Revolutionary Error

4 Responses to “The Girl Effect”

1. nick Says:
   October 31st, 2008 at 7:25 am

   So this is interesting. I had a very negative reaction to it at first and still sort of. Why only support a girl? Seems like education of both is the best solution.

   Then I started to realize the US is probably pretty unique (or at least the video would like me to believe). Developing nations male and female equality isn’t necessarily a given.

   Ultimately what seems off to me, is it feels like equality is being overstepped to the point of saying, women are intrinsically more valuable and the solution to the poverty.

   I don’t know, it’s early, I just woke up and it’s Friday…

2. Cassia Says:
   October 31st, 2008 at 9:22 am

   This seems to be promoting microfinancing, yes? The principle argument I have heard in favor of financing women specifically is that they are supposedly less likely to spend their earnings on booze & more likely to spend them on family. (you know, food, shelter, clothing, all that jazz.)

   I have been a big fan of microfinancing in the past. (Who could possibly object to giving a poor family a goat?) But recently, I’ve been reading a couple of books by actual aid workers who have worked on the ground in various countries and specializations, and I’m beginning to be suspicious of the simplicity of arguments like this. The world and the cultures it contains are incredibly complex. In some places, it might be entirely beneficial and right to attempt to start a feminist revolution by encouraging girls to be goat-ranchers. But I suspect in other places it is such a violation of the social fabric that its benefits are cancelled out. (Sound ridiculous? Imagine this hypothetical scenario: In the culture of country X, men and women have strictly divided but equally important roles in society. The men take care of the livestock and the women grow the crops. Occasionally, a girl is simply more drawn to herding, and so she fights and argues and shocks people and sometimes she succeeds and all the lovely things happen that the video talked about. And that’s awesome for her. But for the most part, this setup works for people, and everyone gets a balanced diet of produce and meat. Now this NGO swoops in and says, guess what!?!?! Women are powerful and awesome and they should have goats and herds and a place on the village council!!!!!1!! Well, this is taking the mens’ jobs away and giving it to women. So the men are displeased. A fair portion of the women get excited about this idea and try to herd. But they now have to contend not only with the natural challenges of living things and weather and climate and bad luck that most farmers deal with, but they have dissatisfied men picking at them and hindering them, too. Meanwhile, the crops are not getting as much attention as they should. So we have problems, yes?) Not to mention that I question the inherent benefit of a feminist revolution. Again, sometimes good and sometimes bad. Sometimes both.

   But like nick said, I just woke up and its Friday. Things might look different on further reflection.

   sorry so long. sleepiness apparently doesn’t decrease my word count.

3. Ben Says:
   November 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm

   I would take a look at their fact sheet. Particularly, the point that women invents 90% of their income in their families while men invest only 30-40% http://www.girleffect.org/#/fact_sheet/

   I can’t speak as a scholar, but I believe that less-developed nations tend to devalue women comparatively.

   Cassia, yes this could upset some cultural norms, but…
   1) The charities that the GirlEffect gives to are not just dropping goats in girls’ bedrooms, they are providing safe spaces, education, legal representation, entrepreneurial training, and loans.
   2) From a human rights perspective, it’s obvious that increasing the status of an oppressed group is going to be better for the individuals in that group, but I’d argue that it’s better for a society as a whole. It’s good for the state of racism in the US for people like Barack Obama, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell to be major political players. It’s also good when black people are our bosses, our professors, our actors, and our business owners.
   Eliminating unhealthy cultural attitudes will improve the culture – even if it upsets the culture first (and wouldn’t it have to?).

   I don’t know that it’s saying that women are intrinsically more valuable, but it is claiming that in many (or most) struggling countries, women are in a unique position. Investing in them will simultaneously fight inequality and poverty.

   Given cultural norms and upbringing, it is very possibly true that girls are the better investment if you’re looking to pump life into a dying community.

4. Cassia Says:
   November 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm

   Hm. I think after watching the movie, I was under the impression that this organization seemed to think livestock+girls=dramatic worldwide change+world peace. Which would be awesome if it was true, but sounds a tad simplistic. After reading the fact sheet, it looks like this is a charity that focuses specifically on “feminist” (perhaps humanitarian is a better word?) goals of raising the standard of living for girls in developing countries. They’re using some big-picture arguments concerning positive ramifications that should result from these small beginnings in order to encourage potential donors to think of things like goat-donation and school-building in terms of long-term effects rather than short-term goals. (I am hoping a philosophy major such as yourself can untangle that sentence. :P) Which is smart–sometimes a single goat donation or the first few years of a girls-only school won’t be all that pretty. It is good to have the people funding you thinking in terms of long-term goals rather than immediate gratification. But it does run the risk of making you seem a little pie-in-the-sky. Which I think is what I (and maybe Nick?) were reacting against.

   As an aside, I agree that cultures should sometimes be disrupted. Apartheid and various acts of civil disobedience from Gandhi to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spring immediately to mind. But there are stupid ways of disrupting a culture and smart ways of doing so. I’ve recently read The Wisdom of Whores by Elisabeth Pisani (WHICH IS AN AWESOME BOOK) and she really rips into a lot dumb stuff that different aid groups have done. And I read Rebel Without Borders by Marc Vachon (which is just ok) and he describes some similar instances of groups with a lot of money acting like idiots. After reading those books, I think I really connect much more with international humanitarian aid on a gut level, but I’m also a lot more suspicious and cynical about aid organizations–not that I wouldn’t donate, but I might really do my research and try, as much as possible, to give to someone who will do good and not just sound good. Which is not intended to be a slam against the girl effect, just an attempt to explain why I’m so twitchy about glossy ad campaigns for aid organizations right now.

   meh, or else i’m just a cynic who needs a life.

Leave a Reply