(토요모임) [22. September. 2018] Saturday meeting Topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy ! 

It's me Scarlett !

Detailed topics are as follows.

◈ Philosophy :

---- Don't Put Yourself into a Box - Motivation with Jay Shetty
---- Before You Give Up Watch This
---- Creating A Life Without Regrets

◈ Global Development :

---- Ban Ki-moon and Bill Gates Are Teaming Up to Fight Climate Change
---- What are the Sustainable Development Goals?
---- Sustainable development goals: all you need to know

---- What Are the Global Goals — and How Close Are We to Achieving Them?

◈ Gender Equality :

----  Sheryl Sandberg at TEDWomen 2010 Why we have too few women leaders
----  Melinda Gates: It's Time for a New Era for Women
----  Why It’s Time For Men to Step Up For Women Too

◈ Love :

---- These are the questions one writer says can make you fall in love with a stranger

Hope you enjoy the topics. 

With luv 

Scarlett

--------------------------------------------------------

Don't Put Yourself into a Box - Motivation from Jay Shetty

--------------------------------------------------------

Before You Give Up Watch This - Motivation with Jay Shetty

--------------------------------------------------------

Creating A Life Without Regrets  

--------------------------------------------------------

<Questions>

Q1. What is your dream? 

Q2. What is your role in your society? Are you satisfied with your position? 

Q3. Do you live your life as you planned or as others designed?

Q4. Do you have any regret in your life? 

Q5. What is your secret to live your life fully without regret? 

----------------------------------------

Ban Ki-moon and Bill Gates Are Teaming Up

to Fight Climate Change
Sept. 14, 2018 By Megan Rowling

High-powered commission aims to strengthen funding and practical solutions.

BARCELONA, Sept 13 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) — A high-powered commission set to launch next month aims to strengthen funding and practical solutions for people and economies coping with climate change.
The body will be led by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, philanthropist Bill Gates and World Bank CEO Kristalina Georgieva for its two-year term.
Ban told the Thomson Reuters Foundation that adapting to intensifying heatwaves, droughts, floods, and storms would be "much more important" in the coming decades.

"Adaptation is a global challenge; it requires coordination across boundaries," he said in an interview ahead of this week's announcement of the commission's formation.
"Climate impacts in one country can have knock-on effects on the other side of the world — therefore nations need to learn from one another."
The Global Commission on Adaptation will unite scientists, economists, city-dwellers, farmers, mayors, and company CEOs to discuss solutions to the climate pressures hiking human and economic losses around the world, Ban said.

Researchers and development groups have worked for years on measures to soften the blow from wilder weather and higher seas.
Tested practices range from switching to hardier crops, to sending flood alerts by mobile phone, and putting more green spaces in cities to soak up excess rain and combat pollution.
But climate change adaptation has not received the political attention nor the funding it deserves, even as the urgency is growing, experts say.
"This Global Commission will play a vital role in elevating the political importance of adaptation, and also in making the case that greater resilience is achievable — and that is in all our interests," said Ban.
The commission, which will be supported by the Netherlands-based Global Center on Adaptation and the World Resources Institute in Washington DC, plans to deliver a flagship report at a UN climate summit next September.
Its roughly 20 commissioners — expected to include some world leaders — and 10 convening countries will be unveiled in The Hague on Oct. 16.

'BIGGER AND BOLDER'
Patrick Verkooijen, CEO of the Global Center on Adaptation, one of the commission's co-hosts, said his organisation would promote "much bolder, bigger approaches".
The low-lying Netherlands is already sharing its expertise in managing water risks with other cities around the world, for example, and there is growing knowledge about "climate-smart agriculture", from planting trees on farms to mulching, he said.
But those methods were not yet being used in every place that would benefit from them in Africa or Asia, said Verkooijen, while new technologies and funding options were also needed to meet challenges at the local level.
"That will happen when there is a push to put adaptation on the global agenda equal to other critical issues," he said.

Government officials and businesses have focused more on steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions that heat the planet, such as using more renewable energy and improving energy efficiency. Far less is spent on adaptation measures.
In a 2017 report, the Climate Policy Initiative, a think-tank that tracks spending, said emissions-reduction activities accounted for an average of 93% of climate finance from 2015-2016.
Looking only at public sources of funding, adaptation received just 16%.
Sven Harmeling, policy lead for climate change with aid agency CARE International, said the global commission could explore new ways to raise cash for adaptation, and show why governments especially should allocate more for that purpose.
He urged the commission to include the perspectives of marginalised people living on coasts crumbling into the sea or mountains threatened by landslides and flash floods.
It should highlight the barriers they face in protecting themselves — mainly a lack of expertise and money, he added.
"The people who are hardest-hit often fall through the radar of ... companies, and the solutions they need are not available on the market," Harmeling said.
(Reporting by Megan Rowling @meganrowling. Editing by Robert Carmichael. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women's rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit http://news.trust.org/climate)

Article source : https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/ban-kimoon-gates-climate-change/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=global&utm_campaign=general-content&linkId=56871670

----------------------------------------

What are the Sustainable Development Goals?

16 Sep 2015/ Stéphanie Thomson

“I am pleased to share some good news for people and planet,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said to a packed room of press delegates. The good news? After three years of negotiations and debate, 193 countries had agreed to a set of development goals more bold and ambitious than anything that has come before them.
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – part of a wider 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – build on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These eight goals, set by the United Nations back in 2000 to eradicate poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease, expire at the end of this year.

