Theoretical Perspective of Feminism at Work - Research Paper Example

Theoretical Perspective of Feminism at Work Understanding feminism and its impact to policy-making in liberal countries can best be done by first knowing the historical evolution of women’s jumping in to the society. It can be realized that feminism is a kind of reaction to society’s limited approach to the needs of women. Efforts from different groups have been extended to attain such goal of equality or women’s immersion not just in the community but in the every country to where they belong. Groups that were formed that aimed to answer the basic needs of women like proper education, enough capability to care for their children and the privilege to care for themselves just like any male identity, prominent or not. But again, what is being stretched here is also the visibility of women that in the past had not existed. It is interesting to know that the South together with the North strived hard to reach their goal of women’s visibility but since during that time it wasn’t known and only few had the courage to react and talk about women’s right, the so-called change or movement to women empowerment were dressed up like a simple social welfare. (Connelly) In the 1930s, there was a great longing for development and this dream for development was given much attention and even economists at that time were made busy thinking about the straight path towards faster development. But these acts for development had less positive impact on women, in short, they were not given much attention at all. In the 1940s and 1950s, there was an intensified effort to develop colonies for the same reason of improvement. Many of the projects failed but it did not stop experts to continue on thinking of other possible ways to achieve development. Even by the time that decolonization starting from India happened, the ideas of these experts were used by political candidates in the belief of attaining progress through independence. During that time the United States was already a model for all the developing country for their ideas of development were looked up to. (Connelly) Yet all these kinds of development did not answer the emerging question on equality of gender. Men were given more chances of being trained for some technical jobs. It was only when gender-equality sensitive women tried to lobby to US policy makers to raise the said ideal. The term “women in development” was used to refer to women’s reaction to attain equal opportunities in the society. Through this, they were soon able to incorporate themselves in the development processes and it also helped them become visible workers of the community. Some of the agencies that first initiated the action to rethink and remake their policies to include women were the Dutch, Canadian and the Nordic ones. (Connelly) The women in development idea or paradigm became part of some policies that can be seen as the start of women empowerment. And just like men during the start of the modernization period, they too were given trainings on how to adapt to the working society of “men.” In short, women became part of the modernization idea which further bettered the situation and the scenes since needs of women were given attention. But the years of women empowerment was smooth all throughout. They also had a problem with funding. (Conelly) The whole idea of modernization and its benefit for women can be said to have opposed the real thing. This real thing refers to the women’s being passive and subordinate in the society. They were empowered right but that was in the sense of production. They were treated as machines, as workers and contributors to progress and improvement. But the question on the real status as humans longing for equal rights wasn’t answered at all. After such time of modernization of societies with women as tools for production, there came the different frameworks for feminism and one of which is the radical feminism which claims that inequality is caused by the patriarchy which is a norm in every society. It was the same idea that instituted a radical concept of modernization without the male counterpart. It was also the start of creating projects that were exclusively for women. It was the sign of independence of women. This created the idea of women and development (WAD). (Connelly) Like everything has its bane and boon, the making of “women and development” somehow also brought negative thoughts on the reliability of the idea. This is in relation to its strength being different and opposite to the patriarchal state or the “men-moved” world. The modernization idea that focuses on production on a patriarchal society may just expose women to subordination which is a main threat to this supposedly perfect idea of success. However the opposite of this which is women and development might just limit the women to an interaction and improvement within the boundaries of purely women environment as its aim is to maintain a progressive environment that only evolves in the women-facilitated activities and businesses. (Connelly) Only in the 1980s was the Gender and Development created. The main goal of this group is not to seek power from one gender to the other and or justify which is better; instead, seek equality in the policies that are present in a community. The better stand of this group made it stand the test of time for until now, it is still alive in many organizations and in some countries like the Philippines, government institutions are already aware of this group that continuously critique rules that may be favoring or undermining a particular gender. (Connelly) This is how the theoretical perspective of feminism enters the policy-making body of a society. But