I have to do a seminar in about 5 weeks and this is my topic. Any suggestions for reading, thoughts or comments welcomed...
'Developing a gendered approach to the study of international political economy, in theoretical terms, is a very different proposition from inserting issues of gender into the study of international political economy; the latter is, ultimately, entirely sufficient'. Discuss.
Any thoughts?
7 comments:
Hmmm...probably not the best person to ask, and possibly might not even have properly understood the question, but my tuppence worth:
No it's not sufficient. Imagine if you like walking around the world wearing glasses covered in red lighting gel. In your view of the world, red things stand out, are visible, catch your eye, influence your opinion. Colours like blue on the other had are less visible, they fade back in your vision, have lower prominence and a lesser influence on your impression of the world around you.
If we view an issue (international political economy or whatever) through eyes that see issues pertaining to one gender more strongly than another (which will be a s a result of influence by societal norms as well as our own personal gender) rather than a balanced one, we naturally see certain things more clearly than others.
In fact I'd argue that it's a mistake to think we don't approach study in a genderised approach anyway - I'd argue we always do - it's inherent. We just don't see it because we take it to be the norm. The underlying fallacy at play is that what we take to be a non-genderised/neutral/status-quo approach is actually probably male dominated.
A bit like "I don't have an accent, it's everyone else that talks weird".
The status quo is not gender neutral.
To redress the balance upfront and ensure we *see* things and form opinion and policy with a balance inherent from the get go is I'd contend more likely to be sufficient than tagging on "oh and what about those 'other people' - have we missed aything?" at the end..
I am an egg, and eggs do not have to present seminars.
It might help, you never know?
I think they might spot that I'm not an egg. If I get desperate I'll give it a go though.
I think that's pretty much what I think. Looking at the world as it is, men and women are treated differently, but people don't really take this into account in theories. I'll have to look at some theories, I think, and read about gender... and see how to explain it, but I don't think tagging it onto the end is enough.
...also. eggs do not exhibit gender.
....maybe not on the outside, but they do on the inside.
I suspect that when I've done the reading I'll understand the question a little more. I think it is asking whether and to what extend we need to take gender into account in our theories: can we act as if gender makes no difference?
In an ideal world it doesn't, but due to the effects of society (I am so eloquent...) men and women are expected to have different roles. Most gender stuff is written in relation to development studies (which I think is a real weakness, I think) - women in developing countries often carry the largest burden of work and suffer more than men do - they often don't get to see the money earnt by men and have to try to feed the children. They also often aren't listened to - men are assumed to be the norm and are the leaders so they are asked their opinion about development, when actually it has a larger impact on the women.
I think...
But at the end of the day, having considered both the pro's and con's of the aforementioned issue, I believe that the real answer lies within the context of is an egg a real egg if its shelless?
Post a Comment