Figure 1: The Millennium Development Goals(Source: United Nations)

The MDGs were concrete, specific and measurable, and therefore helped establish some priority areas of focus in international development. But that was also one of their biggest criticisms: by being so targeted, they had left out other, equally important, areas.
Despite the criticism, significant progress has been made over the past 15 years, especially when it comes to the goals of eradicating poverty and improving access to education. That progress, however, has been very uneven, with improvements often concentrated in specific regions and among certain social groups. A 2015 UN assessment of the MDGs found they fell short for many people: “The assessment of progress towards the MDGs has repeatedly shown that the poorest and those disadvantaged because of gender, age, disability or ethnicity are often bypassed.”
In developing the SDGs – a multi-year process involving civil society, governments, the private sector and academia – the United Nations sought to take all these failings into account. So how, then, were these new goals reached and what do they look like?
17 goals for ‘people and planet’
In response to the accusation that the MDGs were too narrow in focus, the SDGs set out to tackle a whole range of issues, from gender inequality to climate change. The unifying thread throughout the 17 goals and their 169 targets is the commitment to ending poverty: “Eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development,” notes the agenda’s preamble.

Figure 2: The Sustainable Development Goals

As well as being more all-encompassing than the MDGs, the consultation process was also much more inclusive – Ban Ki-moon called it the “most transparent and inclusive process in UN history”. An unprecedented effort was made to get the input of as many people as possible, particularly those who wouldn’t normally be consulted for this type of international agreement. In total, 5 million people from across 88 countries in all the world’s regions took part in the consultation, and shared their vision for the world in 2030. This is very different from the development and implementation of the MDGs, which one expert described as “an internal UN bureaucratic creation”.
Figure 3: Extract from the My World survey results (Source: United Nations)

But what really sets apart the SDGs from their predecessors is their universal nature. Recognizing that the MDGs failed certain people and countries, the 2030 agenda sets out to “reach the furthest behind first” and concludes with a pledge that “no one will be left behind”.
From words to deeds
Getting consensus on such a broad development agenda was an achievement in itself, but the real work will start in January, when it kicks in. “We have a big, bold agenda before us. Now we must work to make it real,” said the UN secretary-general. How, exactly, does the United Nations plan to do so?
Goal 17 goes into detail about that. It allows for a range of measures, including financial support and debt relief, the transfer of technologies and scientific know-how to developing nations on favourable terms, and the establishment of an open, non-discriminatory and equitable trading system to help developing nations increase their exports.
But the most important way of achieving the SDGs was touched upon in the UN press conference: “We will need all partners to make this a success.” Multistakeholder partnerships, involving government, the private sector and civil society, have been described as the “glue” that will hold this process together, and will be the only way of ensuring these incredibly ambitious goals are met.
Have you read?
3 challenges facing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals
How much has global poverty fallen over the past 25 years?
Author: Stéphanie Thomson is an editor at the World Economic Forum.
Image: A boy touches a 45-metre (148-feet) long wall lighted by colour rays at an exhibition hall in Wuhan, central China’s Hubei province May 1, 2007. REUTERS/China Daily

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/what-are-the-sustainable-development-goals/

----------------------------------------

Sustainable development goals: all you need to know

With the UN summit on the sustainable development goals looming, 

find out more about the 17 initiatives that could transform the world by 2030

Activists push an inflatable globe on a march during Rio+20, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 2012. Photograph: Felipe Dana/AP

• The SDGs: changing the world in 17 steps – interactive

■ What are the sustainable development goals?

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) are a new, universal set of goals, targets and indicators that UN member states will be expected to use to frame their agendas and political policies over the next 15 years.
The SDGs follow and expand on the millennium development goals (MDGs), which were agreed by governments in 2001 and are due to expire at the end of this year.

■ Why do we need another set of goals?

There is broad agreement that, while the MDGs provided a focal point for governments – a framework around which they could develop policies and overseas aid programmes designed to end poverty and improve the lives of poor people – as well as a rallying point for NGOs to hold them to account, they were too narrow.

The eight MDGs – reduce poverty and hunger; achieve universal education; promote gender equality; reduce child and maternal deaths; combat HIV, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; develop global partnerships – failed to consider the root causes of poverty and overlooked gender inequality as well as the holistic nature of development. The goals made no mention of human rights and did not specifically address economic development. While the MDGs, in theory, applied to all countries, in reality they were considered targets for poor countries to achieve, with finance from wealthy states. Conversely, every country will be expected to work towards achieving the SDGs.

As the MDG deadline approaches, about 1 billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day – the World Bank measure on poverty – and more than 800 million people do not have enough food to eat. Women are still fighting hard for their rights, and millions of women still die in childbirth.

■ What are the proposed 17 goals?
1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
3) Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages
4) Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
5) Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6) Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
7) Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
8) Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all
9) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation
10) Reduce inequality within and among countries
11) Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
12) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13) Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (taking note of agreements made by the UNFCCC forum)
14) Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
15) Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss
16) Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
17) Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development
Within the goals are 169 targets, to put a bit of meat on the bones. Targets under goal one, for example, include reducing by at least half the number of people living in poverty by 2030, and eradicating extreme poverty (people living on less than $1.25 a day). Under goal five, there’s a target on eliminating violence against women, while goal 16 has a target to promote the rule of law and equal access to justice.

■ How were the goals chosen?

Unlike the MDGs, which were drawn up by a group of men in the basement of UN headquarters (or so the legend goes), the UN has conducted the largest consultation programme in its history to gauge opinion on what the SDGs should include.
Establishing post-2015 goals was an outcome of the Rio+20 summit in 2012, which mandated the creation of an open working group to come up with a draft agenda.
The open working group, with representatives from 70 countries, had its first meeting in March 2013 and published its final draft, with its 17 suggestions, in July 2014. The draft was presented to the UN general assembly in September last year. Member state negotiations followed, and the final wording of the goals and targets, and the preamble and declaration that comes with them, were agreed in August 2015.
Alongside the open working group discussions, the UN conducted a series of “global conversations”. These included 11 thematic and 83 national consultations, and door-to-door surveys. The UN also launched an online My World survey asking people to prioritise the areas they’d like to see addressed in the goals. The results of the consultations were fed into the the working group’s discussions.

■ Are governments happy about the proposed 17 goals?

