December 9, 2014 - 00:39
In the video, Waring did a great job of accessibility. Physically, of course, she's out there and involved and talking beyond the ivory tower. But she also prevented all of this information in such a straightforward, easy-to-understand way, and showed well why it is relevant--how women are cut out by labels of economic value, how worldwide economies support unsustainable environmental practices, how out-of-control spending on war has become. I was struck by her logical approaches; she broke down quite clearly how the labor women in rural areas do is "economically unproductive" in spite of the numerous hours put forth into daily work (not including side pieces like childcare that follow along with everything they do, all day). In terms of discussing her own constituency as an elected official, she drew analogies that I think were helpful in comparing the unpaid work of women. (Although, as with so many analogies, they were also problematic in terms of discussions of privilege and the intersections of class/race/ethnic minorities etc. etc.)
Her criticism of a system that "recognizes no value other than money" was certainly valid, and caused me to call into question the privilege I see in my life and in most of my interactions, where unpaid labor is at a (relative) minimum (insert note here about discussions of college self/student government positions being paid/for academic credit??), as compared to, say the Maori community Waring visited. I think this also ties into our communities here existing in economized contexts, rather than having their own methodolgies be challenged by global attitudes towards money that have become the standard. rosea called into question why this economic model even exists, who is running it, and why we keep it as is when global poverty levels clearly show that it isn't working. I can't help but think that our acceptance of a system that only reconizes money and only acknowledges work if it is "productive" economically is a direct result of (or maybe has resulted in?) our acceptance of capitalism. The two definitely go hand in hand (after all, capitalism is just as money-centered, and focusing an economy on monetary value is a direct result of commodifying goods, services, and people), and I think a lot of the rhetoric seen around capitalism feeds into the potential justification of our current economy. It's accepted because it benefits the "1/3 world," the folks who also get the primary say in how the world runs, and who would rather have it run in a way that benefits them (and rest of the world be damned, because you know, you should just adapt, or also someone's always going to be at the bottom, or, when all else fails, bootstraps?). It aligns with the structure of the American economy, for example, and proportionally fewer (white Western middle to upper class...) people are hurt by it. Were we to accept a different model, the entire function of the Western economy, job market, education system, family structure, etc. would all be turned on their heads, since practically every system we encounter on a daily basis is built off the idea that we need to have a documentable job, make money, and spend money. Does this make resistance to change acceptable? Hell no. This just creates a complexifying layer to a pretty simple question: how can we develop and push forth a global economy that doesn't royally screw over large numbers of people in the world (many of whom, coincidentally or not, are women)? What form might this economy take, and how might it be implemented? And, to add--how can creating this economy lead to greater systemic equality?