It is often argued-and accepted-that women, being the “gentler sex”, and typically being the main care givers in society, are less aggressive than men. Feminists often argue that women, if given appropriate and full rights, could counter-balance a male-dominated world which is characterized by aggression in attitudes, thoughts, society and, ultimately, war.May 2004, the Occupation/Coalition forces in Iraq were shown around the world to be committing torture and other grotesque acts on Iraqi captives. For feminists and others, what was also shocking was that some of these acts were being perpetrated by women in the U.S. military.activist Barbara Ehrenreich captures some of the thoughts and reactions quite well:, I hoped that the presence of women [in the U.S. army] would over time change the military, making it more respectful of other people and cultures, more capable of genuine peacekeeping. That’s what I thought, but I don’t think that anymore.certain kind of feminism, or perhaps I should say a certain kind of feminist naivete, died in Abu Ghraib [the prison facility from where most of the torture pictures and footage originated]. It was a feminism that saw men as the perpetual perpetrators, women as the perpetual victims and male sexual violence against women as the root of all injustice. Rape has repeatedly been an instrument of war and, to some feminists, it was beginning to look as if war was an extension of rape. There seemed to be at least some evidence that male sexual sadism was connected to our species' tragic propensity for violence. That was before we had seen female sexual sadism in action.
… But the assumption [within feminism] of [women’s] superiority [over men], or at least a lesser inclination toward cruelty and violence, was more or less beyond debate. After all, women do most of the caring work in our culture, and in polls are consistently less inclined toward war than men.
… If that assumption had been accurate, then all we would have had to do to make the world a better place-kinder, less violent, more just-would have been to assimilate into what had been, for so many centuries, the world of men.
… What we need is a tough new kind of feminism with no illusions. Women do not change institutions simply by assimilating into them, only by consciously deciding to fight for change. We need a feminism that teaches a woman to say no-not just to the date rapist or overly insistent boyfriend but, when necessary, to the military or corporate hierarchy within which she finds herself.
Barbara Ehrenreich notes that gender equality often appears to be limited to allowing women to have equality in a male-dominated world, meaning women struggle to have rights to do what men do. But, if what men are doing is generally seen as negative, then gender equality in that context is not enough. As she ends:cite an old, and far from naive, feminist saying: “If you think equality is the goal, your standards are too low.” It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into.
Profit over people by Anup Shah
the world globalizes, multinational corporations are also coming under more scrutiny, as questions about their accountability are also being raised.some cases, some corporations have lobbied their governments to aggressively support regimes that are favorable to them. For example, especially in the 1970s and 80s, some tacitly supported dictatorships as they could control their own people, be more easily influenced and corrupted, allow conditions like cheap labor and sweatshops, and so on. This is less practical today as a company’s image with such associations can more readily be tarnished today. Increasingly then, influence is being spread through lobbying for global economic and trade arrangements that are more beneficial to themselves.can be accomplished through various means including:supporting military interventions (often dressed in propaganda about saving the people from themselves, or undoing a wrong in the other country and so on)for economic policies that are heavily weighted in their favorinvestment treaties and other negotiations designed in part to give more abilities for corporations to expand into other poorer countries possibly at the expense of local businesses.an ideology which is believed to be beneficial to everyone, but hides the realities and complexities that may worsen situations. These ideologies can be influential as some larger corporations may indeed benefit from these policies, but that does not automatically mean everyone else will, and power and such interests may see these agendas being pushed forth more so., with this expansion and drive for further profits, there has often come a disregard for human rights. In some cases, corporations have been accused for hiring local militaries to subdue and even kill people who are protesting the effects and practices of these corporations, such as the various controversies over oil corporations and resource and mineral companies in parts of Africa have highlighted.globalization has increased in the past decade or two, so has the criticisms. Whether it is concerns at profits over people as the driving factor, or violations of human rights, or large scale tax avoidance by some companies, some large multinationals operating in developing countries in particular have certainly had many questions to answer.pressure to compete has often meant fighting against social clauses and policies that may lead to more costs for the company where other companies may not be