The majority seem to be, but a handful of member states, including the UK and Japan, aren’t so keen. Some countries feel that an agenda consisting of 17 goals is too unwieldy to implement or sell to the public, and would prefer a narrower brief. Or so they say. Some believe the underlying reason is to get rid of some of the more uncomfortable goals, such as those relating to the environment. Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, has publicly said he wants 12 goals at the most, preferably 10. It’s not clear, though, which goals the UK government would like taken out if they had the choice.
Amina Mohammed, the UN secretary general’s special adviser on post-2015 development planning, said it had been a hard fight to get the number of goals down to 17, so there would be strong resistance to reducing them further.

Some NGOs also believe there are too many goals, but there is a general consensus that it is better to have 17 goals that include targets on women’s empowerment, good governance, and peace and security, for example, than fewer goals that don’t address these issues.

■ How will the goals be measured?

The indicators are still being thrashed out by an expert group. Each indicator is being assessed for its feasibility, suitability and relevance, and roughly two for each target are expected. The indicators are due to be finalised in March 2016. 

■ How will the goals be funded?
That’s the trillion-dollar question. Rough calculations from the intergovernmental committee of experts on sustainable development financing have put the cost of providing a social safety net to eradicate extreme poverty at about $66bn (£43bn) a year, while annual investments in improving infrastructure (water, agriculture, transport, power) could be up to a total of $7tn globally.
In its report last year, the committee said public finance and aid would be central to support the implementation of the SDGs. But it insisted that money generated from the private sector, through tax reforms, and through a crackdown on illicit financial flows and corruption, was also vital.

A major conference on financing for the SDGs, held in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa in July, failed to ease concerns that there will not be enough cash to meet the aspirational nature of the goals. The UN said the Addis Ababa action agenda (AAAA for short) contained “bold measures to overhaul global finance practices and generate investment” for tackling the challenges of sustainable development. It included a recommitment to the UN target on aid spending – 0.7% of GNI – set more than 40 years ago and pledges to collect more taxes and fight tax evasion. But civil society groups were less impressed, saying the summit had failed to produce new money to fund the goals, or offer ways to transform the international finance system. Calls for a new international tax body fell on deaf ears.

■ When will the new goals come into force?
The SDGs will be officially adopted at a UN summit in New York in September, and will become applicable from January 2016. The deadline for the SDGS is 2030.
This article was updated on 3 September 2015

Article source : https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/19/sustainable-development-goals-united-nations

----------------------------------------

What Are the Global Goals — and How Close Are We to Achieving Them?

Experts say the world needs to pick up the pace to achieve the goals by 2030.Share

July 20, 2018 / By Daniele Selby         

---

Why Global Citizens Should Care

Global Citizen’s vision is a world without extreme poverty by 2030. The UN Global Goals are a crucial framework and strategy for seeing that vision through. The goals target the root causes of poverty from gender inequality to food instability to conflict. You can join us by taking action here to call on world leaders to see the Global Goals through and eradicate poverty.

---

It’s not often that politicians all agree on something. But in 2015, leaders from around the world joined together at the United Nations and agreed that we need to take action.

They created a plan to transform the world into one free of poverty and hunger, where every child can go to school, where oceans and forests will be around for future generations to enjoy, and where everyone is equal — all by the year 2030.

In order to realize that vision, they set 17 goals, known as the Sustainable Development Goals or Global Goals. And while 17 goals in 15 years certainly sounds ambitious, every one of those goals is crucial to ending extreme poverty by 2030.

■ 17 Goals to Change the World

The 17 Global Goals — which build off the eight Millennium Development Goals set in 2000 to be fulfilled by 2015 — aim to tackle poverty at its root causes. The goals range from ending hunger and achieving food security to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies.

Image: The Global Goals for Sustainable Development

Each goal is accompanied by several specific targets that hone in on specific strategies to achieve the Global Goals. These include measures like eliminating forced marriage and genital mutilation, increasing the number of qualified teachers worldwide, and increasing energy efficiency.

The Global Goals call on governments, companies, and everyday citizens to join together to address these economic and social development issues to ensure that everyone has access to nutritious food, quality health care, education, clean water, and decent paying work.

How Close Are We to Achieving the Goals?

The goals are lofty, but major progress toward achieving them has already been made.

In the last 30 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty — surviving on less than $1.90 a day — has been reduced by more than 1 billion. Between 1990 and 2010, the global poverty rate was cut in half

Yet over 700 million people

At the its current rate of progress, the world is not on track to meet all 17 of the Global Goals by 2030.

Though quality of life has improved for many people around the world and people are generally leading healthier lives, climate change and conflict have hindered progress on ending hunger and forced displacement.

Nearly 800 million people continue to face hunger regularly and millions of children experience stunting and wasting, developmental conditions related to malnutrition, the UN reported

Approximately 263 million children and youth are out of school, UNESCO reported

And girls are still more likely than boys to never set foot in a classroom, particularly if they come from families living in poverty. Gender inequality is still deeply entrenched in social attitudes and cultures. In 2015, one in four women between the ages of 20 and 24 was married before her 18th birthday, according to UN data

Read more: The World May Miss Its Goal of Ending Child Marriage by 2030

What’s Next?

In order to achieve the Global Goals, experts say efforts must focus on supporting the most vulnerable populations, but leave no one behind. People, as individuals, need to do their part to help combat the effects of climate change and global warming, and use their voices to hold companies accountable for their actions and ensure governments remain committed to the Global Goals.

----------------------------------------

<Questions>

Q1. What are the sustainable development goals?

Q2. SDG goals suggest many agenda in our society which should be dealt with. Do you think which agenda is the most serious item in Korean society?

Q3. Why do we need thoes SDG goals? Is it effective approach?

Q4. Among 17 goals which one is the most urgent agenda to be tackeld for our society?

Q5. Do you take any action to achieve one of the SDG goals? What is that ? Please share your stories.

