New York Times does not usually disappoint me. But this article is just ridiculous in how it spoke about empowering women in such a condescending, disjointed, unsupported way. Why is the series titled "Saving the World's Women" when you propose to say in women lie the solution to saving the world? And what are you trying to advocate Kristof? Microfinance, iodine, Heifer International? A magazine article is where you pick one theme and elaborate on it. Instead, you just put a bunch of news articles together. Lastly, where is your support for how these programs help women, data that is in addition to the emotional appeal of the 2 anecdotes?
These are the worst.
But it’s sometimes said in poor countries that the only thing worse than being exploited in a sweatshop is not being exploited in a sweatshop... Strange as it may seem, sweatshops in Asia had the effect of empowering women. One hundred years ago, many women in China were still having their feet bound. Today, while discrimination and inequality and harassment persist, the culture has been transformed. In the major cities, we’ve found that Chinese men often do more domestic chores than American men typically do. And urban parents are often not only happy with an only daughter; they may even prefer one, under the belief that daughters are better than sons at looking after aging parents.
WTF?! No, being exploited in a sweatshop where many women are sexually harrassed, unpaid, put in unliveable living conditions, etc. is like being exploited at home, in the sex or drug industry. It's EXPLOITATION!
Yes, a lot of things have changed in the last 100 years in China, and you hold sweatshop exploitation as the source of women's empowerment?!
The major city husbands and urban parents are not the ones with daughters in sweatshops.
How did you think it was a good idea to put 5 separate ideas into one paragraph?
Likewise, there’s growing evidence that a cheap way to help keep high-school girls in school is to help them manage menstruation. For fear of embarrassing leaks and stains, girls sometimes stay home during their periods, and the absenteeism puts them behind and eventually leads them to drop out. Aid workers are experimenting with giving African teenage girls sanitary pads, along with access to a toilet where they can change them.
For all the legitimate concerns about how well humanitarian aid is spent, investments in education, iodizing salt and maternal health all have a proven record of success.
What do you mean by "a proven record of success"? What are the strings attached to this aid? How are their negative impacts: strings attached (no large donor ever just want to "help people"), US corporations expanding their markets at the expense of distorting and eliminating local ones, 'proven record of' paternalistic / condescending / self-interest driven foreign policy effective?
Yes, women need to be empowered and talked about. But when you take an issue rampant with power imbalance, economic distortions, conflicting interests, geographical and historical legacies, etc. and address only the superficial issues, you are misleading readers Kristof. You make them think it is a naive, simple problem. If they are persuaded (I don't see how any thinking person would be), they may undertake actions that not only do not help, but exacerbate the problem. The end result is likely a worsened problem, and those who could have been reformers turned disilusioned and ineffective.
I suggest you rewrite this 8 page article focusing on one silver-bullet Kristof. Take your pick on how to realistically realize iodinized salt, obstetric fistula. Microfinance, sanitary pads, sweatshops, Heifer are out. What do you want us to get out of it? If you want us to write our congresspeople or pick up the Do-It-Yourself Foreign Aid kit that you advocate, say so. If you just want us to know about the issue, say that and don't present it in this naive, misleading way.
Your assertions that being "exploited in a sweatshop where many women are sexually harrassed, unpaid, put in unliveable living conditions, etc" is not fair.
ReplyDeleteI don't deny these things do happen, but for the most part, these factory workers are being paid a market wage at which they voluntarily sign on for. They are choosing to leave their rural homes for the urban, factory jobs.
And what are "unliveable living conditions"? Maybe lousy by American standards, but what realistic alternatives do these poor migrant workers have? Furthermore, labor law enforcement is improving in China.
And I'm sure Kristof can provide empirical data for the claims he makes in the article. Demagogue he is not.
Hi, thank you for the comment. We should talk more about this. But first, who are you?
ReplyDeleteYou don't know me. I read many China-related blogs and accidentally stumbled onto this one.
ReplyDeleteI'm a recent college grad with a background in economics and finance, which I guess helps explain why I reacted the way I did when I came across this post.
I also really like Kristof's articles in the NYT so felt obliged to rise to his defence :)