SPQR,

I don't have a solution.

My main point was to examine the hypocrisy of first world women enjoying an emancipated lifestyle riding on the back of exploitation of third world women.

To me it raised questions about feminist ideology - in that women are only emancipated here because women are indentured elsewhere.

Imagine if the flow of goods suddenly ceased? We'd be hopeless...Some women might have to wear last years fashions : )

Anyway, I don't expect anything will change unless it has to. Humans are hypocrites...and none of us lives next door to a sweat shop.

Out of sight - out of mind.

As you were.....

Pericles,

I get that you're saying that it's all a "process".

First we get the exploitation and the unbelievable cruelty - and then the spring flowers grow.

So Westerners who remember the stories of how men and women were treated during the industrial revolution - kids in factories and mines who were stunted, locked in , beaten, starved etc (all true).....can think it will all be hunky-dory somewhere down the track.

So if you sat down a Westerner and explained the intricacies of these cruelties that are supposedly relegated to the annals of history, they would be shaking their heads, aghast and wondering how people could be treated like that -"back then".

But those very same people will happily walk into a shop and buy the stuff they need - made by people "now" who are being treated in the same manner.

So you're saying that knowledge and disgust of past practices has no impact on our principles these days - if it's not waved under our nose then it's not worth a moment's consideration.

Strange species, humans

What is the solution Poirot.

It's the same reason people eat meat but couldn't shoot a cow, and people for some reason seem to care when 100 people die in their own country but not 10000 people die in another country.

'But those very same people will happily walk into a shop and buy the stuff they need - made by people "now" who are being treated in the same manner.'

As I said, it's impossible to make ethical buying choices, as the information is too hard to collate given how many buying choices one is making, and given that the end result is probably that the factory worker you're trying to help will end up with no job; if by some fluke enough people cared enough to turn their shopping trips into an exercise in research of ethical goods production.

But, as you say, the phenomena could be recognized a bit more by people, but what practical effect does it really serve, apart from 'raising awareness', given we cant really control much more than the odd ban on nestle or whatever.

'So you're saying that knowledge and disgust of past practices has no impact on our principles these days - if it's not waved under our nose then it's not worth a moment's consideration.'

These sporadic outbursts of outrage and indignation and bad press blow over, as nobody really has the energy to apply that blow torch to everything they buy.

I think a more prevalent issue of hypocrisy is feminisms ideal of cheap childcare, which screws childcare workers, who are predominantly women, which in itself is not unrelated to the feminist characterization of all men as potential pedophiles. There's a sea of contradiction in most ideologies.

Like I said on another thread, I think there were other ways to gain women financial independence than making women do domestic work for strangers rather than their own families, and have families with 2 wage slaves and outsourcing the parenting.

Good topic Poirot. We have become a greed society no longer content to save up for the things we can now buy on credit or more cheaply thanks to exploitative conditions in the developing world.

I try to have faith that this is short term and the eventual raising of the developing world's economies will even out the playing field, reduce populations through greater prosperity and education...but something about it does not feel right and some of the effects are cruel.

The Greens are asking for governments to make new guidelines around sweatshops and ill-treatment of workers an issue for trade negotiations. This might be a good start but like many people, I don't know the long term answer. My feelings tend to sit around more protectionist policies (regulated to ensure monopolies don't fester) as nations tend to do better when they can supply their own food on their own terms. The spin off effects locally appear to be more positive than when much of what is produced is shipped offshore. The irony in this is as far as food is concerned the only benefactors are the middlemen. Consumers often pay the same for food produced here in Australia as overseas. Farmers in Australia are also realising poorer prices for goods but still have to live in the same economy as those who think they are benefitting from cheaper food. Clothing is a little different for other reasons.

It is not an easy problem to solve, any solutions will bring out the ire of those who are making money out of the status quo and who have the biggest lobby groups.

Houellie,

Totally with you, particularly in reference to your last two paragraphs.

I'm not saying there is a solution - at least not one that anybody wishes to broach. Nor am I saying that somehow Poirot lives outside the paradigm she is describing. My house has just as much cheap imported crap as the next one, although I try and limit my throw-away mentality.

As I said earlier, my main point was that we can congratulate ourselves for women's empowerment in our society (although, as you point out, much of it is not empowerment at all - just a different way and more choice in how one slugs it out)......but our good fortune is entirely dependent on the exploitation of women (and men and children) in less developed societies.

I'm not trying to solve it here, just ruminating on the fact.

It's nothing to do with feminist conscience, Poirot...

But it is to do with human consciousness. Or rather, our brains' ability to only fully concentrate on one thing at a time (claims of multi-tasking ability by people not characterised as 'estrogen deficient' notwithstanding).

We spend most of our time mostly unaware of most things happening to most other people in the world.

To do otherwise is to risk madness at the unremitting impossibilty of coping with all those travails on billions of people's behalf.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to care where we can.

But each of us tends to start with those closest to us emotionally, physically and geographically.

Humans have usually been hunter/gatherers. Some just now do this on the rubbish tips of Manila or Sao Paulo.

Usually it is their choice... Madonna can only adopt so many third world children.