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.