Gender, Capitalism and Globalization - Literature review Example

901635 – WOMEN’S AND GENDER STUDIES MIDTERM EXAM PART SECTION I Hegemonic Masculinity In the opinion of Acker, hegemonic masculinity could be explained as a practice, rather than a concept, that confirms that men have a social dominance over women. Specifically, Acker sees who worlds within one, where males are given dominion over females, and that, females are to serve as subordinates to males. By this, men are given much preferential treatments and favoritism when they come at par with women in social issues that have to do with occupation, class and power. As far s hegemonic masculinity is concerned, there is an unfortunate situation where the only times that, women are seen to come up top is when it has to do with issues of social labor and subordination. In sum, hegemonic masculinity is an unfair social treatment of females as against males. To a larger argument, there are ways that Acker presents the topic or issue of hegemonic masculinity. For example, Acker argues that hegemonic masculinity to the phenomenon that has led to an existing interrelated situation with gender, class and race. In effect, hegemonic masculinity does not function in isolation, or in relationship male and female issues alone. Rather, hegemonic masculinity is to blame for a number of social dissatisfying complains about race and class. What this implies is that hegemonic masculinity functions more in certain given racial backgrounds and among people of certain classes than others. On the other hand, hegemonic masculinity is also the reason that races with dominant demographic biases for females suffer higher discrimination as against males. Until such a time that hegemonic masculinity will be scrapped, more and more women in certain races and classes will continue to suffer discrimination. Acker gives specific example with the African American race to explain how gender, race and class are all related to hegemonic masculinity. She says that more women of African American decent are relegated to the background in society because of hegemonic masculinity. The implication outside the book is that more and more women will continue to belong to the lower class if hegemonic masculinity is not addressed from a holistic perspective. 2. Means of Provisioning Joan Acker defines provisioning as including “production for market, and for immediate use, of products and processes, including care giving, as well as various forms of exchange and distribution” (Acker, 55). Provisioning there has to do with a power that people gain over the economy that helps in making them independent and free from depending on others. With this understanding, means of provisioning has been defined by Joan Acker as the actual mechanisms that bring about personal power over the economy or market. Acker has used means of provisioning in a larger term to relate to class and capitalism. She for example explains that it is for the reason of uneven distribution of means of provisioning that there are as many classes of people as could be exemplified to include “manual working class, service and clerical working class, middle class”. In other words, the level of means of provisioning possessed by a person outlines how well the person lives in the eyes of people in society and thus how society will place the person under a given class. For those in the capitalist class, Acker sees them as being in the large and heterogeneous group who has control over the means of provisioning (Acker, 68). From the book, Acker gives an example of how means of provisioning brings about inequalities among people. A typical example of this inequality is given with class inequality, leading to inequalities between families. To this end, Acker states that “this focus obscures differences between from family members in access to and control over the means of provisioning in both paid work and in intra-family exchange.” This example can be expanded to the larger world outside the book to imply that there will continue to be individual differences among people of difference backgrounds depending on the effort that the people put in their own lives. 3. Corporate Nonresponsibility In the opinion of Acker, corporate non-responsibility is a process rather than an event. What this means is that corporate non-responsibility goes on among world acclaimed corporations and organizations on a daily basis and through programmed mechanisms to ensure that the need to claim responsibility for the personal growth of employees is taken away from the corporations. To this end, corporations seek corporate non-responsibility as to gain “opportunities for production and gain without challenges to non-responsibility probably constitute a major incentive from rich, capitalist countries to poorer, low-wage locations” (Acker, 98). To a lager argument, Acker claims that corporate non-responsibility has become a globalised phenomenon or situation whereby poorer and less fortunate people are used by rich and well endowed corporations and companies to continue to amass riches. This is because in most cases, the strategies used in shifting responsibilities from these people are unclear and hardly noticed. An example is given with how corporate non-responsibility is used to reinforce responsibilities in households for survival and caring works of most women, as a refusal to adhere to this would mean that they will lose their opportunities to become economically viable. This term teaches and implies that most corporate programs and structuring are not done with the welfare of the employee in mind, even though this is the idea that employers would generally want to post to employees. For employees in the lower class who want to seek personal success therefore, it is important that they look into their personal competences and talents to identify ways of making worth for themselves. This is far better than relying on corporations and companies, who are already well to do and financially established. 