Great to see the Today programme focusing on issues that really affect our lives!
Labour leadership contender Yvette Cooper has called for a “feminist approach to the economy”. It has been a branch of economic thinking for a long time, but what does it mean in practice?
Feminist economics shows how the models and methods of traditional economics are biased towards masculine perspectives and masculine topics, said Oxford University’s Prof Jane Humphries (pictured above). “Equality is economic sense,” said Polly Trenow of the Women’s Budget Group.
Unbelievable that they actually devote time and resource to this male bashing tripe.
I heard Cooper say this in her interview and immediately the brakes went on….as I imagine they did for many listening….Just how many who were thinking of voting for Cooper had an instant turn-off when she said that?
Today’s look at this ‘issue’ was a bit of a love-in with two activists in the pro-camp and Naughtie enjoying himself immensely saying he could talk about this forever….however not coming up with any hard questions or actually resolving the mystery of what feminist economics actually is.
I guess she felt the need to say something radical and eye-catching as she trails, eclipsed as she is, in Corbyn’s star dust.
Have to say Burnham, Cooper and em, the other one, are entirely lifeless, bland, anonymous almost. Highly unimpressive.
People keep saying Labour will be in the wilderness forever if Corbyn gets in, I rather think the highest danger of that comes from electing complete nonentities with no connection to the public at all.
Vote Corbyn, vote often, as a Mr Rahman might say.
I have been hugely impressed with the ability of Mrs Balls to utter so many words without actually saying anything.
She will be last on my vote.
Corbyn has done well because he actually says what he may actually believe, incredible as that may seem. The others studiously avoid doing so for fear or upsetting someone who might vote for them.
Labour leadership contender Yvette Cooper has called for a “feminist approach to the economy”. It has been a branch of economic thinking for a long time, but what does it mean in practice?
Would that be the Nationalisation of privately owned Beauty saloons?
Because the Nationalisation of the railways is biased towards the masculine perspective and the railways are a masculine topic. Therefore the Nationalisation of both Railways and Beauty saloons creates Equality, and therefore makes economic sense to feminists?
I’ll be sure to order a few extra ‘nan’ bread with my curry Saturday all in the aid of our economy!
I may be having an Italian meal the following Saturday so I guess Petra bread rather than pitta bread will be the one to have!
I do most of my shopping in the French hypermarkets, such as Carrefour. Booze is cheap, so are many food items. I cannot understand why those dummies in the Calais jungle don’t shop at the local hyper markets , live well and stay there, rather than come to multiculty Britain with its crappy Asian shops with mouldy fruit and unpleasant shopkeepers.
Not to mention the obligatory rat and mouse droppings.
To achieve true equality, we need government quoters for female hod carriers, scaffolders, roofers, tree surgeons and sewerage workers.
Yes ‘hod carriers, scaffolders, roofers, tree surgeons and sewerage workers’. I wonder how it is possible for male members of the ROP, to do these jobs wearing those pyjama type clothes? I suppose they could complain about discrimination if refused work. And I would worry about them holding the job up for prayers five times a day. Not like re-arranging time tables in our universities for prayers is it?
I saw a female tree surgeon once, doing a pretty scary job and doing it very efficiently; up high and getting to grips with some pretty big branches. She was a lot easier on the eye than your average male version too … oops, sorry, there goes my Beeboid street cred.
Thank you Wikipedia.
Feminist economics is the critical study of economics including its methodology, epistemology, history and empirical research, attempting to overcome androcentric (male and patriarchal) biases. It focuses on topics of particular relevance to women, such as care work or occupational segregation (exclusion of women and minorities from certain fields); deficiencies of economic models, such as disregarding intra-household bargaining; new forms of data collection and measurement such as the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), and more gender-aware theories such as the capabilities approach. Feminist economics ultimately seeks to produce a more gender inclusive economics.
Feminist economists call attention to the social constructions of traditional economics, questioning the extent to which it is positive and objective, and showing how its models and methods are biased towards masculine preferences. Since economics is traditionally focused on topics said to be “culturally masculine” such as autonomy, abstraction and logic, feminist economists call for the inclusion of more feminine topics such as family economics, connections, concreteness, and emotion, and show the problems caused by exclusion of those topics. Inclusion of such topics has helped create policies that have reduced gender, racial, and ethnic discrimination and inequity, satisfying normative goals central to all economics.
Many scholars including Ester Boserup, Marianne Ferber, Julie A. Nelson, Marilyn Waring, Nancy Folbre, Diane Elson and Ailsa McKay have contributed to feminist economics. Waring’s 1988 book If Women Counted is often regarded as the “founding document” of the discipline. By the 1990s feminist economics had become recognised as an established field within economics.
How much of this the unlikely next leader of the Labour Party understands is another question, as indeed, is how much I understand.
Oh yes – it’s much like black studies but without the intellectual rigour.
Feminist economics is the critical study of economics including its methodology, epistemology, history and empirical research, attempting to overcome androcentric (male and patriarchal) biases
Makes perfect sense to me. But I ask, what about gay economics and bi-sexual economic theory? And we have yet to formulate trans-gender economic theory, leave alone the metrics to measure their importance.
What has struck me is the quantised and compartmentalised nature of these economic theories. An altogether holistic method is needed that synthesises the discreet with the continuous, while making sure that the outlying spectrum of the marginalised is kept within the Hilbertian domain.
In a word it’s sexism.
Which is justified because, since the year dot, white males have not been defending, with their lives, tens of millions of their lives, hundreds of millions of their lives, their womenfolk.
Sorry, it’s worse than that. Not only have white males declined to defend the “weaker” sex, but they have been exorcising their cliterati.
Fortunately, Mohammed and Co, like the seventh cavalry, are dromedarying to the rescue of the oppressed.
Mrs Bollocks is only talking about doing the weekly shop, and staying within her budget surely.
Thanks for providing us with the Wiki definition, deegee, which seems to be more about reinforcing stereotypes rather than anything sensible like equal pay and opportunities.
As for logic being “culturally masculine”, I would have thought that it was both gender neutral and an essential part of any economic theory.
Ms Cooper is just trying to get a few female votes, but I suspect she is merely insulting the intelligence of the electorate. I might add why didn’t Naughtie take her to task and press her for details, but I already know the answer.
Feminist economics is not enough.
We need feminist engineering. When my wife was in hospital the last time, for several months, she was attended by Occupational Therapists (who were all women). It gave her some amusement to watch them using spanners on her wheelchair, and all, without exception, murmuring ‘Leftie Loosie, Righty Tighty’ to remember which way to turn the nuts. Since they were all qualified professionals, she assumed this was part of their training – an unusual example of gender-awareness in practical engineering, and presumably accompanied by emotional support, instruction in collaborative communication (how to ask for help if you can’t remember the rhyme) and the avoidance of male-pattern workplace micro-aggression (gratuitously offering to show an emotionally vulnerable colleague how to tighten a bolt).
I roll my eyes. I count to ten. I risk causing offence by laughing.
I think – could feminist economics actually be worse than, well, economics? Yes it could.
Here’s the definition:
“Feminist Economics” means more unfair advantages for women.