to understand this point better, a brief background on the real situation may be of use and the setting of this example is in Britain. “Women are poorly represented in British political life. In 1982, only 23 women served in Parliament, although a record 210 stood for election (European Union of Women 1982). By 1987 a higher number—40 out of 221 candidates—had gained seats. In addition to the female (though hardly feminist) prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, there are three other women ministers in the present Conservative government, but they do not hold cabinet rank. Of 97 senior judges, only two are women. While women increasingly qualified as barristers and solicitors during the 1970s and 1980s, in England and Wales they composed only 3 percent of the Queens Counsels, from whom judges in the High Court and above are chosen (Lovenduski 1986:217). In 1983 only 4 percent of High Court judges were women. No women were represented among the higher-level appeals judges. In the senior civil service, in 1986, fewer than 4 percent of high administrative officers were women. In 1983, while women composed 47.1 percent of Home civil servants, there were no female permanent secretaries (ibid., 216). Few women are nominated to, or serve on, government committees, councils, or other public bodies. And, at the local level, in the mid-1970s there were only two chief women's officers out of 500 (Hills 1981:27). But more women are becoming local councilors—in 1982 they numbered 18.4 percent.” (Gelb, pp. 91) The above situation the real situation of women in Britain and this is the perfect example of a scene where there is a need for a tight watch not just for a moment for quite a long time without blinking. This is the time when the role of women in policy-making enters. Like what was talked about a while ago, the theoretical framework of feminism at work can help reduce biased policies that may be benefiting the male population or male political leaders. But the goal like what was mentioned before cannot be purely for the benefit of the female population either but the benefit should be for both genders. feminism in an indirect way serves as a watcher that can shout when the boat is sinking. Although it can be said that feminism has not entirely entered the system of politics, still it is obvious that somehow it is being absorbed already not just by purely women-organizations but also of big companies that also seek improvement and progress with the help of the female’s ideas and logic. Without feminism though, another form of critic may arise which is the reason why feminism is not just the one that might inform analysis of decision-making in liberal democracies but there are also others. The function or effect of feminism in Europe for example can be seen through the function of the commission that was tasked to be a lookout in gender-related activities and policies. “During the 1960s and early '70s, pressure arose in Parliament for the creation of a quasi-independent body to "act as an amalgam of recipient and investigator complaints relating to sex discrimination, conciliator where possible and prosecutor in the courts where this failed" (Byrne and Lovenduski 1978:157). The result was the creation of the Equal Opportunities Commission to enforce the Equal Pay Act and Sex Discrimination Act (to be discussed shortly). The EOC was given law enforcement powers, research and investigative capacity, and jurisdiction over a number of policy areas related to women (education, housing, and employment) (Meehan 1983b:70–71). Excluded from EOC jurisdiction were the social security, pensions, taxes, and nationality. It was hoped that the EOC would be a vigorous voice on behalf of women and would play a strong enforcement role. In practice, the EOC has not developed as robust a defender of equal rights as many hoped, although it does provide a forum and base for feminist-related issues, one of the few that exists in a system essentially closed to change-oriented groups. The EOC is a quango, or quasi-judicial/legislative entity, and as such is not strictly accountable to the House of Commons or the executive branch. The agency therefore apparently has a degree of independence. In the United States, by contrast, appointments to commissions and agencies dealing specifically with women's issues—the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), Commission on Civil Rights, and Office of Civil Rights (formerly at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, later at the Department of Education)—are politicized, and feminist groups are consulted and vocal about their preferences.” (Gelb, pp. 92) The quoted lines from the book of Joyce Gelb entitled “Feminism and Politics” further defines how the feminism movement and ideas a can thus affect the way policies are made and the impact is big enough to move and change the governing body’s decision which is a positive thing to be looked at. The above lines also tell us that there is a continuous effect from all the effort that was started before by the groups of women who initiated a cumulative force for the benefit of not just the women population but also the men’s groups. It can be seen as well that with the feminist theoretical perspective, laws that are created are becoming more gender-based and gender-conscious, a wish come true in fact not just for the feminists but for all who are concerned of equality in a fair sense. And to finally compare the meaning of feminism to its real sense, a definition from Joan Mandle from the Colgate University can help us see then if it is currently at work or if its definition is just a definition that is disregarded in the modern scene or situation. Like other progressive social