4. Unpaid Labor/reproductive labor Acker views and defines unpaid labor or reproductive labor as an activity or work that is done within the household and not quantified for its payment value. To this end, such labor is performed without any pay for them. Examples of these are child rearing, cooking and cleaning that is done at home. In the opinion of Acker, unpaid labor is a means by which men indirectly control the pay of women and deny women from getting what is legally due them. It is therefore said that unpaid labor is the root of male dominance. To a larger argument, Acker uses the term of unpaid labor or reproductive labor to exemplify an era in society where the idea of core responsibilities of couples in the marital home needs to be reconsidered as it is unfair against women. This is because according to her, even though most men give out housekeeping money, the monies they give can in no way be equated to the amount of work that women are made to produce out of it. But among the roles that women perform, she admits that unproductive labor may either be commodified or not. She uses child care as an example, stating that “child care is a major, if not the worst low-paid industry.” The arguments that Acker makes about reproductive labor can be expanded to the larger world to have several implications in the day to day living of married couples. For example, it is important that the legal system continues to protect women in cases of divorce against unaccounted reproductive labor. This is to say that because of the nature of reproductive labor that most women do for their husbands, in cases of divorce, there must be a means of obliging the man to pay for the services received from the woman through the sharing of property. 5. Inequality regimes By Acker’s definition, inequality regimes is an answer to the question of mutual reproduction of class, gender and racial relations of inequality, as well as an answer to the question of barriers to creating equality in work organizations (quote). This is because from her perspective, inequalities of regimes is an approach the helps in the understanding of how inequalities arise in any work organization. To a larger argument, Acker opines that the term of inequality regimes is useful in creating an understanding of a cause to a problem, as well as finding solutions to the problem. This is because before a thorough solution that bridges the gap of inequality can be found for racial, class and gender inequalities, it is important to know causes so that solutions will address the causes in a direct way. It is not surprising therefore that she used the conventional world as an example, stating that “to understand the ongoing development of inequality regimes, our analysis must move outside conventional notions” (Acker, 131). The implication and lesson that is acquired from the term of inequality regimes is that inequality is a system that is created by society through work organizations. To this end, the solution to ending inequality rests with work organizations and society as a whole. If that time comes the woman is paid what she is due, and the pay of people will not be determined by their racial backgrounds, there will be evenness of class so that the problem with class differences will be overcome. Section II 6 7 PART II Section I 114 Politics of Disgust Hancock defined politics of disgust as a politically motivated misperception and stereotype on people based on their race, gender and class. On a larger perspective, politics of disgust is a state of inequality and disregard for the ruled, not because the ruled wants to be disregarded but because those in power make no attempt to bridge the gap of inequality. An example used by Hancock to highlight this point is when she writes that politics of disgust greatly “hindered democratic deliberation and ultimately denied countless men, women and children greatly needed support and assistance” (Hancock, 212). The implication of this in a real world is that politicking has become a business focused on making the rich richer and poor poorer by laying no emphasis to end the plight of inequality. Public Identity Whiles defining public identity, Hancock uses the larger concept of citizenship to explain that instead of aligning people to countries or nations of origins, people are now aligned to moral judgments and stereotypes, based on which they are given an identity in the public domain of who they are. This means that within citizenship, there is public identity about people based on some stereotypes and moral judgments associated with them. She uses the example of Black mothers who have been given the public identity for their hyper-fertility and laziness. In the larger context, the implication of this is that society continues to have its own system of labeling for people, which is not based on the collective identities of people but on perceived identities. Culture of Poverty Culture of poverty is identified by Hancock as the outcome of the existing welfare laws, claiming that “the attack on welfare mothers and exclusive focus on the children indicates that only some of the silenced can expect to have their voices represented” (Hancock, 114). The culture of poverty has therefore been found to represent a cycle that repeats itself and never ends. Because the cycle never ends but continues to be exhibited in some people, it has become part of their ways of life. Meanwhile, culture is the way of life of a group of people their when the way of a person’s life is poverty, it is said that a culture of poverty has