Comments on: Short Summaries and Tie-In http://globalfeminismspsci264.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/short-summaries-and-tie-in/ Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:51:18 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Farhana http://globalfeminismspsci264.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/short-summaries-and-tie-in/#comment-177 Farhana Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00:51 +0000 http://globalfeminismspsci264.wordpress.com/?p=172#comment-177 These readings once again show us that there can be no half measures in the realization of our freedom and rights. Throughout these readings we see how people's unfulfilled economic rights, whether to free and fair trade (or sale of their labor) (Enloe), the right to own and dispose of property (Kevane and Gray), to access tools of communication (Youngs), or to be free from exploitation by corporations that strangle the political process through economic clout (Wright) hinder their freedom. If it is at all possible to talk of degrees of unfreedom, then I would think that it is inversely proportional to equality. I seems that as economic inequality grows, so does people's unfreedom. Free trade is no longer fair when there is a lopsided relationship between giant corporations and lobbies that push the interests of a minority capitalist class at the expense of millions of people. This is why I think that Adam Smith was right when he cautioned against collusion, and perhaps saw a place for state regulation of the economy. With MNCs I am sure he would advocate some regulation through IFIs. Sen is clear that the relationship between individual freedom and achieving social development is not a purely constitutive relationship, but rather that social development is the driving force of freedom; what people can achieve depends on how many of, and to what extent, their rights are fulfilled. I was somewhat irritated by the title of Kevane and Gray's paper, because it was misleading. The title seemed to suggest that women in Burkina Faso had to sleep their way to gain some access to land, and that was clearly not the case in all instances, and women's access to land in general was in fact changing. These readings once again show us that there can be no half measures in the realization of our freedom and rights. Throughout these readings we see how people’s unfulfilled economic rights, whether to free and fair trade (or sale of their labor) (Enloe), the right to own and dispose of property (Kevane and Gray), to access tools of communication (Youngs), or to be free from exploitation by corporations that strangle the political process through economic clout (Wright) hinder their freedom.

If it is at all possible to talk of degrees of unfreedom, then I would think that it is inversely proportional to equality. I seems that as economic inequality grows, so does people’s unfreedom. Free trade is no longer fair when there is a lopsided relationship between giant corporations and lobbies that push the interests of a minority capitalist class at the expense of millions of people.

This is why I think that Adam Smith was right when he cautioned against collusion, and perhaps saw a place for state regulation of the economy. With MNCs I am sure he would advocate some regulation through IFIs.

Sen is clear that the relationship between individual freedom and achieving social development is not a purely constitutive relationship, but rather that social development is the driving force of freedom; what people can achieve depends on how many of, and to what extent, their rights are fulfilled.

I was somewhat irritated by the title of Kevane and Gray’s paper, because it was misleading. The title seemed to suggest that women in Burkina Faso had to sleep their way to gain some access to land, and that was clearly not the case in all instances, and women’s access to land in general was in fact changing.

]]> By: dpage88 http://globalfeminismspsci264.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/short-summaries-and-tie-in/#comment-176 dpage88 Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:29:51 +0000 http://globalfeminismspsci264.wordpress.com/?p=172#comment-176 I would like to add my own synthesis of the 5 articles. Sen binds all of the other articles together by stating that the usually narrowly defined term of development should be expanded to include freedoms to prosper, freedom from despondency and other deprivations. Then Wright chimes in by stating how groups can be marginalized by having companies target their communities for building dangerous chemical plants, because they are often less influential, minority communities. Enloe describes how globalized economies unfairly target the bodies and labor of Asian women who work long hours in factories (obeying the tradition of subservience towards their husbands) in order to provide for their families. Young explains how communication technologies, which are crucial in order to function in our globalized societies, are gendered and feminists need to be alert towards women's access to technology and use the internet well for their purposes, fighting marginalization. Finally, Kevane & Gray detail how land rights are gendered in Burkina Faso and women have the right to cultivate, but men have all of the rights when it comes to buying/selling land, which deprives women of their ability to participate in the economy as much as men. All of these articles together illustrate the path that the world's women's rights movements should be walking on: promoting freedoms of access to the market place, technology, a safe place to live, and to have their labor be fair and respectful of their bodies. All of these freedoms are crucial in the integrating of nations' economies that we call globalization. I would like to add my own synthesis of the 5 articles. Sen binds all of the other articles together by stating that the usually narrowly defined term of development should be expanded to include freedoms to prosper, freedom from despondency and other deprivations. Then Wright chimes in by stating how groups can be marginalized by having companies target their communities for building dangerous chemical plants, because they are often less influential, minority communities. Enloe describes how globalized economies unfairly target the bodies and labor of Asian women who work long hours in factories (obeying the tradition of subservience towards their husbands) in order to provide for their families. Young explains how communication technologies, which are crucial in order to function in our globalized societies, are gendered and feminists need to be alert towards women’s access to technology and use the internet well for their purposes, fighting marginalization. Finally, Kevane & Gray detail how land rights are gendered in Burkina Faso and women have the right to cultivate, but men have all of the rights when it comes to buying/selling land, which deprives women of their ability to participate in the economy as much as men. All of these articles together illustrate the path that the world’s women’s rights movements should be walking on: promoting freedoms of access to the market place, technology, a safe place to live, and to have their labor be fair and respectful of their bodies. All of these freedoms are crucial in the integrating of nations’ economies that we call globalization.

]]>