movements, feminism has been deeply affected by the growth of identity politics. Within feminism, identity politics has taken two often-related forms which, together, I believe to be hegemonic today. One is generally referred to as difference or essentialist feminism, and the other as victim feminism. Difference feminism emphasizes the unique identity of women as a group, stressing and usually celebrating essential female characteristics which it believes make women different from - indeed even opposite to - men. Victim feminism also assumes that women have a unique identity, but the focus of that identity is women's victimization on the basis of sex, typically at the hands of men. In defining difference feminism, Wendy Kaminer has stated that, by suggesting that women differ from men in a myriad of ways, it identifies "feminism with femininity." In what is perhaps the most influential version of this ideology, popularized in the work of Carol Gilligan, difference feminism emphasizes that women share "a different voice, different moral sensibilities - an ethic of care." According to Kaminer, this notion of female difference is attractive to feminists and non-feminists alike for a number of reasons. Difference feminism appeals to some feminists, she asserts, because it revalues previously devalued characteristics such as emotionality and social connectedness which women are thought to embody. In declaring female traits superior to those such as aggression and rationality which characterize men, difference feminism seems to reject sexism by turning it on its head. It thus provides a clear group identity for women which stresses the way they are special. What Naomi Wolf has called victim feminism also reinforces identity politics, for victim feminism also assumes women's diametrical difference from men as a central component of its view. According to victim feminism, however, what is unique about women's difference is that they are powerless to affect the victim status by which they are primarily defined. Wolf argues that victim feminism "turns suffering and persecution into a kind of glamour." The attractiveness of this model is partially due to the fact that feminists understand all too well the discouraging reality that women have been and continue to be victims of sexism, male violence, and discrimination. But victim feminism is attractive to others primarily because it absolves individuals of the political responsibility to act to change their own condition. Its emphasis on personal victimization includes a refusal to hold women in any way responsible for their problems. It thus implies that, as a group, women are helpless in the face of the overwhelming factors which force them to accept - however unhappily - the circumstances in which they find themselves. (Mandle, J.) The above definition of feminism is obviously still grounded on the function and benefit solely for women. Although it is contradicting to the present or the current dealings happening with regard to the real function of feminism in reference to its benefits and advantages being pointed to female groups alone, still it holds on its voice on making an effect to the policy-making agenda of a country. The idea that feminism serves as a “watcher” in the political world still remains and for one reason, it may be the one holding the real meaning of its existence. Going back to the example given a while ago where in the Philippine context, what is seen to be a gender and development groups (GAD) being present in most of the government offices as mandated by the government itself is already an implication that the feminists’ theoretical perspective is not just a theory or a belief that is passed on from literary classes or from word of mouth and or from some activists but, it is already a movement in progress to effect policies being made in some institutions, even to effect the resolutions made by congress people. What is the goal then of all these, that is to see women not only as good child bearers or good cook, or wonderful housewife and money keeper of the house but also as good decision maker, a good law maker and as one with the society whose responsibilities are not limited to some boundaries whether physical and especially mental. And finally to answer again the question how, feminism in a practical sense is a living eye thrown in every corner of any policy-making body. From the time it started up to the present, the roots have already been stuck to the ground which means that the idea on equality and biased benefits for women will be insisted in one way or another. Since it has already started to see its significance in the community, its hands can no longer be stopped in reaching the ample benefits that it deserves which is again the presence of equality in every rule and policy being implemented. Feminism then is not just an idea, it is a living spirit of men and women longing for fairness and biasness in the world of policies. Sources Casino, Melinda and Suzanne. “Feminism and Gender.” May 2, 2007. < http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender> Connelly P., Li T., Mac Donald M, Parpart P. “Feminism and Development: Theoretical Perspective.” April 26, 2007. “Feminism and Women’s Studies.” May 2, 2007. Gelb, Joyce. Feminism and Politics: A Comparative Perspective. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  c1989. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft3z09n8wj/> Mandle, Joan. “How Political is the Personal?: Identity Politics, Feminism and Social Change.” May 2, 2007. Wikipedia. “Feminism.” April 27, 2007. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism> “Women’s Studies Resources.” May 2, 2007. Zorah. “Feminism and Islam.” May 2, 2007. Read More