|
Hi Gail,
I think of the German response to the problem of
religious persecution after the holocaust. They give all
recognized religions a religious subsidy and help them meet the needs of their
people. One of my Rabbi students was shocked to find the
German government supporting the Synagogue in Berlin after she visited
Auschwitz. The government also helped in telling the story of
the camps as well. Their values changed.
I think it is an issue of value.
Are mothers valuable to children? If so, then pay them for
their work. Sally has made the point that there is truly a
glut of labor if you make the labor sector efficient through the use of
machines and all night factories and the full use of information
technologies. No one on this list seems to understand the
implicit contract between business and the American government to supply "make
work" to people doing useless jobs that are redundant and serve no purpose and
indeed contribute to the glut of product that is a part of the recession
cycle. But if you don't pay people to work then what do you pay them
for? And if you don't pay them and there are no jobs then
they starve. Sally has tried to get this discussion started many
times but it has died on the vine.
Now might be a good time to take the labor glut
seriously. And talk about a tax system that stresses private
efficiency and pays people a minimum living standard in order to "allow" them to
seek out the best work that fits their potential. People could
elect to work just for riches or they could elect to develop their minds and
supply the creative engine of the society. Women who wanted to
work as mothers could "work" as mothers and women who wanted to work in the
system could choose that. But either way they could be given regular
support and testing that would make sure that they complied with contemporary
standards in such jobs. Many would not like such a bureaucracy
and could opt out if they chose but it is not impossible to imagine another way
if we just think seriously about it. We can blame genes all we would
like but most of those complaints the current situation in public goods and
necessary unpaid work are basically an admittance of failure and an attempt
to find an excuse. A deficiency in the concept of value when limited
only to monetary value.
Perhaps we can now get on with a discussion about
the Future of Work and come up with interesting possibilities.
Some will not be interested and they can discuss
other things but the value of work and how you define it (out of the 19th
century models that this list has been stuck on for too long) could be a very
good thing. Public Goods, Free Riders, corporate power, local
control, education, health care, child care, manufacturing, game
mini-wars, etc. are all fragments of a society. I would argue that
we have existed too long in the fragments of 19th century Utilitarian
logic. That the time has come for us to explore, at least on
paper, other ways.
That is why I have been solidly against joining the
logic of Harry's "desires." I argue that the language and
maybe even the elements of that way is bankrupt and in need of a new
translation. Even the language is stale. It
assumes fault where there is just evolution. Mistakes and
incorrect answers where the questions themselves are culture and time
bound. Bankers are stuck and the Yugoslavia solution to the
loans made to the country was Bosnia, Kosovo and 50 years of cultural
homeostasis gone down the tube. I'll never forget a dancer in my company
from Slovenia saying in the most bewildered voice: "Why are they
fighting? We are all family!" Except the old ways
came out when the economy was destroyed by the loan payments to the
International Bankers. That's the Yugoslavian model.
Death and societal destruction.
I would argue that it is not necessary and is
satanic. Do I sound like a Mullah? Societies where
the fragment is more important that the whole are insane and the propagation and
encouragement of insanity is satanic. That's my opinion.
Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 8:02
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Workloads
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....
|
