I'm taking a class this year called Gender, Culture, and Power in a Global Context. For a summer assignment we read a phenomenal book called Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into
The first thing I want to mention goes with a quality of this book that I love, which is that it explains how oppression of women isn't just a "women's issue." It talks about the ways in which giving women more control over money and over their own lives can improve an entire nation's economic growth and health, and the fact that fortune 500 companies that have more women in positions of high power make more money, because those companies are generally more open to innovation and change. One part I was uncomfortable with, though, was when the authors mentioned that a family in the discussed cultures is more likely to prosper when a wife has more control over finances. I found it comical but somehow simple and obvious that, when in charge of money, a wife is more likely to invest in her children's education or buy healthy foods to keep the family well-fed, whereas the men are more likely to spend recklessly on impulsive goods, even though, as the book pointed out, it's not a very politically-correct claim. I still have trouble reconciling this logical idea with my reluctance to place gender norms and assumptions such as "men are bad spenders" and "women are good spenders," though. To justify it, I'm inclined to look at nature vs. nurture, and I think it definitely still makes sense this way because of the way men and women are raised where these studies took place. In a culture when boys are rewarded growing up much more often than girls are and are expected to take on violent roles of dominance, the cultural norm is for men to be bred to be impulsive, and take their accomplishments and rewards for granted. It seems to me as though they are given instant gratification for things they want growing up, and so they want instant gratification from their earnings. On the other hand, the girls learn their whole lives to control their impulses and act carefully and logically in order to avoid punishment. They are not given as much, and so they learn the immense value of a little bit, which can go a long way. Of course, this is not an expert analysis, but it is my rough idea of why women and men might prove to be very different in their spending, besides the mere statement that "men cannot invest wisely" and "women are naturally wise spenders." In the end, though, it's interesting how freedom of women improves an entire society, and not just the women! I wish this would come up more often is discussions of women's rights around the world; I think the movement would gain more supporters(especially non-female supporters) that way.
Another thing that troubled me was the way that the authors seemed to take a clear, almost political stance in part of the second chapter. They talked about how best to deal with prostitution: either by legalizing it and therefore working to be able to regulate it more efficiently, or to make it illegal and stage crackdowns. The book makes it clear that the authors believe crackdowns are the most effective way to make any progress, breaking its generally neutral stance throughout the book. Although the authors may not be partial to legalizing and regulating prostitution, there are certainly experts who believe that that method is effective, and others who are equally as critical of the method of crackdowns. We see in the book that, although in many places it is difficult to effectively regulate legal prostitution and make sure it isn't forced, often the first method is very helpful with other important goals such as curbing the spread of disease, because aid groups can more easily distribute condoms to the girls in the brothels. On the other hand, while we see in the book that crackdowns can potentially be effective in freeing at least some of the prostitutes, without effective rehabilitation and follow-through, many of them will return to the brothels before long. Both methods have the potential to be both effective and ineffective, and both are worthy of being discussed in a unbiased manner. I, personally, do not know which would work better, and have not done the extensive research necessary to make a well-informed decision. I was simply turned off by the way that the authors dismissed one method and clearly supported another, when it seems to be a fairly controversial and equal battle between the two. I wish the readers had been given the facts, as well as the opportunity to decide for ourselves what was best.
When all's said and done, though, I think Nicholas Kristof and Sheryn WuDunn did a great job here of covering a wide range of topics and making compelling arguments for each one. These are two complaints among a few more, but by no means do I want to give the impression that the whole thing is problematic. The book was logical and emotional at the same time, and it also really makes you want to do good research before donating money to any organization that's working toward a good cause. It helps you to realize how complicated and multi-layered many issues are around the world, and how we have to tread extremely carefully if we want to enact the greatest amount of effective, lasting change. It gives you a bit of a better idea of what effective, lasting change tends to look like, and makes you want to do something to make that happen. Despite what I believe to be some flaws, I would definitely recommend it.
Love,
Moriah
Book mentioned in this post:
Kristof, Nicholas, and WuDunn Sheryl. Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. New York: Vintage Books, 2010.
