—
Strategic objective A.1.
Review, adopt and maintain macroeconomic policies and development strategies that address the needs and efforts of women in poverty
Actions to be taken
58. By Governments:
- Review and modify, with the full and equal participation of women, macroeconomic and social policies with a view to achieving the objectives of the Platform for Action;
- Analyse, from a gender perspective, policies and programmes – including those related to macroeconomic stability, structural adjustment, external debt problems, taxation, investments, employment, markets and all relevant sectors of the economy – with respect to their impact on poverty, on inequality and particularly on women; assess their impact on family well-being and conditions and adjust them, as appropriate, to promote more equitable distribution of productive assets, wealth, opportunities, income and services;
Beijing Declaration (1995)
The Beijing Declaration begins to pick up steam when paragraph 58 begins to speak on some concrete actions, or requirements, of governments to implement the rights of women. Indeed, there is a general notion of the advancement and the empowerment of women, and another with the full and equal participation of women. This may surprise some, but this is simply not taken as a truism in much of society.
There is a perspective of many people around the world, especially when convenient for the individuals who can garner power and influence over others with it – whether political or economic. The macroeconomic policies that should be taken into account are ones with a gender-perspective and have been noted in earlier writings also in the work of this (rather long) series dealing with some aspects of the structural adjustment programs.
Those never considered women and disproportionately affected them. It is, through these direct economic policy mechanisms, the ways in which women become the world’s disproportionate poor. Also, the processes by which this impacts developing countries more, people of colour more, and so women of colour in developing countries the most, especially in the more rural or outlying areas.
The external debt problems and taxation connect to these gender inequalities too. Same with the problems seen in employment and the markets. Indeed, these programs and systems, as stated, have an impact on inequality – i.e., its increase – and affect women worse than the men of the world. This is what it means to have a lesser status in the world, to have the economic systems disproportionately negatively affect you, as a group.
The programs listed here make some important assessments or, more properly, emphases on the well-being of families and in the conditions for equal distribution of the fruits of the world. Some of this can take the form of the “assets” and others in “wealth” while other can be “opportunities, income and services.” The inability of many women, around the world, circa 1995 and into the present to have equal access to many of these things remains indicative of the grotesque global inequality which comes with an apologist class, even in my own country of Canada.
Pundits and commentators make statements, knowingly, at the detriment of the poor and women and for the benefit of the wealthier, such as themselves, and for the, ultimate, benefit of the ultra-rich – also known as the wealthy. It is in this sense that we can note the ways in which gender inequality comes in not only the forms of attitudes but also in the types of economic systems and situations around the world, where we see, sometimes, religion working tirelessly to reduce the possibility of the flourishing of women.
The benefit of a society with greater equality rather than great inequality is that which was laid out by some of the most ancient philosophers – I guess, philosophers of economics and politics in this sense – wherein the greater the inequality, past a certain point, the worse off the vast majority of people’s lives become, in comparison to the select fraction of a percent.
However, now, the economics of the world remain globally integrated, more than ever; this creates situations in which the issues not only needing addressing in terms of the varieties of externalities but also the means of distribution of the – not means of productions because the philosophy failed, empirically, there – productivity as the increase in wealth of the mean producer should be tracking in line increases in productivity.
Otherwise, it, to a point, becomes unjust taking of labour. If one, as per libertarian philosophy, should believe in something akin to or approximating a meritocracy, then the benefits to the working class should track this argument, where they are compensated for their labour productivity increases proportionately. But this has not happened. More people’s wealth continues to be siphoned off into the hands of the ultra-rich, internationally, which is anti-meritocracy and more akin to plutocratic kleptocracy in a sense of disproportionate taking of labour productivity as financial capital.
This can lead to the greater impoverishment of women compared to men, especially as the ultra-wealthy are far more often men than women – and, even in the households with the working class backgrounds and jobs, the women continue to be given less, globally speaking.
This is, of course, ignoring the issues related to climate change the need to deal with those as well: apart from individuals trying very hard to redirect the appropriate attention of the public to the pressing issues of the time that affect economic livelihood and sustainable growth such as dealing with climate change – seen even in the extreme cases of denial of its reality – but in general in individuals including Bjørn Lomborg, Katherine Hayhoe, Nigel Lawson, Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Christopher Monckton, Andrew Bolt, John Christy, Marc Morano, Richard Lindzen, Steve Milloy, Roy Spencer, Dick Armey, Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, and others.
Then the information which can be seen coming out of organizations including HumanProgress.Com, which is funded by the Cato Institute and the John Templeton Foundation. Do these individuals or organizations have an interest in misinforming, selectively informing, or outright lying to the public for financial gain? I ask you, dear reader.
These forms of representation of climate change as either non-existent, not that big of a deal, or, in fact, a conspiracy of liberals – a “liberal hoax” – prevents getting to work on concrete solutions. By failing to solve it, these, particular, individuals and others harm the long-term public discourse and, in turn, harm those most probable to be impacted by climate change, e.g., the Indigenous, the rural, the women, the poor, and those in developing countries.
Each of these cases will have economic impacts that can change entire lives. It is these cases where, in a way, by harming the public discourse via distracting from the proper debate on solutions rather than outright denying or minimizing it, in fact, harms the lives of individuals in some of the most vulnerable populations – economically, socially, and otherwise.
What they do is not only factually incorrect via their statements, often, but also immoral in its potential consequences based on known scientific facts and reasonable extrapolations from data into the near future, it is not funny or an intellectual game when you’re talking about the lives of people around the world who will be impacted by this. I do not find these cute or amusing. I find these morally reprehensible and potentially criminal.
The economic livelihoods of poor women around the world – the disproportionately poor – are impacted by situations like this, which all relate to the various policies not only in economics but also in the indirect effects on economic livelihoods of women through some of the most impactful, important, and substantial issues of the day, e.g., the aforementioned global warming or climate change problem.
—
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Preamble, Article 16, and Article 25(2).
- Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960) in Article 1.
- The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) in Article 3, Article 7, and Article 13.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
- Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979).
- Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).
- The Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1993).
- Beijing Declaration(1995).
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000).
- Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (2000).
- The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa or the “Maputo Protocol” (2003).
- Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence or the Istanbul Convention (2011) Article 38 and Article 39.
What’s your take on what you just read? Comment below or write a response and submit to us your own point of view or reaction here at the red box, below, which links to our submissions portal.
Got Writer’s Block?
Sign up for our Writing Prompts email to receive writing inspiration in your inbox twice per week.
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member, today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.
Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
—
Photo by Jacek Dylag on Unsplash