http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-24/australian-retailers-linked-to-sweatshop-abuse/4773738

Having read this article this morning, and being mindful of the ridiculously low prices charged for clothing and other items in some department stores, I'm troubled by the reliance Westerners have on other people's misery.

I'm particularly interested in the contrary nature of feminist principles in modern society.

Our society in the fortunate West extols the virtues of women being released from household "drudgery". Women, apparently, are no longer tied to domestic chores, and have been set free to move into the "workplace" in whatever role they wish to pursue.

No longer do women make clothes, and many spend more time watching cooking shows on TV than they do actually cooking. Things are prepacked and ready to go at supermarkets, etc, etc.

Feminist sensibilities are alive to the slightest nuance uttered in criticism of the modern Western way.

I'm wondering how the corporatised and feminised West okays a situation where third world women slave for a pittance to provide goods almost indecently inexpensive so that Western women don't have to either pay a decent price enabling them a decent wage or, perish the thought, make their own clothing.

Not only that, but much Western clothing produced in developing countries (being so cheap) is often jettisoned while it's in perfectly good condition. These clothes are then bagged up and distributed for sale in poor overseas countries like Africa, therefore destroying local garment industries - not to mention cultural dress.

How can Western feminist and corporate principles, the bedrock of modern Western society, ignore the plight of their developing world sisters in the scheme of things - a model which sees the Western feminist principle supported by the lowly paid toil of poor women?

To be fair Poirot, the feminists have no more responsibility than anyone else in the west really. They could acknowledge how women have benefited from labour saving goods, or in true feminist spirit, they could just say it's all the fault men.

I'm in constant state of amazement at how cheap everything is, especially at Bunnings. Low prices are just the beginning!

I look at a ladder for $7.56, and think how can they even transport it for that price. Yes I know about loss leading...

One does long for things to be more expensive with some way of guaranteeing longevity of the product, as who really likes going shopping and choosing between 25 brands of toaster? The trouble is there is just no way of knowing whether you are paying for quality or the perception of quality.

When you pay more, are you paying for a brand, or for decent working conditions, or for quality. Unlikely. So you might as well just choose the cheapest + 2. Not the bottom brand, a few rungs up, not the ridiculously expensive one.

It's got to the state one would have to do a 300 page thesis with a year of research to be sure that the exact toaster you bought conforms to your expectations on quality and worker conditions and environmental principals and all the while looking nice next to the organic bread maker! Who has the time?

I feel (so it must be valid, I'm just learning feeling is more important than knowing) that these issues can only be addressed at a macro level, as there is too much waste in micro-level and putting the onus on the consumer.

Raising awareness is the end game, and now, we are aware, like we were about the cows in Malaysia, we can feel smug that 'we know', and it's the corporate neo-con military industrial complex and now feminism's fault!

I suppose the feminist can content themselves that they are less guilty than men. Like any social problem or historical wrong, women can safely say they were just hapless victims of the Patriarchy

You raise an interesting and important question, Poirot. More importantly, you shed light in a significant problem. I'm not sure what the solution is, though.

After reading your post and the article, I did a quick survey of what I am wearing. Shorts from China; a t-shirt from Bangladesh; a jumper from China and a watch from Switzerland. I didn't check my underpants, but will assume they were also made with cheap labour somewhere in Asia.

None of the clothes I am wearing are astoundingly cheap, which means that the chain of companies that span the gap from the sweatshop to my wardrobe is making a killing on them. I don't know where I can get quality Australian-made clothing for a comparable price, though. I'll admit that I don't actively search for Australian-made clothes very often, but when I do it is very hard to find. Specialist items made by the likes of RM Williams, Driza-Bone, etc. may be exceptions - I'm not sure - but they don't really fit into my everyday clothing options.

Assuming, then, that our clothes will continue to be sourced from Asian sweatshops, what do we do to improve conditions for those who make them? Regulate the mark-ups permitted on goods imported and distributed in Australia? This would either drive our businesses completely under or have some success. If a 50% markup is permitted, then a shirt made for $0.20 could sell for $0.30. In order to make a profit, the companies would have to pay more for the goods (pay $10.00 for a shirt and sell it for $15.00), which sends money back down the supply chain. But does the money get to the workers in that case, or just fatten the business owners?

I know it's a naive idea, but I can't think of much better.

'Not only that, but much Western clothing produced in developing countries (being so cheap) is often jettisoned while it's in perfectly good condition. '

Now, who is at fault.

One would think the person who buys the clothes. But you'd be wrong Poirot!

You might think it's the fashion industry promoting the every changing fashion, or the women buying into it or the women's magazines. Nope, still wrong.

You might think it's a general problem that people actually have so much expendable income they can just discard useful items. But you'd be wrong!

The real reason, just ask a feminist, is the 'Male Gaze'. It goes like this.

1. Men are attracted to women....
Bingo! Men's fault

2. Men like attractive women.
3. Women like to attract men.
4. Women like the ritual of making themselves more attractive
5. Women buy into the whole fashion world, buying magazines full of adverts about clothes and make-up
6. Women who haven't the money to buy 'designer' clothes (apparently cheap clothes have no design, they just fall together), pay for cheap imitation designer clothes made in sweat shops.
7. Men look on bemused at why their wife has a new outfit ever other week, when they buy clothes once every few years and wear their undies until they literally fall apart.
8. Meanwhile women in the third world are exploited by the demand for cheap clothes.

So, I think we have proved, that if men stopped being attracted to women, there would be no sweat shops. Additionally then women wouldn't starve themselves to become the super-models they aspire to be as a result of them putting clothes at the center of their universe. This is all men's fault, even if the men don't even notice the changing fashions and have a hard time describing clothes in any other terms beside primary colours.

It's the male gaze that is the trouble I tell ya!

Well, you're right, Houellie...I realise I seem to be laying laying the entire responsibility at the feet of feminists - and the responsibility rests with all of us.

My point was, though, to ask how can feminists ignore (as you put it in another thread) "the source" of their own freedom - and that it comes from the exploitation of "other" women - and men?

On the subject of Western attitudes in general, particularly pertaining to another big Western market - third world-sourced electronics, this satirical skit from the team at Saturday Night Live puts things in perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybDKfGEw4aU

(Really worth a watch, Houellie. SNL - brilliantly using humour as a vehicle for socio-economic commentary...which often gets the message across best)

Poirot you forget one thing, most of those sweet shop workers do have a choice, they could stay down on the farm. Most of them do have a short holiday back home, & choose to come back, so the sweet shop must be better than the farm.

Their conditions in many instances do bare some similarity to that experienced by European workers during the early stage of our own industrial revolution. Not great, but better than what they had.

I used to get stuff made in Taiwan, the new sweet shop country, after Japan had advanced past that stage. In only a decade their labor became too expensive, & too much of it had moved to administrative tasks. They were still supplying us, but were having the product made in China.

It will take longer in China, where some farmers are still living in caves, but it will happen, & happen all the sooner with industrialization. A generation or perhaps 2 will pay the price for a better richer future for all of them. Us denying them the work would be bad news for most of them.