been created (quote). National Welfare Rights Organization The National Welfare Right Organization (NWRO) is seen as an advocacy group that had been responsible for the protection of the rights of key elements of society with some level of undeserving public identities. These people include women and other underprivileged people in society. The key essence of the organization was to ensure that most women and children were put on welfare. In the larger context, Hancock does not only look at the functional roles of the NWRO but also key criticisms against them, as well as challenges they face in discharging their duties. But in her opinion, expansion of democracy for all remains the largest success of the organization as she states that “the NWRO’s interventions in the public discourse also included several other actions related to participatory democracy” (Hancock, 48). Lack of Solidarity Lack of solidarity has been explained from a context where the collective interests and rights of most underprivileged person have been abandoned or neglected by powers that be, who were expected to support in the call for liberation for such people. On a larger scale, lack of solidarity is seen from two perspectives. The first perspective of the author is that within the people who need solidarity themselves, there is the absence of support to fight with a common voice. The second perspective is the broader view of lack of solidarity which involves lack of support for society’s most deprived groups. Section II 6 Generally, Hancock explains the politics of disgust as a state of stereotypes associated with some people in the larger society, which makes it difficult for them to be placed at the true status of society where they belong. Public identity of the Welfare Queen has also been blamed to be a “communicative context marked by gross inequality” (Hancock, 91). Relating the two, it will be noted that the public of disgust that is framed by the author exists because the public identity associated with some people long existed. What this means is that because of an absence of a commitment to see all the people to be one, under one umbrella of citizenship of nationalism, the way has been paved for the creation of moral judgment against underprivileged persons. What is most pathetic and disturbing is the way and manner in which the public agencies, which were expected to take center stage in the defence of equal rights and justice for all have jumped to one side of the situation. Two examples of these public agencies are the media and congress. Through primary data, it has been found that there is a strong glorification for class stratification. People of this, the politics of disgust have been expanded by clearly labeling who a disadvantaged person in society is. A very specific example used by the author to defend this point is what she refers to as the absolute absence of mothers’ voice in congressional record. Indeed, several personal implications can be drawn from the arguments and frameworks that the author creates for the two phenomena of politics of disgust and public identity. This implication is that society in itself adores and worships wealth and wellness. Because of this, there continues to be the exposure of most deprived people in society because the praise and glorification given to well to do people exposes those who are not well to do. Again, people of the general realization that society adores them, rich people continue to be self centered and focus on their selfish gain rather than having the concern of entire society at heart. 7 In the conclusion of her book, Hancock bemoans the fact that the gap that has been created through denial of political participation has been made so public that, the need for people to start defending and crying for their rights have become necessary. Some of the ways that these people have sought to make their voices heard has been through the use of welfare organizations. But even as welfare groups continue to make their voices heard and challenge some key positions taken by those at the center of politicking, the voices of welfare recipients is used as a means to drum home the fact that pushing a person into welfare group of one form or the other does not necessarily hold the key to ending the politics of disgust (quote). This is also not the solution to improving the kind of public identity that has been assigned to people. By this, there is an advocacy and implication for fairness and equality to be sought from a more holistic approach. It is not surprising that the approach is criticized that “it lacks any contestation by those most affected by the public identity of the “welfare queen” and welfare policy” (Hancock, 91). As a way of concluding it all, the all important question will be asked by challenging people who lead public advocacy programs to come clear with their agenda. Clearly, the mechanism that has been used in past years to create a dynamic is challenged by inequality to democratic participation. The reason for saying this is that once this kind of approach is taken, the indication that is given to people at the top of political power is that they are justified by their actions but as they undertake their acts, they should also remember those at the lower parts of the ladder. This approach can however not be right because it is not holistic. An holistic approach to ending inequality and discrimination will seek to put all people at par with each other, rather than drawing on personalized glories for some people over others. Until such a time that all Americans will be seen as equality important, with none having the need to depend on the other, whether through welfare or any other means, the battle against politics of disgust cannot be said to be completely over. Read More