<Paid employment, female labour force participation, secondary school enrolment for girls, and child and maternal morality [sic] rates figure strongly in SIGI, statistics showing that countries with 'higher levels of discrimination against women perform more poorly on [these] development indicators'>
This delightful (presumably) Freudian slip--lasciviousness is the upshot of discrimination?--points up how antiquated the qualitative notion of morality is. We now occupy a world numbers and morality is quantitative, if not obsolete. Jocelynne surely meant "mortality", which is much easier to assess--as well as being indiscriminately abhorred by all.

I'm encouraged by this article though; as with Jocelynne's last, one can infer that all's not well in paradise--though the focus remains myopically on one gender. I'd love to say that "woman-as-independent, as her own woman" is anachronistic, but in fact it's delusional. We are all, male and female, of a culture and its set of norms, and were never independent. We flatter ourselves but individuality is nothing more than egotism.
But yet I agree with Jocelynne that it's worth aspiring to independence within cultural constraints. But there's none of that for us; we're as predictable as lab rats. I think it's appalling the way women heed the siren song of the market, the way Target et al exploit sexuality to groom adolescent males and females and sell product.
But I'm just a mad radical and all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Squeers never stop being a radical thinker. Actually you are not really that radical, you just look beyond what is fed to us on a daily basis. Being 'unfashionable' or denying the trend is not radical. :)

As for the article, there is no doubt about the disadvantage women experience in the developing world, and the issue of forced marriage which still continues in the West despite laws that ban it's practice.

The growing sexualisation of children is immoral and is largely ignored in an emperor's new clothes kind of way, due to the notion of profit and productivity.

It always strikes as odd that music videos are hyper sexualised when in reality (based on my experience) it is the tweens and early teens that are the largest viewers.

However I tend to cringe when reading statments along the lines of "..women continue to 'face barriers' preventing their full contribution to social and economic life." The author, I have no doubt, means it with the best intentions.

Who gets to decide how someone contributes to social and economic life. What does that even mean. What if someone chooses to opt out to some extent, live on a bit of land growing their own veg and in paid work accooding to his/her needs. Why is contributing about serving a higher purpose within a capitalist context of a man-made notion of productivity. For what purpose does it serve. Men and women are both slaves to 'productivity contribution' type of thinking but only if they allow it. In the West we have some choices but in the developing world there is little in the way of choices.

Pelican,

The capitalist West has also had a hand in usurping the contribution and autonomy of women in the "developing" world. Mechanisation, monoculture, pesticides and fertilizers have been introduced, ruining the environment and unbalancing the status quo. Corporations now seek to control the seed market, and all these things impact on the lives and well-being of women in the third world.

This is the big picture which no-one seems to include when looking at the impact on the lives of women as affected by globalised infrastructure, which represents the antithesis of the cooperative sustainable, meaningful and autonomous work ethic of women in traditional societies.

http://www.navdanya.org/diverse-women-for-diversity/64

I dunno squeers, I reckon it is possible to become an individual, you just have to sacrifice being part of society. It's something I have often contemplated. I was too slow off the mark to live outside the system with no traceable identification past a birth certificate, but my second option, that being chosen insanity, I also rejected due to the lack of autonomy, which was short sighted in retrospect, being as though autonomy is related to freedom which is a mythical socially constructed aspiration. The option's still there for most of course, and I believe the more fully one can retreat into their own reality the more truly individual one can become, though having children has eliminated this option for me along with suicide. I vividly remember this realisation adding some bitter to the sweet joy of becoming a father. It's the ultimate loss of autonomy, I mourned it. You could say the morality of not wanting to devastate young children in this way is constructed of course, but you could also argue the purity of childhood innocence and love represents an absolute so powerful as to render morality insignificant. The vicarious enjoyment I receive in observing their inner world and the enjoyment in relating with my children seems to compensate, but the nagging feeling is still sometimes felt.

I tend to cringe when reading statments along the lines of "..women continue to 'face barriers'

I'm with you pelican. Welcome back. Aside from the actual term which belongs up there with steak-holders, I'm sick of this undefined and victim positioning language that is to be taken as read or supposed to illicit nodding agreement. Everyone faces barriers, always have and always will. People have different barriers, genders, class, race, personality type, parental conditioning, are we to consider nobody should be ever expected to overcome them?

I'd love to be a woman, I could fail in the comforting knowledge I 'faced barriers', unique womanly barriers, and people would silently lament my hardship, and nothing would ever be my fault or my responsibility.

I very nearly got to the end of the article in total agreement with Jocelynne Scutt – regardless of history, tradition, cultural precedent or practice – underage and involuntary marriage is unjustifiable and wrong.

But… to include the Target Twittered rankles as in any way a comparable imposition on 'the right to be girls' beggars belief.

I see nothing wrong with mothers – who are so concerned about the styles of clothing on offer – being able to make a decision, accept responsibility and shop somewhere else… and if that means denying their daughters what they want to wear, tough.

