La fem ir shell

Links

Anthro

Patriarchal society creates the divides that subjugate and disenfranchise animals; ecofeminist pedagogy is key to resolve the human/animal distinction

Houde and Bullis 99, Lincoln J., Connie, “Ecofeminist Pedagogy: An Exploratory Case”, Ethics & the Environment, Volume 4, Number 2, 1999, pp. 143-174 (Article)

As communication scholars and teachers, we are interested in our location, participation, and involvement within a broader historical cultural pat- tern of intersecting oppressions. Adams (1994) notes that the animal-industrial-com- plex was alarmed at the declining rate of animal consumption from the 1930s to the 1950s, and to respond to this market instability, the meat and dairy industries spent millions of dollars to advertise and promote animal consumption within schools. However, instead of the public being skeptical of corporate propaganda, the govern- ment functioned as a neutral authority, providing expert credibility and legitimacy for meat and dairy industry interests. A primary example of this is the history of the four groups as taught in and through educational institutions. These naturalized hegemonic and large-scale practices are also re-inscribed through micro-level practices, which are tacit, normalized daily interchanges. For in- stance, our focus here is on how communication classes function to re-inscribe the dominant narrative authorizing and sanctioning the assumed separation of humans from animals through re-circulating common definitions of language. Specifically, the study of communication is defined by privileging symbols over substance (Tomp- kins 1987), process over content, and defining humans as the sole participants in the complex symbolic processes that "set humans apart from animals" (Johannesen 1996, 45). Or as Adams (1994) puts it, "We define ourselves over and against what we de- cide animals are" (203). At least since Aristotle's "Great Chain of Being" humans have used their abilities to reason and communicate as distinctions that separate people from and place them above other animals. Levis-Strauss notes that "the emergence of language which ac- companies the shift from animality to humanity, from nature to culture, is also a shift from affectivity to a state of reasoning" (Leach 1974, 37). However, this evolutionary and linear model of human progress marks difference and values that split hierarchi- cally in a divide-and-rule strategy that provides a legitimation for the inferior status of animals and a rationalization used to justify their subordination. In other words, posi- tioning people above animals because of a perceived communicative distinction, ex- cludes animals from culture and reduces them to natural objects. Not only are animals denied agency, but their bodies are viewed instrumentally and treated disposably, as if they were natural resources that have been made for people to use at will. To deny the presence and needs of animals is an ideology that symbolically banishes and confines them to nature, which is perceived as somehow separate from and outside of culture. Humanistic traditions have been bound by a culture-nature dualism that also lim- its communication studies to a pre- and even anti- ecological framework (Jagtenberg and McKie 1997; Toulmin 1990). The transition into an "enlightened"' modern sci- ence lead to an inflated sense of human importance, the "rationalization" and "disen-

chantaient" of the world, and the quest to dominate and colonize human and non- human lifeworlds (Adorno and Horkheimer 1979). Academe has not only been influenced by, but has also played an important part in authorizing this culture-nature hierarchy. As Merchant (1980) maintains, "The distinction between nature and cul- ture fundamental to humanistic disciplines such as history, literature, and anthropol- ogy" is "a key factor in Western civilization's advance at the expense of nature" (143). Animals and nature have been ignored and excluded, in part, because of human arrogance and a perception that people are the only creatures capable of ethical and political deliberations using complex symbolic powers (Bullis 1990, 1996, 1997). We consider the meat culture to be an instance of this general hegemonic pattern, a pat- tern reified and re-instantiated through communication. We focus, then, on disrupting meat-eating as naturalized hegemonic discourses that can be challenged through re- vealing and questioning the invisible but critical connections supporting meat-eating, and by considering the way in which communication practices can support, resist, and/or transform these normalized discourses.

