Feminism and Economics: My Guilty Conscience
So, every time Lambert asks for a feminist analysis of the economic or big banker FAIL, I feel terribly guilty because a) I'm a feminist; and b) I don't know jack about economics or finance.
But I've been trying to keep an eye out. I'm not sure this poster quite makes the connection between feminism and economics, or even gender (as indicated in the title) and economics. I'd try to make a stronger tie-in myself, but I've got a rockin' bad headache. So I'll just throw it out there for you all. The central point, that part of the fight is to resist the tendency to allow discussions of sterile "objective" economic stats to hide the very real suffering those numbers represent:
When most economists talk abut “economic agents”, they are conjuring up bodiless, genderless automatons who naturally have no biological predecessors, do not carry babies, do not give birth, and do not face questions of physical survival and human development. So it is easy for them to look at double-digit unemployment rates and deflationary pressures on wages and benefits simply as market phenomena while ignoring that such things actually threaten the physical survival of families. It is not surprising that in crises like ours, macroeconomic policies stemming from such dehumanized conceptions of the economy do not address the majority of people’s hardships — and end up being inhumane indeed.
That is why the objective of macroeconomic policies should be maintaining social provisioning (serving the needs of the community), as opposed to temporary fine-tuning the economy or arbitrary indicators such as government debt to GDP ratios. However, real-life concepts like social provisioning, care, and parental bent (concern about the survival of those unable to function on their own) are irrelevant in a genderless and thus lifeless world of economic avatars. So naturally these do not come up too often when experts are analyzing the macro-economy.
there's more, go read!