A Series on Gender and Agriculture - Issue #2
Hi friends! I'm doing a series on Gender and Agriculture. This post is a continuation from yesterday's post (https://steemit.com/agriculture/@anwenbaumeister/a-series-on-gender-and-agriculture-issue-1). This topic is really important to me, as I am a female hoping to have my own permaculture farm in the future. I have also worked on various permaculture farms while traveling. I am passionate about deconstructing power structures and current regimes. This series will attempt to deconstruct the current patriarchal food regime.
I just completed my degree requirements at American University in July with a BA in International Studies. I had a regional focus on Latin America and a specialty in Global Inequality and Development. I studied abroad at University of Auckland in New Zealand and at Universidad Adolfo Ibanez in Chile. All images are from Pexel.com and are licensed under the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license.
100% of Steem Dollars and Steem from this post will be donated to cover operation costs of Project Curie. You can read more about Project Curie here.
good follow on - reading through it it would seem that most of this injustice to ownership would be in the southern and eastern world - western landownership is perhaps fairer to women, but only after many legistlative reforms brought about by women in the last century. Landownership for woman only came in to the Uk under the Married Womans Property Act 1882 which allowed women to own property in their own right ( England Wales and Ireland only - not Scotland) - this got extended to the colonies of Australia .This act disolved the 'coveature' ( on marriage, all property reverted to a husband ) - thus a woman under this act now had the right to own propery with in her own name, to buy and sell .Her rights as an individual werer restored and she would no longer be seen as an identity under her husband.This is turn also meant any debts incurred would be HERS and not her husbands and she could be made bankrupt . This piece of legislation was the begining of women in the UK to be recognises as an idividual person - it would be a further 36 years before voting became a right for women
"Political movement towards women's suffrage began during the war and in 1918, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed an act granting the vote to: women over the age of 30 who were householders, the wives of householders, occupiers of property with an annual rent of £5, and graduates of British universities' ( wikipedia)
I would like to give a comment concerning women and academia (although I know this is only a single sentence out of your entire post).
In some fields of research (including mine), women are largely missing at the level of the permanent positions. As a result, it is today more likely for you to find a permanent job if you are a woman than a man.
To give an example (that I know about), let's take theoretical physics. The selection committees are put under a strong pressure to hire an equal amount of women although female researchers only consist of about 15% of the applicants. This 15% number should be accounted for before claiming that one should hire as many male and female researchers. A dramatic result would be to miss the hiring of some excellent researchers because of gender reasons .
Note that I am not saying one should hire 15% of women as there are 15% of female applicants, but a ratio of 50% over 15% is unfair in the other way round. For instance, last year, on the basis of scientific excellence criteria only, 60% of the hirings for junior researchers (still in theoretical physics) were female researchers! Therefore, why bother about gender issues whilst good female researchers can definitely get positions on the basis of their scientific excellence only? At least in this very particular case...
From reading your post, it is clear that there are reasons to worry concerning the access to the land and gender in some countries (which is the covered topic). But I couldn't prevent to comment on the parallel you made with academia. We must be careful when generalizing (and I am sure there are countries in which if you are a women, the chances to get a permanent job in academia are lower) :)
Hey @lemouth! Thanks for such a great response and parallel.
I totally understand your point. I also thinks it's important to consider the argument of affirmative action - "an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination." In this case, women have suffered from discrimination in academia due to a patriarchal society and a male-centered knowledge structure, therefore a solution to finding gender equality is such affirmative action. While it may seem imbalanced at first (the ratio of 50% over 15%), I think that the hope of this affirmative action is to target the fact that women only consist of about 15% of the applicants due to discrimination in the first place. And hopefully, through hiring more women, it will increase that pool in time to having women as 50% of the applicants.
Also you said "A dramatic result would be to miss the hiring of some excellent researchers because of gender reasons." - Yes, and also if there wasn't such affirmative action a result would be to miss the creation of some excellent female researchers in the first place because of historical discrimination in the field.
I also really appreciate your point about being careful with generalizing, and definitely agree that such a blanket statement is not applicable to all cases, such as in the U.S.! I was focusing more on developing countries in this perspective, and should have clarified that.
I would then to agree with you, except in some special case (which is actually the case I am talking about). To continue with the same example, we had last year ~200 applicants for 5 jobs. It is not the same think as having ~200 applicants for 20 jobs. For small numbers of academic jobs, one should avoid anything else than scientific excellence.
For a larger number of jobs, I still think than 50%/15% is too large. I would feel more comfortable with a softer 25%/15%. The most important point would be to identify where this 15% is coming from. To apply for a job in research, you need a PhD. There as well, 15 % of female applicants. Then one can check at the master level, again 15% (Talking about France). At the bachelor level, I don't have the numbers but I think that it is not as extreme. Much closer to the 50/50 case. The question is then: why don;t we have more female students in the master programs. And here I have no clue.
Maybe are women not that attracted by fundamental research and the amount of necessary postdocs everywhere around the world before getting a job?
To conclude, I am probably discussing a special case which is special enough for not applying general rules that would be reasonable otherwise.
Gender and gardening?
This is just gender baiting bullshit.
:/
estoy siguiendo su publicaciones, nuevamente quiero felicitarla por el trabajo que realizas y te deseo las mejores de las suertes para lograr tu emprendimiento de tus productos orgánicos muchas gracias
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot v0.4. Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.
Built by @ontofractal
I have three suggestions for your next post.