|
Hi Ray,
A useful set of thoughts.
It does seem to me that the program of the World
Bank and UNIFEM emerges from the Western (what you call the Yugoslav?)
attitude to "development." This values the woman in the labour market but places
little value on the woman in the home.
Also I agree that "allowing," (as Carl Rogers made
popular in non-directive therapy) is generally preferable to being
directive. Pursuing this thought with respect to gender might lead
to those women who desired it being "allowed" to become educated or to
stay at home; to do only what they regarded as a fair share of the housework; to
eschew classrooms where males were clearly hegemonic; etc.
Millions of women would surely face barriers from
their spouse, their families and their society were they to adopt the stance
that they should be "allowed" such activity. "Being allowed" then clearly
needs to come into play -- and then we find ourselves back in the
programmatic, do we not? The Bank, and western programs of development,
intervening to enable, support and encourage changes in the social environment
for women.
It seems to me that the situation is a
conundrum more than a "sub-text or subversion of desires" as you
suggest. I don't quarrel that "the long way around" is often better
than the direct route. However, "creating an ability for people to
flourish through 'allowing' things to happen" as you suggest, is also
programmatic? And it is so whether done personally, (e.g. by a
parent or friend), or by the World Bank?
That said, then it seems to me that your comments
point to a deeper issue, whether seeking "equality" or anything
else)? When is it legitimate for any of us to intervene in
the lives of others and, if ever, then how should it be done? Do we need to
shift the women's issue from the bureaucratic action by the World Bank
to another dimension, e.g. caring and loving spouses, families and cultures, and
how might that be done non-programmatically? (I assume that you did not have in
mind either the churches or NGO's when you spoke of the Bank as perhaps a wrong
model or institution: what did you have in mind?)
You dismiss your comments as "not very practical"
but it seems to me they are -or are potentially so -- they point to the
questions we need to be asking.
Gail
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 3:28
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Workloads
Hi Gail,
Might this not be a condition of attitude on the
part of the bankers? The beginning is intent and intent is
grounded in the language we use. I always liked the basis for
creativity grounded in the Hebrew Genesis. In the beginning
the original Creator stepped out into the universe and "Allowed" light to
happen and it happened.
If instead of "treating" people, an active
thought, but creating an ability for people to florish through "allowing"
things to happen, a more "passive" thought and using the "active" only in
the case of criminal conduct, then perhaps we could come up with a
different way. In Latin based English grammar the
passive is considered poor English. Might we not be dealing with a
sub-text or "killer assumption" here grounded in our very genius that subverts
our desires?
Too often the Yugoslav model or the most
expedient model is used rather than a more long term development
model. I'm not sure how you do that but there are examples in the
other professions of such things succeeding. I suspect the problem
is with the term "bank". Perhaps that is the wrong
model and institution to go about the world helping people. Or
maybe they should be a part of such an activity rather than leading
it. Just some thoughts on the matter. Not very
practical but maybe useful for further discussion.
Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:15
PM
Subject: [Futurework] Workloads
Speaking of work and and
trade, here is an item posted this
AM to another list.
I'd be interested in comments. Do you
think these are reasonable objectives for the World Bank and UN? Do you see
around you or in your own life evidence of their accomplishment?
The fourth objective of UNIFEM gives
me some trouble, at least until the third and fifth are advanced --
otherwise it seems to me that we get wage distortions that affect
international trade, possibly reducing rather than enhancing the general
welfare. Wage inequities produced by "discrimination per se"
carry a continuing odour of slavery? Nor, I think, is the problem
confined to women but is conspicuous there and links with other issues,
e.g. caring for children, health, population,
etc.
What think you? How is the issue
developing in your own surroundings?
Gail
This Friday's NOW with Bill Moyers focused on how women are faring in
the global economy, with Vandana Shiva explaining in a live interview
how globalization increases women's workloads. For those who missed the
show, the NOW site on pbs.org http://www.pbs.org/now/ is worth a
visit. cheers, Penney Sample: Rich World, Poor Women: Women and
Work There is an old saying that you can judge a society by the way
it treats its women. In the last several decades many world organizations
have signed on to that belief making improvements in the status of women
among their highest priorities. The World Bank's Millennium Development
Goals put it broadly: "Goal Number 3: Promote gender equality and empower
women." UNIFEM, the United Nation's Development Fund for Women lays out
the road to progress in greater detail: * Women's
share of seats in legislative bodies should reach 50%
* The ratio between girls' and boys' school enrollment rates should
be one to one * Average female weekly earnings as
percentage of male weekly earnings should equal
100% * Women's share of paid employment in the
non-agricultural sector should be expanded * Men
and women should spend an equal number of hours on unpaid
housework Political power, education, type of work all these factors
have an influence on women's economic power....
|
