I'm not entirely sure if I agree with the point I'm about to make, but I've been thinking about it a lot.
Charlie Huenemann, a professor on campus, made the point that power cannot be given, it can only be taken. In terms of women in development, I think this means that external forces (even well-meaning women outside the culture) cannot give power to women within another culture.
I don't think this is a good excuse for inaction; it should inform our approach. Women are more likely to take power if they have better economic opportunities, and that's a necessary (but, perhaps, not sufficient) condition that we can effect. These financially powerful women will do the work to ensure that top-down or legal changes take place, and they'll keep taking power.
I guess I buy it: you can't give someone power, we can only encourage people to take it for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The only thing I would add to your point is that it is not solely the economic issues that oppress women. Its not uncommon when a woman will have economic freedom in a society as well as in some political aspects, but then become oppressed in familial matters such as divorce and inheritance rights. Jordan is a prime example of this. And we shouldn't use their right to a job and financial stability as recompense for mistreatment in their personal lives.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you: power is one thing that can not be given. But, frankly no dollar amount is going to ensure a woman remains fairly-treated in a society. It WILL take institutional change, and when an institution has sole unitary power this change is going to be more difficult than we think. Granted, in a state which lacks a stable institution women are likely going to be able to achieve change without that top-down institutional change, but in a situation where women have economic and political freedom and still experience oppression, paychecks take backseat to civil mistreatment.