> What this technocratic language stated, in effect, was that anything without a price tag – including the environment, peace and unpaid domestic work – was considered to be of little value to a nation’s economy.
Why is this attributed to males? Whats up with the current meme of forcefully interpreting existing systems as "male" and proposing "female" systems as solutions to this? Its like some people got glasses on their head that divide the whole world in either male or female, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
This is some oddball kind of sexism and i don't like it.
Re:
by bArray on Wednesday July 27, 2022 @09:05AM
(#32249934)
These people live in a really weird head-space, where women have zero influence on the current systems and structures, and that these men wouldn't even steal the idea and claim it as their own, because it came from a woman. It's just weird.
Re:
by bArray on Wednesday July 27, 2022 @09:24AM
(#32250097)
> We all play by economic rules set by men.
Do we? Did Merkel have no impact in Germany? Did Jacinda have no impact on New Zealand? Did Thatcher have no impact on the UK? That's a damning report on their time in office if so.
> What could a feminist economics look like?
If the goal is to re-write history and establish falsehoods as facts, I would suggest feminist economics would be negative. The idea that some immutable characteristic makes you somehow better at handling economics is discrimination.
> There, she eventually chaired the Public Expenditure Committee and learned the peculiar set of values that seemed to govern not only New Zealand’s economy, but the economic structure of the entire world.
So men apparently rule the world of economics - then Marilyn Waring "learned the peculiar set of values", and assumes this is a feminist invention?
> [..] even as, by many measures, they work harder than men and contribute more to their communities.
By what measure? Not an economic one according to their own points. So how is this being measured?
> Further, she sets out a series of prescriptions for how, through electoral politics, policy, budgets and even language, society can begin to re-value the unpaid work disproportionately taken on by women.
We do have systems in place already. The concept of marriage is not just a declaration of devotion, it's also a legal declaration of shared resources. If one partner is at home whilst the other works, it's recognized that even though just one works, the other plays a supporting role in this income.
May God have mercy on this comment section. An interesting and important topic, but one that HN historically has a lot of trouble with. Hopefully I’m wrong this time.
I understand the impulse here, and even respect the motivation, but "we all play by economic rules set by men" in a world where Marilyn Waring was an MP in 1975 seems... self-contradictory? We all play by economic rules set by others is certainly true, and those others are mostly men historically, but clearly there have been some women involved for at least the last 47 years, no?
If it's narrowly focused on the United Nations System of National Accounts, I'd question how much impact or influence that organization has around the world.
Overall, I'm very open to talking about "Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner," as the book[0] asks. I'm just not sure that as a feminist critique, this framing is a solid one.
Why is this attributed to males? Whats up with the current meme of forcefully interpreting existing systems as "male" and proposing "female" systems as solutions to this? Its like some people got glasses on their head that divide the whole world in either male or female, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
This is some oddball kind of sexism and i don't like it.
Do we? Did Merkel have no impact in Germany? Did Jacinda have no impact on New Zealand? Did Thatcher have no impact on the UK? That's a damning report on their time in office if so.
> What could a feminist economics look like?
If the goal is to re-write history and establish falsehoods as facts, I would suggest feminist economics would be negative. The idea that some immutable characteristic makes you somehow better at handling economics is discrimination.
> There, she eventually chaired the Public Expenditure Committee and learned the peculiar set of values that seemed to govern not only New Zealand’s economy, but the economic structure of the entire world.
So men apparently rule the world of economics - then Marilyn Waring "learned the peculiar set of values", and assumes this is a feminist invention?
> [..] even as, by many measures, they work harder than men and contribute more to their communities.
By what measure? Not an economic one according to their own points. So how is this being measured?
> Further, she sets out a series of prescriptions for how, through electoral politics, policy, budgets and even language, society can begin to re-value the unpaid work disproportionately taken on by women.
We do have systems in place already. The concept of marriage is not just a declaration of devotion, it's also a legal declaration of shared resources. If one partner is at home whilst the other works, it's recognized that even though just one works, the other plays a supporting role in this income.
If it's narrowly focused on the United Nations System of National Accounts, I'd question how much impact or influence that organization has around the world.
Overall, I'm very open to talking about "Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner," as the book[0] asks. I'm just not sure that as a feminist critique, this framing is a solid one.
0. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Who-Cooked-Adam-Smith...
Have fun with that.