Just tell them to be grateful that they don't live in a developing country or they'd be sold into a forced marriage in a nearby village.

I've seen shoppers at Target – both male and female – and such a significant proportion seemed to be intent on torture stretch-testing trackkie dacks and moccasins that I'm certain stylistic concern, let alone being cultured, isn't high on their agenda.

I think we've been here before on the issue of Westernised girls clothing, accessories and toys.

Who buys girls these sexualised items? Do dads trot off to Target to purchase revealing outfits for their daughters?
Nope, it's mothers who choose costumes for their daughters and who acquiesce to revealing or sexualised wear for their older daughters.

Part of the problem is herd mentality, and many formative years having it drilled into you that you have no capacity to think for yourself.

Mothers and parents in general do not have to purchase this type of clothing for their daughters - they just don't have to do it. Why blame the purveyor when it is so simple to clothe your child "appropriately" to whichever standard you desire.

Pelican is right, that in the West we do have choices that those in less industrialised societies don't have. We don't necessarily have to follow the herd, and we do have a modicum of influence over the choices our daughters make. We simply need to think for ourselves and act accordingly.

Poirot, certainly intervention from the West (and others) has contributed to big changes in the developing world, mostly without the necessary resources or reforms in other areas to allow people to adapt quickly or well. Agri-corps have taken much of the land once used in subsistence with benefits distributed fairly narrowly.

Thanks Houlley as always I enjoy your style.

The first thing as individuals is to realise we are all manipulated to some extent (some may argue beyond that into determinism but that's a bit esoteric). I reckon we do have power to buck the herd mentality, nothing is preordained and certainly we do have power over our shopping choices as Poirot wisely points out. I've given up trying to work out why some parents leave their responsibilities at the door when buying clothes for their kids or allowing them to play violent games, watch inappropriate movies. Maybe it's all too hard for some people with work and other pressures.

Decide what you really want out of life and work some way towards achieving it. Living outside the social norms is not as difficult as you think if you are willing to swap self-imposed slavery with a level of freedom. It is liberating but not for everyone - each to his own. And we in the West are in an enviable position to be able to do so.

I do appreciate this article, thanks Jocelynne. The trials and tribulations faced by girls in developing countries - and also let's not forget in Australia - really are horrendous by any standard, and we should be doing whatever we can to alleviate these sorts of disadvantage.

Pelican, hi! I can see what you're saying but I would suggest the author probably used the "facing barriers" terminology as a throw-away line to symbolise what we think of as "good", without thinking through the implications.

I guess one thing I do object to though is the evoking of patriarchy as being a system of control, as I just can't see this as a necessary conclusion. I think it's important to consider here that a large part of the reason why girls are exploited to the extent they are is due to a sociocultural ignorance on behalf of both women and men, of the plight of girls. Very few people are as simplistic as to think they can control others, nor are they as psychopathic as to think that others' suffering is an acceptable trade-off for enforcing control. But I do think there is a critical lack of understanding and empathy for these girls on the part of adults, simply because they don't have the opportunity to hear their perspectives and engage with their experiences.

If we are going to address this situation in a serious way then we need to give those in "power" credit for having the ability to change their views, if only they were allowed the opportunity to be exposed to the right types of information. Having western feminists agitating to forcibly remove male privilege in these countries will by contrast only achieve the type of equality we see here already - ie where it is equated with women and girls' choice to be more or less conforming to the "stereotypes" that patriarchy gives rise to.

I do not see boys and adult men reduced to disposable sexualised commodities but mainstream media messages constantly tell girls and women their sole worth and value is to be men's disposable sexual service stations. Why should mainstream media promote such messages if we do not live within a Male Supremacist System?

Who benefits from such messages? Girls and women? Hardly given men for centuries have declared they alone are the default autonomous human beings.

Sam Jandwich you are parroting deliberate misinformation because Western Feminists are not interested in imposing a 'white western culture' on non-western women and girls. All societies are Male Supremacist and how this is enacted varies from culture to culture such as claims 'religion or culture' informs women and girls that they must submit to male domination and male control. Non-western Feminists demand the same as western Feminists - an end to male domination over all women and girls.

Nothing will change until we eliminate Male Supremacist System and because Male Supremacist System constantly adapts to every challenge by co-opting and twisting ideas around to make it appear women and girls are accepting male domination nothing changes. Malestream media is powerful tool of Male Supremacy whereby here in the West women are told they are 'choosing' to become men's disposable sexual service stations. However, there is no 'choice' given women and girls know they have only two options: either become males' disposable sexual service stations or be ostracised because they are supposedly prudes. Guess who benefits from such propaganda? Men and boys because I do not see under-age boys being forced into marrying older women, neither do I see sexualised clothing being sold to boys or adult men.

Patriarchy/Male Supremacy is the system responsible for maintaining male domination over women and girls

Ebony,

I repeat: - Who goes shopping to buy the sexuaised clothing for young girls?