Economics

Macro-economics are not gender-neutral: our conception of the market ignores the hidden inequalities of society that leads apparently androgynous economic policy to be female - exploitative

Chandra et al. Southeast Asia coordinator of the TKN Lontoh independent researcher working on various sustainable development issues & Margawati lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Diponegoro in Semarang, Indonesia 2010 Alexander, Lucky & Ani “Beyond Barriers: The Gender Implications of Trade Liberalization Southeast Asia” Trade Knowledge Network http://www.iisd.org/tkn/pdf/beyond_barriers_gender_southeast_asia.pdf

Feminist economists, such as Seguino (2006) and Hoskyns (2006), maintain that gender should be an important macroeconomic variable and that gender relations can affect economic development and growth. The state of gender relations today, which frequently results in the genders experiencing divergent outcomes, is already observable in several economic arenas in the Southeast Asian region, such as (1) job segregation within the paid labour market; (2) the division of labour between paid and unpaid labour; (3) the distribution of income and resources within the household; (4) access to redistribution carried out by the state (e.g. access to education and social safety net programs); and (5) access to credit in the financial markets. In general, therefore, the effect of gendered economic opportunities is that men and women occupy different class positions, with the latter more likely to be poor, malnourished, less educated and more overworked relative to men (Davis, 1981; Beneria & Roldan, 1987).¶ It has become increasingly important to examine the nexus between gender inequalities and trade policies, and to take a broader-than-usual view of development, poverty and wellbeing (Margawati, 2007: 220). Among other things, the politicization of trade policy, the connection being made between trade and development, and the expansion of trade to trade in services have all contributed to the greater impact of international trade issues on the lives of normal citizens, including those of women (Hoskyns, 2006: 2). ¶ Unfortunately, mainstream economics literature, as mentioned earlier, is often gender blind when it comes to assessing the relationship among trade, inequality and poverty. Although economists generally acknowledge that gender bias exists at the microeconomic level, such as in the operation of labour markets or the allocation of resources within households, they tend to see little relevance for gender at a macroeconomic or global level of analysis. Moreover, social reproduction, which is the term associated with the roles that women traditionally play, has been undervalued and not counted in classic economic analysis (Picchio, 1992; Hoskyns, 2006: 3). This is mainly due to the general assumption that macroeconomics is all about aggregates and that both the policy objectives (e.g. price stability, employment generation, growth and external balance) and the traditional policy instruments of macroeconomics (e.g. fiscal and exchange rate policies) are gender neutral.4 Similar views are often held with regard to the analysis of international trade and finance. Gender is, therefore, often ignored in theoretical, empirical and practical terms, thereby perpetuating gender biases in most economies. ¶ Development economists, however, have been investigating the complex relationship between gender inequalities and trade liberalization for several decades. Although the effect of international trade on the gender wage gap and other aspects of discrimination is still unclear, a study conducted by Korinek (2005) finds that trade creates job for women from middle-income developing countries. The question, however, remains as to whether trade liberalization that leads to an increase in women’s share of paid employment in the export sector also generates higher incomes and greater empowerment for women more generally. It has been suggested that women’s role in production becomes progressively less central and less important during capitalist industrialization in developing countries (Momsen, 2004: 173). As industrialization proceeds, the so-called theory of female marginalization also argues that women are pushed out from higher-paid sectors into relatively lower-paid jobs (Scott, 1986). Yet statistical and sectoral indicators show that in many developing countries the expansion of industrialization has indeed led to the growth of women’s share of employment (Margawati, 2007: 221). The prevailing argument today, therefore, is that industrialization does not necessarily marginalize women. On the contrary, from the 1970s onwards, an increase in women’s share of employment seems to go hand in hand with successful industrialization in many Third World economies (Pearson, 1997: 224–25).5¶ There is no doubt that economic openness and the development that follows have generated some positive impacts on women’s daily lives. Despite this, women’s position in society remains unchanged. In many cases, in fact, the economic, social and political positions of women have even deteriorated as a result of economic liberalization (Kabeer, 1994; WHO, 2000). Although trade liberalization allows women to be more integrated into the labour force, a system of gender bias persists that perceives women as inferior to men, which systematically manifests further in the forms of job segregation and wage inequality between the two sexes (Sinaga, 2008). Indeed, the removal of tariffs and quotas as a result of trade liberalization policies pursued by countries and regional groupings around the world has generally exposed the previously protected sectors to competition and opened up new areas for exchanges and commoditization. New trade policies do not only generate changes in employment trends, but also in the patterns of prices, incomes and consumption, all of which affect men and women differently. Overall, suffice it to say that women may be affected by trade liberalization differently from men as a result of (1) their asymmetric rights and responsibilities; (2) their reproductive and motherhood roles; (3) gendered social norms; (4) labour market segregation; (5) consumption patterns; and, finally, (6) time poverty. While these characteristics overlap, they could also reinforce one another. To a large extent, therefore, men and women are confronted with different opportunities and constraints as a result of the liberalization of trade and investment regimes in a society.