----------------------------------------

Sheryl Sandberg at TED Women 2010

Why we have too few women leaders

https://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders/transcript

00:12

So for any of us in this room today, let's start out by admitting we're lucky. We don't live in the world our mothers lived in, our grandmothers lived in, where career choices for women were so limited. And if you're in this room today, most of us grew up in a world where we have basic civil rights, and amazingly, we still live in a world where some women don't have them. But all that aside, we still have a problem, and it's a real problem. And the problem is this: Women are not making it to the top of any profession anywhere in the world. The numbers tell the story quite clearly. 190 heads of state -- nine are women. Of all the people in parliament in the world, 13 percent are women. In the corporate sector, women at the top, C-level jobs, board seats -- tops out at 15, 16 percent. The numbers have not moved since 2002 and are going in the wrong direction. And even in the non-profit world, a world we sometimes think of as being led by more women, women at the top: 20 percent.

01:19

We also have another problem, which is that women face harder choices between professional success and personal fulfillment. A recent study in the U.S. showed that, of married senior managers, two-thirds of the married men had children and only one-third of the married women had children. A couple of years ago, I was in New York, and I was pitching a deal, and I was in one of those fancy New York private equity offices you can picture. And I'm in the meeting -- it's about a three-hour meeting -- and two hours in, there needs to be that bio break, and everyone stands up, and the partner running the meeting starts looking really embarrassed. And I realized he doesn't know where the women's room is in his office. So I start looking around for moving boxes, figuring they just moved in, but I don't see any. And so I said, "Did you just move into this office?" And he said, "No, we've been here about a year." And I said, "Are you telling me that I am the only woman to have pitched a deal in this office in a year?" And he looked at me, and he said, "Yeah. Or maybe you're the only one who had to go to the bathroom."

02:26

(Laughter)

02:28

So the question is, how are we going to fix this? How do we change these numbers at the top? How do we make this different? I want to start out by saying, I talk about this -- about keeping women in the workforce -- because I really think that's the answer. In the high-income part of our workforce, in the people who end up at the top -- Fortune 500 CEO jobs, or the equivalent in other industries -- the problem, I am convinced, is that women are dropping out. Now people talk about this a lot, and they talk about things like flextime and mentoring and programs companies should have to train women. I want to talk about none of that today, even though that's all really important. Today I want to focus on what we can do as individuals. What are the messages we need to tell ourselves? What are the messages we tell the women that work with and for us? What are the messages we tell our daughters?

03:23

Now, at the outset, I want to be very clear that this speech comes with no judgments. I don't have the right answer. I don't even have it for myself. I left San Francisco, where I live, on Monday, and I was getting on the plane for this conference. And my daughter, who's three, when I dropped her off at preschool, did that whole hugging-the-leg, crying, "Mommy, don't get on the plane" thing. This is hard. I feel guilty sometimes. I know no women, whether they're at home or whether they're in the workforce, who don't feel that sometimes. So I'm not saying that staying in the workforce is the right thing for everyone.

03:58

My talk today is about what the messages are if you do want to stay in the workforce, and I think there are three. One, sit at the table. Two, make your partner a real partner. And three, don't leave before you leave. Number one: sit at the table. Just a couple weeks ago at Facebook, we hosted a very senior government official, and he came in to meet with senior execs from around Silicon Valley. And everyone kind of sat at the table. He had these two women who were traveling with him pretty senior in his department, and I kind of said to them, "Sit at the table. Come on, sit at the table," and they sat on the side of the room. When I was in college, my senior year, I took a course called European Intellectual History. Don't you love that kind of thing from college? I wish I could do that now. And I took it with my roommate, Carrie, who was then a brilliant literary student -- and went on to be a brilliant literary scholar -- and my brother -- smart guy, but a water-polo-playing pre-med, who was a sophomore.

05:00

The three of us take this class together. And then Carrie reads all the books in the original Greek and Latin, goes to all the lectures. I read all the books in English and go to most of the lectures. My brother is kind of busy. He reads one book of 12 and goes to a couple of lectures, marches himself up to our room a couple days before the exam to get himself tutored. The three of us go to the exam together, and we sit down. And we sit there for three hours -- and our little blue notebooks -- yes, I'm that old. We walk out, we look at each other, and we say, "How did you do?" And Carrie says, "Boy, I feel like I didn't really draw out the main point on the Hegelian dialectic." And I say, "God, I really wish I had really connected John Locke's theory of property with the philosophers that follow." And my brother says, "I got the top grade in the class."

05:49

(Laughter)

05:51

"You got the top grade in the class? You don't know anything."

05:55

(Laughter)

05:57

The problem with these stories is that they show what the data shows: women systematically underestimate their own abilities. If you test men and women, and you ask them questions on totally objective criteria like GPAs, men get it wrong slightly high, and women get it wrong slightly low. Women do not negotiate for themselves in the workforce. A study in the last two years of people entering the workforce out of college showed that 57 percent of boys entering, or men, I guess, are negotiating their first salary, and only seven percent of women. And most importantly, men attribute their success to themselves, and women attribute it to other external factors. If you ask men why they did a good job, they'll say, "I'm awesome. Obviously. Why are you even asking?" If you ask women why they did a good job, what they'll say is someone helped them, they got lucky, they worked really hard. Why does this matter? Boy, it matters a lot. Because no one gets to the corner office by sitting on the side, not at the table, and no one gets the promotion if they don't think they deserve their success, or they don't even understand their own success.

07:11

I wish the answer were easy. I wish I could go tell all the young women I work for, these fabulous women, "Believe in yourself and negotiate for yourself. Own your own success." I wish I could tell that to my daughter. But it's not that simple. Because what the data shows, above all else, is one thing, which is that success and likeability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women. And everyone's nodding, because we all know this to be true.

07:40

There's a really good study that shows this really well. There's a famous Harvard Business School study on a woman named Heidi Roizen. And she's an operator in a company in Silicon Valley, and she uses her contacts to become a very successful venture capitalist. In 2002 -- not so long ago -- a professor who was then at Columbia University took that case and made it [Howard] Roizen. And he gave the case out, both of them, to two groups of students. He changed exactly one word: "Heidi" to "Howard." But that one word made a really big difference. He then surveyed the students, and the good news was the students, both men and women, thought Heidi and Howard were equally competent, and that's good. The bad news was that everyone liked Howard. He's a great guy. You want to work for him. You want to spend the day fishing with him. But Heidi? Not so sure. She's a little out for herself. She's a little political. You're not sure you'd want to work for her. This is the complication. We have to tell our daughters and our colleagues, we have to tell ourselves to believe we got the A, to reach for the promotion, to sit at the table, and we have to do it in a world where, for them, there are sacrifices they will make for that, even though for their brothers, there are not.

08:55

The saddest thing about all of this is that it's really hard to remember this. And I'm about to tell a story which is truly embarrassing for me, but I think important. I gave this talk at Facebook not so long ago to about 100 employees, and a couple hours later, there was a young woman who works there sitting outside my little desk, and she wanted to talk to me. I said, okay, and she sat down, and we talked. And she said, "I learned something today. I learned that I need to keep my hand up." "What do you mean?" She said, "You're giving this talk, and you said you would take two more questions. I had my hand up with many other people, and you took two more questions. I put my hand down, and I noticed all the women did the same, and then you took more questions, only from the men." And I thought to myself, "Wow, if it's me -- who cares about this, obviously -- giving this talk -- and during this talk, I can't even notice that the men's hands are still raised, and the women's hands are still raised, how good are we as managers of our companies and our organizations at seeing that the men are reaching for opportunities more than women?" We've got to get women to sit at the table.

10:03

(Cheers)

10:04

(Applause)

10:07

Message number two: Make your partner a real partner. I've become convinced that we've made more progress in the workforce than we have in the home. The data shows this very clearly. If a woman and a man work full-time and have a child, the woman does twice the amount of housework the man does, and the woman does three times the amount of childcare the man does. So she's got three jobs or two jobs, and he's got one. Who do you think drops out when someone needs to be home more? The causes of this are really complicated, and I don't have time to go into them. And I don't think Sunday football-watching and general laziness is the cause.

10:46

I think the cause is more complicated. I think, as a society, we put more pressure on our boys to succeed than we do on our girls. I know men that stay home and work in the home to support wives with careers, and it's hard. When I go to the Mommy-and-Me stuff and I see the father there, I notice that the other mommies don't play with him. And that's a problem, because we have to make it as important a job, because it's the hardest job in the world to work inside the home, for people of both genders, if we're going to even things out and let women stay in the workforce.

11:21

(Applause)

11:22

Studies show that households with equal earning and equal responsibility also have half the divorce rate. And if that wasn't good enough motivation for everyone out there, they also have more -- how shall I say this on this stage? They know each other more in the biblical sense as well.

11:38

(Cheers)

11:41

Message number three: Don't leave before you leave. I think there's a really deep irony to the fact that actions women are taking -- and I see this all the time -- with the objective of staying in the workforce actually lead to their eventually leaving. Here's what happens: We're all busy. Everyone's busy. A woman's busy. And she starts thinking about having a child, and from the moment she starts thinking about having a child, she starts thinking about making room for that child. "How am I going to fit this into everything else I'm doing?" And literally from that moment, she doesn't raise her hand anymore, she doesn't look for a promotion, she doesn't take on the new project, she doesn't say, "Me. I want to do that." She starts leaning back. The problem is that -- let's say she got pregnant that day, that day -- nine months of pregnancy, three months of maternity leave, six months to catch your breath -- Fast-forward two years, more often -- and as I've seen it -- women start thinking about this way earlier -- when they get engaged, or married, when they start thinking about having a child, which can take a long time. One woman came to see me about this. She looked a little young. And I said, "So are you and your husband thinking about having a baby?" And she said, "Oh no, I'm not married." She didn't even have a boyfriend.

12:56

(Laughter)

12:57

I said, "You're thinking about this just way too early."

13:01

But the point is that what happens once you start kind of quietly leaning back? Everyone who's been through this -- and I'm here to tell you, once you have a child at home, your job better be really good to go back, because it's hard to leave that kid at home. Your job needs to be challenging. It needs to be rewarding. You need to feel like you're making a difference. And if two years ago you didn't take a promotion and some guy next to you did, if three years ago you stopped looking for new opportunities, you're going to be bored because you should have kept your foot on the gas pedal. Don't leave before you leave. Stay in. Keep your foot on the gas pedal, until the very day you need to leave to take a break for a child -- and then make your decisions. Don't make decisions too far in advance, particularly ones you're not even conscious you're making.

13:56

My generation really, sadly, is not going to change the numbers at the top. They're just not moving. We are not going to get to where 50 percent of the population -- in my generation, there will not be 50 percent of [women] at the top of any industry. But I'm hopeful that future generations can. I think a world where half of our countries and our companies were run by women, would be a better world. It's not just because people would know where the women's bathrooms are, even though that would be very helpful. I think it would be a better world. I have two children. I have a five-year-old son and a two-year-old daughter. I want my son to have a choice to contribute fully in the workforce or at home, and I want my daughter to have the choice to not just succeed, but to be liked for her accomplishments.

14:45

Thank you.

14:46

(Applause)

--------------------------------------------------------

Melinda Gates: It's Time for a New Era for Women

This appears in the January 15, 2018 issue of TIME.

Melinda Gates is the co-founder of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

You may never know their names. They work beneath the headlines and far from the spotlight. When they receive formal recognition from bodies like the Nobel Committee, it is the exception, not the norm. But the fact remains: under the radar, grassroots organizations led by women are quietly changing the world.

The year 2017 has been a painful reminder that when men hold most of the power it’s all too easy for them to abuse it. But the moment of reckoning prompted by the “Me Too” conversation has also proven that by coming together and speaking in one voice, women can tip the balance. Thanks to these brave women, men are being held accountable for their actions as never before. It’s easy to dismiss the whispers of one woman. It’s much harder to ignore a movement.

This is a story that repeats itself all over the world. Women’s movements have successfully campaigned for workers’ rights in Pakistan, widows’ rights in Ethiopia and disability rights in Indonesia. They successfully pushed for an end to Liberia’s brutal civil war in 2003 and won suffrage in the U.S. back in 1920. In fact, a 2012 study, published in the American Political Science Review, looking at 70 countries over four decades found that women’s movements were more effective at advancing policy change–particularly on violence against women–than most other factors, including a country’s wealth and the number of women lawmakers in a legislative body. Simply put, women get things done.

Why? For one, women’s movements tend to be driven by people who share a deep, personal stake in the future of their communities. When I talked to Leymah Gbowee, who helped lead the movement that brought peace to Liberia, she told me that part of their success stemmed from the fact that the women she organized weren’t motivated by power or politics in the abstract–it was personal. “It was about our livelihood,” Leymah says.

Not only do women’s movements bring a sense of urgency to the work that they do, their deep knowledge of the customs that shape their communities offers important insight into solutions. When development policies are set from the top down, even though they may be well-intentioned, their impact doesn’t always reach everyone equally. Women’s organizations help drive progress that is more inclusive and sustainable.

What makes their track record even more remarkable is that many local women’s organizations are running on a median budget of just $20,000 a year. Considering their enormous potential to make life better for all of us, I think it’s time we give them a raise.

So here is my pitch: if we want to change the world, we should invest in the people who already are. In 2018 that will mean challenging ourselves to do a better job of finding and funding grassroots women’s movements. Right now, less than 2% of global funding for gender issues goes to local women’s organizations.

In recent years, governments like those in the Netherlands and Canada have invested significant resources in women’s movements, and I hope that others will follow suit. You can be sure that Bill and I will. Over the next three years, our foundation will be investing in women’s funds like Mama Cash and networks like Prospera, which provides financial support to women’s funds and grassroots women’s organizations in over 170 countries, spanning Africa to Asia to Latin America.

Imagine what’s possible if the world decides to partner with these organizers as their allies. Imagine how much more we can accomplish if the women who are doing so much to move the world forward finally have our full support behind them.

I’m hopeful that in 2018, we’ll do more than imagine that future. We’ll start making it a reality.

Article source : http://time.com/5087358/melinda-gates-its-time-for-a-new-era-for-women/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=melinda-gates-external-swap&linkId=46565101

---

Why It’s Time For Men to Step Up For Women Too

This appears in the January 15, 2018 issue of TIME.

I am not a masochist, and clearly as a singer in a rock ‘n’ roll band I prefer the roar of the stadium’s affection to the whistles and boos of town-hall politics. But I must say I quite enjoyed the trouble I got into about a year ago when I was the lone man honored as part of Glamour’s Women of the Year awards. My favorite trash-talking tweet came from a woman who said that in my defense, my glasses did make me look like a 75-year-old granny from Miami. Or another who said it was inspiring how I’d overcome “the adversity of being a millionaire white dude.”

I was aware and I was glad that I was being offered up as a firestarter for a debate the magazine rightly wanted to have about the role of men in the fight for gender equality. It seemed obvious to me that the sex who created the problem might have some responsibility for undoing it. Men can’t step back and leave it to women alone to clean up the mess we’ve made and are still making. Misogyny, violence and poverty are problems we can’t solve at half-strength, which is the way we’ve been operating for a few millennia now.

I say it seemed obvious to me, but if I’m honest, it didn’t always. I have been home-schooled on this issue in a very powerful way by my wife Ali and our two daughters. The news that I was getting Glamour’s first Man of the Year award amped up a conversation in our house–that Eve and Jordan think is the only conversation–about the fact that, as Jordan reminds me, there is nowhere on earth where women have the same opportunity as men. Nowhere. Which has something to do with the fact that around the world, there are 130 million girls who are not in school. That’s so many girls that, if they made up their own country, it would be bigger in population than Germany or Japan.

Denying girls what an education offers–a fair shot, a path out of poverty–means that women can work the land but can’t own it; they can earn the money but can’t bank it. This is why poverty is sexist, as we say, and say loudly, at ONE to anyone listening, especially the world leaders who are supposed to guarantee universal access to education by 2030, the target they set in the Sustainable Development Goals.

There isn’t just room for righteous anger at the injustice of all this, there is a need for it and for outrage at the violence–physical, emotional and legal–that perpetuates it. But there is also, in the facts, room for hope. Because the research is clear–it’s plain on the page and has been proved on the ground–that funding girls’ education isn’t charity but investment, and the returns are transformational.

Give girls just one additional year of schooling and their wages go up almost 12%. Give them as much schooling as boys get and things really start changing. Closing the gender gap in education could generate $112 billion to $152 billion a year for the economies of developing countries. When you invest in girls and women, they rise and they lift their families, their communities, their economies and countries along with them. They rise–and they lead.

That is, unless they continue to be held back and pushed down. Which could be the case. We’ve had a hard lesson over the past year that the march of progress is not inevitable. Sexism is rampant, conscious and unconscious. I’m still working on my own. Hopelessness is running high right now, and cynicism is cresting. But these are things the world can’t afford. There are 130 million girls counting on women and men to get our collective act together, push for better policies and pressure politicians to do more and fund more of what works–things like the Global Partnership for Education, which is due for replenishment early this year.

The key lesson in my own home-schooling is something Ali has been saying to me since we were teenagers: don’t look down on me, but don’t look up to me, either. Look across to me. I’m here. It just may be that in these times, the most important thing for men and women to do is to look across to each other–and then start moving, together, in the same direction. Making education a priority is a way of making equality a priority, and even men with limited vision should see that’s the only way forward.

Bono is the lead singer of the rock band U2 and co-founder of ONE and (RED)

Article source : http://time.com/5087377/why-its-time-for-men-to-step-up-for-women-too/

---------------------------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. Would you describe your life as a woman in your work in Korea society ? How is it different from man's life ? 

Q2. Could you tell the biggest differences between men and women? 

Q3. If one day you woke up and were the opposite sex, what’s the first thing you would do?

And please describe your whole life in opposite sex. 

Q4. If you have a daughter, what would be the biggest worries for her? 

Q5. What is the misogyny? Why is it rampant in our society?

Q6. Do you think your daughter can make her living with equal opportunity without your help? Which means our social system is good enough to support women's independent life sustainable?

Q7. Do you see any systematical problems in your society around you?

Q8. What would be the biggest barriers for women to make her life independent? For instance disturbances originated from the male dominated social system, Politics, misogyny trends, Confucianism, or privileged class?

Q9. If you are a man, would you step up for women's equal opportunity to live as one independent individual equally as men do? 

--------------------------------------------------------

These are the questions one writer says 

can make you fall in love with a stranger

Erin Brodwin / Jan. 13, 2015, 11:23 AM

What if love weren't as passive as we tend to picture it being?

What if, instead of stumbling into it as a result of chance or fate, we actively choose it?

In 1997, State University of New York psychologist Arthur Aron tested the idea that two people who were willing to feel more connected to each other could do so, even within a short time.The experiment is featured prominently in a recent Modern Love column in The New York Times, in which the author pointed to the questions as the springboard into her own romance; more on that here.

For his study, Aron separated two groups of people, then paired people up within their groups and had them chat with one another for 45 minutes. While the first group of pairs spent the 45 minutes engaging in small talk, the second group got a list of questions that gradually grew more intimate.

Not surprisingly, the pairs who asked the gradually more probing questions felt closer and more connected after the 45 minutes were up. Six months later, two of the participants (a tiny fraction of the original study group) even found themselves in love — an intriguing result, though not a significant one.

Here are the 36 questions the pairs in Aron's test group asked one another, broken up into three sets. Each set is intended to be more intimate than the one that came before.

 Question Set 1

1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2. Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3. Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?

4. What would constitute a "perfect" day for you?

5. When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?

6. If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?

7. Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?

8. Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.

9. For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

10. If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?

11. Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.

12. If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?

 Question Set 2

13. If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

14. Is there something that you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?

15. What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

16. What do you value most in a friendship?

17. What is your most treasured memory?

18. What is your most terrible memory?

19. If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?

20. What does friendship mean to you?

21. What roles do love and affection play in your life?

22. Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.

23. How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people’s?

24. How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

 Question Set 3

25. Make three true "we" statements each. For instance, "We are both in this room feeling ______."

26. Complete this sentence: “I wish I had someone with whom I could share _______.”

27. If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.

28. Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.

29. Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.

30. When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?

31. Tell your partner something that you like about them already.

32. What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?

33. If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven’t you told them yet?

34. Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?

35. Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?

36. Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.

Try them out, and let us know what happens.

Article source : http://www.businessinsider.com/questions-psychologist-says-can-make-you-fall-in-love-2015-1?utm_content=buffer0f6cc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

------------------------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What is your definition of LOVE? 

Q2. Why do you love someone? 

Q3. Could you explain changes of your status when you are falling in love? 

Q4. Have you ever loved someone you should not? 

Q5. How do you deal with your relationship when your passionate emotion to your partner is fade away from you? 

Q6. What is your favorite movie or song in terms of love?

Q7. Do you think you can fall in love with a stranger? 

Q8. Could you describe your ideal type? Who is close to your ideal type among celebrities? Why do you select him/her as your ideal type? 

Q9. Please try above 36 questions out with your table members. And please let us know your status. Do you feel more closeness to your table members to fall in love with them? 

--------------------------------------------------------

‘Snowpiercer’ On Our Cold, Class-Stratified Future

ALYSSA ROSENBERG/ JUL 8, 2013, 5:02 PM

I like me some bottle episodes, postapocalypses, innovative action, and Tilda Swinton, so it makes all the sense in the world that I’d be excited for Bong Joon-ho’s Snowpiercer:

But besides the obvious appeal of a lot of people armed with axes preparing for a climactic assault on a train engine room, Snowpiercer is an example of two emerging trends: a vision of the post-apocalypse that’s cold, rather than hot, and the idea that the primary division of the future will be along the lines of class, rather than race or faith.

It’s easy to think that global warming will produce a world that’s simply hotter than the one that we live in now, where melting polar ice caps swamp the coasts and reduce the amount of livable land available to support a growing population. But Snowpiercer is part of a school of fiction that considers another side of that scenario, that global warming could produce not just a uniformly warmer world, but one prone to extreme weather. It’s not yet clear why humanity is living on a continuously moving train in the movie, but it is obvious that the world has gotten dramatically colder, and that it’s not feasible for humanity to support itself on a large scale under those environmental conditions. Anna North’s novel America Pacifica takes place in a world with a similarly polarized climate. Most humans live on tropical islands that have been built out on landfill material, but some survivors live independently in much colder regions of the world. These alternate scenarios offer possibilities not just for new and innovative worldbuilding, as is the case in both of these works, but for meditations on how climate affects society. Cold obviously leads to different styles of dress and poses different challenges to humans who are trying to survive in large-scale settlements, but what happens in a world where some people live in extremely hot climates and others in extremely cold ones, with nothing in between? Who’s more resilient? Who will be more prepared if the climate swings dramatically again.

