported that 13.5% of the population live under the poverty threshold.

A recent report by charity Secours Catholique revealed that women and immigrants were the hardest hit groups in France in the wake of the financial crisis. Women comprise 57% of those seeking assistance from the charity, up 10% from a decade ago.  

Approximately 17% of women in the 27 EU countries are living in poverty. European women earn, on average, 14-17% less than men. The European Social Watch Report 2010 claimed that “across a range of indicators in the labour market and in social protection, the structural causes of poverty have a disproportionate impact on women”.

Globally, women constitute 70% of the world’s poorest people. They hold only 10% of the world’s wealth and own 1% of the world’s land. 

To her credit, Bruni-Sarkozy does undertake some philanthropic work and she also supports gay marriage, along with several other socially progressive issues.  

However, in the stately lunch meetings with high profile figures, to discuss issues such as literacy, poverty and female mortality, she can maintain a detachment from the reality of the issues tabled. These talks are usually hosted in luxury locations. Arriving well fed and immaculately dressed, Bruni-Sarkozy can slip back into her extravagant lifestyle at the conclusion of the event.

It can be easy to see why Bruni-Sarkozy has been able to overlook feminism. She was born into wealth; consequently she has not confronted the challenges that many other women of her generation have, in their pursuit of education and raising a family in a tough economic climate. It is hard to overstate the level of freedom that financial independence can afford.

For many years Bruni-Sarkozy worked in an industry which paid her exorbitant sums of money for her physical appearance. At its very core, the fashion industry is anti-feminist. Models are prized for their (apparently fleeting) youthful beauty, and are forced to adhere to near impossible standards in order to be successful. This industry, which relentlessly manufactures the rigorous incarnation of the “ideal woman”, bankrolled Bruni-Sarkozy’s lavish lifestyle for years.   

Bruni-Sarkozy is not an ideal spokesperson for her generation of women, as it appears that the complexities of their lives have soared high above her head. Globally, she is one of a select few that revels in the top income bracket, while many women of her generation languish firmly at subsistence level.  

If she is truly to comprehend poverty, a cause for which she campaigns, then she must understand how structural economic conditions and traditions often serve to disadvantage women – whether in Europe or poverty-plagued developing countries.  

Maybe then she will realise that feminism is still germane for the women of her generation, and also for the girls and young women of today.

Postscript: Carla Bruni-Sarkozy issued an apology for her recent remarks on feminism, claiming that the statement “poorly translates my thoughts”, and saying of feminists "I admire their bravery a lot, but I have chosen to commit myself elsewhere".