Germaine Greer

Does a book review.

This part she gets right:

A number of explanations for the intractable rate of maternal mortality that continues to bedevil the world are suggested – but poverty is left out. Doctors Allan Rosenfield and Deborah Maine wrote their seminal article on maternal mortality for the Lancet in 1985; in 1999 Rosenfield received a $50m grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to set up a programme called Averting Maternal Death and Disability. If brilliance and application had been enough Rosenfield might have done it. But mothers are still dying, and for the same reason: poverty. Poverty leads to illiteracy, low status, poor nutrition, teenage pregnancy, poor physical development, lack of infrastructure, and lack of resources and expertise.

Poverty is indeed the source of most woes. But given that, given that she acknowledges that, this is insane:

The authors have no critique of globalism to offer, nor do they appear to grasp how western economic power keeps the developing world too poor to develop. Astoundingly, they suggest that what women need is more sweatshops. \”The factories prefer young women, perhaps because they\’re more docile and perhaps because their small fingers are more nimble for assembly or sewing. So the rise of manufacturing has generally raised the opportunities and the status of women. The implication is that instead of denouncing sweatshops, we in the west should be encouraging manufacturing in poor countries, particularly in Africa and the Muslim world.\”

Poverty\’s the problem but economic development isn\’t the solution?

Is this some special feminist logic which I, as a mere man, have no possibility of understanding?

3 thoughts on “Germaine Greer”

  1. Seems like the usual unawareness that there are far worse things than sweat shops. For those living on and from garbage heaps a sweatshop job is a distant aspiration.

  2. Brian, follower of Deornoth

    Silly old you, Timmy. Higher taxes and more government spending are the solution. Isn’t that obvious?

  3. No, Tim–this isn’t “feminist,” it’s just ordinary socialist propaganda, to which so many feminists subscribe. (And you deserve at least half a demerit for losing the only partially-camouflaged target.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *