As has been recognized in recent years, gender and economics are not independent of one another. Women are playing an ever-larger role in the economy at the same time as we acknowledge that much of their work goes unrecognized in the economy. Moghadam discusses economics using a gender perspective and brings up some interesting points. One point which is very important is that, while women are gaining employment in many fields, this has not occurred in conjunction with a redistribution of domestic and child-care duties. At the same time, many of the jobs that women take on are of the type that maximizes profits for employers (while not necessarily benefiting the worker in the same ways as would normal, full-time work). For example, women are more likely than men to work in “temporary, part-time, casual, and home-based” jobs. Therefore, I would argue that women’s employment is still namely used to benefit men. Women must still serve men by undertaking the unpaid household labor, which requires them to also take the paid positions which have the least power and status but are at the same time beneficial to their (usually male) employers. In addition, since women are certainly still receiving less income, due both to the wage gap and to the fact that women are somewhat limited to part-time and other lower-status work, they earn lower wages and salaries than men and therefore remain subjugated in their marriages and other relationships with men. This is just an expansion of some of Moghadams’s points that I found most interesting.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Gender and the Global Economy: Moghadam
White Privilege and Male Privilege: McIntosh
As women, we often like to think about how men are privileged and we consider ourselves the victims, the powerless. However, as we discussed in class today, people are members of many different groups and categories, and are likely to be privileged in some and oppressed in others. For many women such as myself, we are also highly privileged in that we belong to the white racial category. Peggy McIntosh holds a very interesting discussion about the parallels between male privilege and white privilege. In the end, though, she questions why privilege is even termed a positive concept. I would have to agree with her that, while privilege does afford countless opportunities and that most people, myself included, would certainly rather be part of the privileged, empowered group in any given situation, there are so many negative aspects to privilege too. Of course, privilege leads to many people treating others carelessly, inconsiderately, and even violently. These are actions that we have control over and that many people do not participate in on a conscious level, although those who are privileged may not always recognize when they act in such ways. As McIntosh mentions, when you recognize your privilege you are faced with the quandary of what you can really do to change the situation, and the challenge of what is the most moral and reasonable way to approach your privilege. Would you turn down a job if one of the other candidates were from the unprivileged group? This seems impractical, and certainly there is no way to know who would have gotten the job without privilege. This is especially difficult considering that privilege has effects on us all through our lives, affecting our chances and opportunities from the very start. What then, is the best way to strive for equality once you have recognized your own privilege? This is one of the big questions I was left with after reading this article and certainly one I will continue to grapple with.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Oppression By Choice
Ann Cudd writes that women are indeed oppressed, but as a result of their own choices. Although Cudd concludes that these choices are rational based on the situations women find themselves in, one of the biggest questions in her article is how much of a choice women actually have. That is, while women always have a choice, all of women’s choices tend to have negative outcomes, and they are usually coerced, in one way or another, to choose the one that has the least negative repercussions for others, but the most negative repercussions for themselves. As an example, Cudd discusses the situations of a woman who must stay at home and take care of the children while her husband works. Although the woman and her husband believe in equality, the choice is rational as a result of the wage gap. The long-term consequences of this action, and the fact that oppression is still so prevalent economically, really got to me the most. It seems like what needs to happen is a legal, structural change in which employers are required to pay women the same amount as men. The interesting part about this? There is a law, its called the Equal Pay Act and it was signed into law way back in 1963!!
Oppression: Marilyn Frye
Marilyn Frye discusses how the term oppression applies to women and refutes some popular claims for why women are not oppressed. I really enjoyed her discussion of why men opening doors for women is not a favor but is actually a form of oppression. I, like many women, tend to perceive men opening doors for women to be a polite and, in today’s society, even chivalrous deed. Although I would never want someone to believe that I could not open a door for myself, I generally take the deed in a positive manner. However, Frye explains the phenomenon in a different way. She says that, because men do not help women in situations where they actually need it, and because the act of opening the door is not determines by practicality but are a symbolic gesture that belittles women by casting them as incapacitated. Although I can see Frye’s point and I especially agree that it is curious how men rarely (although, I would argue, certainly not always), fail to help women when they actually need it, I am somewhat skeptical of her argument. I did a couple of internet searches to explore some other points of view and it became clear that while some individuals perceive chivalrous acts as sexist, others see them as a sign of respect for women. Although I, as a feminist, agree with many aspects of Frye’s argument, I also think that one could easily make a convincing argument of how opening doors for women and other such actions amounts to respect. After all, if women are so busy constantly cleaning up after men in the home, it only seems right that men should sometimes do something for women!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Western Bangladesh and Microfinance
I can’t decide how I feel about microfinance after Thursday’s class. Before, everything I had read about microfinance made me feel that it was a really great method for development and empowering women on a grassroots level. It seemed like such a simple and logical approach that I was always amazed at how well it seemed to work, but never really challenged those perceptions.
The movie we watched about women’s microfinance in Bangladesh only solidified my opinion. Then Dr. Pelkey was kind enough to come in and talk to us about some of his own experiences with microfinance projects. Based on his knowledge, microfinance is actually successful in only a select few cases, and in most situations, the moneylenders get rich off the money they loan the women while the women just become indebted and fearful of their moneylenders (usually men). At first I really did not appreciate my perceptions of microfinance being trumped on, considering that the women may be better off than they were originally, and are at least being challenged to empower themselves. It does raise the question, though, if women are told that this is guaranteed to empower them and then it only makes them feel more endangered and helpless, maybe it will discourage those women from ever stepping out of their traditional gender roles again.
I think it may be possible that microfinance is a good thing when it is combined with the correct oversight and leadership training programs, and especially when the moneylenders are not looking to charge exorbitant interest or get rich off of the loans of poor people. It would be interesting to see how these projects are different from ones in which women have the group among themselves and all contribute their own money to a savings that they can each loan from as needed.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
How Feminism Transformed Advertising
This article discusses the ways in which feminism has changed modern-day advertising. I found the article especially interesting because, for my GRE Prep course, just yesterday I wrote an essay about the media creating, rather than reflecting, the values of a society. This article is taking the opposite approach, and after thinking about both perspectives, I believe that the media takes a balanced approach, with television, movies, and books shaping our values to some degree, by gradually exposing us to new ideas and values, while advertising is more likely to reflect those values we hold. After all, for us to buy their products, advertisers really have to focus on those ideals that we find attractive or desirable.
This article makes some really good points about how woman are now seen as more independent than in the past. I thought the examples about female hygiene products, and how advertisements for these are now aimed at independent, active women rather than women concerned with only their role in the home, were especially effective. One piece I thought the article failed to recognize was the detrimental effects of the sexualization of advertising directed towards or portraying women, and the strict beauty ideals reinforced in these images. Often, these advertisements do not reflect the values of individuals but reflect an aspiration that is valued by our society as a whole. This advertising tends to objectify women rather than empowering them.