It's women who go shopping to buy the sexualised clothing for young girls.

No-one forces women to do that.

Women throng the stores. Women are the "shoppers" in this society. Women have been co-opted quite willingly into the Western capitalist consumer paradigm. If women decided en masse to reject the trappings and vanities, they have the power to turn the "male supremacist" system on its head....but they kinda like all the doo-hickeys and geegaws. Instead of thinking for themselves - instead of slavishly following fashion and group-think in case they're "ostracized" or thought to "prudes" - they meekly follow like lemmings, while raising a middle finger to the men who created the system that Western women luxuriate in.

I have little time for fortunate women moaning and writhing because they're too brittle-headed to realise that they are the ones who choose to be co-opted and they are the ones who have the power to extricate themselves...who gives a stuff if someone ostracizes you because of a clothing choice. Who cares if one is thought a prude?

Non-Western women are so much more authentic, even as their livelihoods and traditional roles are usurped by the very male Western system of agriculture, they retain strength and pride in their femininity while realising, as Squeers pointed out,"...We're all male and female, of a culture and its set of norms, and we're never independent....."

Ebony
"However, there is no 'choice' given women and girls know they have only two options: either become males' disposable sexual service stations or be ostracised because they are supposedly prudes."

Sounds more like there's a poverty of feminist ideas to 'liberate' these 'oppressed' women if there's only two options. I suppose men should come up with the solution to your predicament? But that'd be just palmed off as another form of 'male domination,' wouldn't it?

The truth is that there is choice. This is isn't Saudi Arabia, this is the modernised West where negative freedom is available to all of us. The only failure in choice is not possessing the inner strength to make the choice you want. This isn't anyone's fault other than the person failing to make this choice.

Additionally, the feminists would still have the little problem of women who consciously choose to engage in sexualized advertising and the like. This would be (and is) palmed off as some male conspiracy to dominate.

My solution would be to unlearn all that neo-Marxist 'oppression' stuff you've swallowed. If you're going to look at the world through neo-Marxist lenses, then of course you're going to see 'oppression' everywhere because that ideology is built on it!

Great to see the level of discussion here.
I won't comment further before mulling it over a bit more.
Just for the moment, there seems a conflation of cultural inscription to male dominance, but I don't think there is a secret male cabal of misogynists who sit in secret conclave, pushing a computerised cosmic ray that sends designated Stepford women out shopping on a certain day to inculcate their daughters into darker feminine arts and wiles.
I agree with Pelican, I think, who adopted the middle ground and suggested that capitalism could/should consider the effects of advertising and merchandising in terms beyond profitability.
The lack of concern itself of course carries a cultural message, far more subtle and powerful than the simplistic ones offered by conservative "feminists".
But this lack of concern is inherent in the currently evolved, evolving and imperfect system through history, that applies to all, not just women.
It does suggest a primal drive that relates to patriarchy, but this is a biological and cultural effect, not a moral one- its not personal but relates to the human (species)condition.
I agree that people should discuss these things and are entitled to protest the obvious, but I think it is sadly true that something pretty exponential needs to happen for human affairs to be righted for the benefit of all.
In our time even the few alleged beneficaries of the system are at best, miserable bastards (and sometimes) bitches.
Culture is a powerful thing, more than most can guess at.

Paul Walter,

Capitalism's only goal is growth and profit. The only "effects of advertising and merchandising" that are of value to capitalism are the ones that sell the merchandise.

Any position that elevates women,and their idea of their own value in our society, will have to be achieved despite capitalism, not in concert with it.

Pelican's suggestion (with which I agree) was more in the line of stepping of the conveyor belt and making a bid for a little independence, which, in my opinion, means not depending so much on the system and living according to one's own values as much as one can.

Sam Jandwich as always you make some well considered points. My small objection was not so much to the 'barriers' comment as to the 'contribution' comment which is much harder to define particularly considering cultural differences.

It amounts to others subscribing what determines one's contribution (to society?) in the context of a profit focussed, growth and resource diminishing mindset. The same is witnessed in many a socialistic or Communist state about who determines contribution. It is not a Left/Right issue.

Paul
It does not necessarily take a cabal of misogynists as you rightly referred to the more subtle (and some not so subtle) cultural influences that affect both men and women in different societies. How to balance the tenets of capitalism with morality or other social aspects of community is a bigger issue beyond my intellectual capabilities or means.

It is difficult to discuss the idea of feminism within the cultural context in a generalised or stereotypical way given the vast differences. Certainly by comparison women in the West have little to complain about and I reckon a humanist approach is preferable to the dividing lines of feminism or masculinism. But that is speaking from a comfortable middle class Western view.

Poirot your interpretation was spot on. It does not mean divorcing oneself entirely from the rest of the world just a little thinking beyond what is fed to us as the norm and sticking to one's values.