subject to the same restrictions. The fear of losing out in competition then drives many companies to a lower common denominator rather than a higher one.so there is a downward pressure on worker’s wages and their working conditions because they are such major costs for many operations.multinationals encourage the formation of export processing zones in developing countries which end up being areas where worker’s rights are reduced. This way they are able to play off countries against each other; if one tries to improve worker or living standards in some way, the company can threaten to move operations to another zone in another country. Some developing countries such as China also benefit from this arrangement as it makes them more competitive in international markets.many, the implication for this situation is that the right to form unions need to be supported. The topic of unions can cause debate and resentment from companies and free trade advocates.the one hand unions are supposed to represent worker’s and their rights. Without unions in some sectors workers have little ability to demand fairer conditions and pay from a more influential and powerful employee.the other hand, in an increasingly globalized world, companies struggle to compete with each other, especially where standards vary.enormous labor costs means that companies from countries with higher standards are at a competitive disadvantage. Rather than a global effort to improve working conditions for everyone, it seems easier-and more profitable-for companies and countries to argue for lower conditions.political effect of this is also increased control and influence; with less organized labor force, the political power is more firmly in the hands of a few powerful elite.is quite easy to demonize unions as well because the disruption they can cause (e.g. if the union is for some public service) can easily be shown to be a hindrance for the general population. Media coverage often looks at the inconvenience of the general population and hints at the unreasonable demands unions make.
(As a Human Rights Watch report details, it is not just developing countries where this problem exists; even the United States suffers from the denial of such rights.)at international institutions such as the World Trade Organization also helps them see more favorable conditions and the companies with more money can wield more influence, creating an imbalanced playing field.
Engagement
Some corporations and think tanks argue that their actions can actually be positive. Their “constructive engagement” allows the spread of democracy, new technologies, human rights and so on to those regions, which, over time, would allow more positive benefits to be realized.sounds nice and comforting and there are certainly cases where this happens. With globalization in general, cross cultural communication is occurs far quicker than ever before. Often those countries which have been dictatorships are often regimes that have been placed in power, or supported, by western nations and the larger corporations have benefited from the dictatorships’ ability to control their own people.some countries, large corporations have even funded media suppression or military activities against workers, themselves.rights conditions have hardly improved due to corporate activities and the technologies brought in are usually still owned by the company itself, so that the self-empowering benefits of technology transfer is less than what it could be., some public pressure has forced certain large companies to address their human rights issues. Such companies include large oil corporations like BP Amoco and Statoil. The constructive engagement argument is then seen as a nice cover to continue exploitative practices.
… As governments spend resources on EPZs [Export Processing Zones], they foresake the opportunity to “create more jobs for the same amount of money by investing in and supporting small enterprises serving the local market.” EPZs require government funds which could be used elsewhere for projects that directly help the poor. Their growth is coming at the expense of the poor.respect to tourism foreign exchange earnings for developing countries are “often lower than the income figure might lead one to believe”, says a UN report. The difference is due to “leakages”-the percentage of the tourist’s money which does not stay in the country being visited, but which goes instead to the foreign-owned airline, tour operator and hotel. These figures are significant. They show that a great deal more foreign exchange stays in a country when hotels are locally owned.hear more and more about philanthropic organizations set up by mega-successful business elites, where millions of dollars are donated to seemingly worthy causes. However, the fact that such donations are needed also serves as an indication that development policies and globalization policies in their current form are not sustainable! The following quote summarizes this notion quite well:is all very well for Bill Gates to charitably donate $750m to pay for immunization programmes for certain diseases, as he recently announced he would do, and for James Wolfensohn to urge transnational companies setting up in poor countries to contribute financially directly to local education services. Societies which depend on such largess to meet their basic health and education needs are neither sustainable, democratic nor equitable-yet new dimensions of power are ceded to large companies.