And Snowpiercer also is part of an even more wide-spread trend that assumes that the primary divide between humans in the future will be along class lines, rather than religious, racial, or even gender-based divides. In this movie, that division is expressed by space: wealthier people live closer to the front of the train, in more luxurious compartments, where they presumably have first dibs on heat generated by the engine, and would be the last to be jettisoned away if the train needed to shed cars to keep up its pace, or to outrace whatever might be compelling its flight. In Neill Blomkamp’s forthcoming Elysium, the divide is even sharper: the poor live on a destroyed and resource-depleted earth, while the wealthy have escaped to a space station that provides them with luxurious accommodations and amenities like robot butlers and high-end health care. Even The Dark Knight Rises depended substantially on the idea that Gotham was primed for class war, an urge that Bane exploited in the early days of his takeover of the city, a framework that ditched the racial implications of Bane’s origin story.

None of this is to say that I think rising income inequality is a problem that we’ll resolve quickly or neatly, and certainly not in the short term. But it’s intriguing, and telling, that there’s some sense that we’ll have largely gotten over racism (or, as is the case in District 9, that we’ll collectively transfer racial animus to crash-landed aliens) that’s in keeping with the idea — really the wishful thinking — that we’re almost over race as an issue in the present day. Even as Egypt is publicly undergoing a crisis occasioned by the alignment of secular rule with military power and a philosophy of governance rooted in religion with the democratic process, there’s something optimistic, and maybe reflective of Hollywood’s lack of publicly-stated religiosity about the idea we’ll have sorted that out that set of problems as well. And God forbid a blockbuster touch the idea that the future might involve a very different power structure along the lines of gender: that radical idea will have to stay in the pages of books like Sherri Tepper’s The Gate To Women’s Country. Income inequality is pressing, but it’s also a hot issue that risks offending very few people. In other words, class issues in the future are perfect for Hollywood in the same way race and gender equality issues are perfect for period pieces.

Article source : https://thinkprogress.org/snowpiercer-on-our-cold-class-stratified-future-d7889f064477/

--------------------------------------------------------

In 'Snowpiercer,' A Never-Ending Train Ride And A Society Badly Off Track

June 29, 20145:03 PM ET

The world has frozen over in the movie Snowpiercer. Set after a climate change disaster, all the action happens aboard a train that has to keep circling the globe for its passengers to stay alive.

The movie itself is uniquely international: Snowpiercer is based on the French graphic novel Le Transperceneige by Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette. It's directed by a Korean auteur and stars Hollywood A-listers including Tilda Swinton and Ed Harris. The movie opened in South Korea last summer. Since then it has played all over the world, and certain Americans have been wildly impatient for Snowpiercer to open here.

What kinds of Americans, you ask? Well, film nerds, science fiction nerds, Tilda Swinton nerds and fans of director Bong Joon-ho.

Grady Hendrix, who co-runs the New York Asian Film Festival, says Bong's movies, such as 2003's Memories of Murder, masterfully subvert genres. "His serial killer movie was actually an amazing movie about Korean history but also delivered the thrills you want in a serial killer movie," he explains.

And Bong's 2006 movie The Host was both a sly critique of American intervention in Korea dating back to the Korean War — and about a giant monster eating people. The Host smashed South Korean box office records and became an international sensation.

So it was hardly a surprise when the director's next big action film — Snowpiercer — was immediately snapped up by Hollywood distributors Bob and Harvey Weinstein.

"Uncle Harvey. We had a long process," Bong wryly remembers during an interview at NPR West in Culver City.

Snowpiercer's U.S. release was delayed for months as Bong and Weinstein — known in the film world as Harvey Scissorhands — wrangled over Weinstein's insistence over cutting 20 minutes from the two-hour film and adding a voice-over. Bong adamantly refused. The international film community rallied behind Bong Joon-ho. Eventually, the Weinsteins agreed to release Snowpiercer intact.

"Their idea to simplify was a very silly one," Hendrix observes. "The movie is incredibly simple. It is a train. The poor people live in the back. The rich people live in the front. And the poor people in back want to get to the front."

Bong says an oppressed underclass rebelling against huge wealth gaps is not exactly science fiction right now. "[It's] similar to Occupy Wall Street in terms of the 99 percent versus the 1 percent," he says. "That's something that happens in other countries and also in Korea."

The film has been getting rave reviews, partly because of Bong's knack for keeping viewers off balance. Take a meditative, dreamlike scene where the freedom fighters pause for a snack in a train car that's also an aquarium and a sushi counter. (Of course, sushi is sort of shorthand for the preferred food of the 1 percent.)

"Outside the window, you can see the frozen ocean, where the fish inside the tanks used to swim," Bong says.

Before the ocean was ruined — partly to make this food. Such pointed, ironic juxtapositions are Bong's stock in trade.

"It's really about having fun with the audience," he explains. "People go to the movies with certain genre conventions in mind. They go to the movies to have certain expectations met. It's always fun to play around with those expectations, to deliver what they came to see, but also give them things they didn't expect."

Like a message about income inequality or environmental cataclysm — in a high-octane summer action flick. That's what Bong delivers — along with violence, explosions and special effects.

Article source : https://www.npr.org/2014/06/29/326154752/in-snowpiercer-a-never-ending-train-ride-and-a-society-badly-off-track

----------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What is the most impressive movie? Why? 

Q2. Did you watch the movie 'Snowfierecer'? What did you feel after watching this movie? 

Q3. Do you think what the Snowfiercer stands for? 

Q4. Do you see any class division issue in Korea? 

Q5. Do you think Korean society guarantee the equal opportunities to reach our own goals without systematical disturbances?

Q6. Assuming that you are in Snowfiercer, where do you reside in this train compartment?

[롤빵-]

안녕하세요 :) 내일 충대 투썸에서 하시죠? ㅎㅎ 내일 방문하고 싶은데
시간이 오전인지 오후인지 헷갈려 연락드립니다 ㅎㅎ - Anna

[Scarlet]

오후입니다.

[Scarlet]

Today, we have a Saturday meeting for Englisholic in Twosome place nearby Sachang cross street.
If you need more precise information, send me a text message. (Scarlett 010-2745-2316)