User:2606:6000:CC0D:6700:551C:F350:F672:77D7/sandbox

Evaluating Wikipedia– Gender and Development

Run-on sentences are scattered throughout the article– it creates convoluted semantics and confusion. These sentences leave less space for developing and defining main terms and ideas. For example, the term "Third World women" is dropped yet never defined. In the context of gender and development it is crucial to understand how this term came about and who is categorized by it. Western feminism and the western approach is therefore also neglected which is how in class we even began understanding these policies. This base foundation creates a clearer image of shifts in global economy. In the talk section it is evident that some changes have been made to the article. One change made was the addition of more headers. Tagging these on the end made them a bit random. If the ideas and concepts at the end were incorporated throughout the article, there would be a more well-rounded understanding of how and why each approach was created and why it was criticized. It would also provide a more cohesive understanding of the theoretical and conceptual aspects. The other approaches section was also added so that the article was less economically driven. One way to combat the heavy economically attention is to include more feminist perspective. It is addressed yet not fleshed through, leaving the discussion of gender and development more concerned about the development and economical gain than the inherent flaws in structure and implementation of economic approaches. Considering that this article is a part of the WikiProject Gender Studies and WikiProject International Development there should be greater sensitivity to what specifically about why women's experience and intersectionality concerns these approaches.

The lead section gives a preview into the article as it does list of the sections that will be discussed. It also attempts to explain the process of considering gender when talking about development. Feminism is briefly touched on and doesn't give a full representation or understanding the effects of colonialism, industrialization, or modernization. If there was a subheading devoted to the history leading up to WID and why gender is so crucial to include in the development discussion, the article would be stronger. It is necessary to understand this history to understand why certain approaches were critiqued and why different approaches evolved.

After reading the article, I didn't have a sense of why it was important for gender to be in the development discussion. The motivations and underlying reasons for each approach mentioned aren't clear enough to hold the weight they do. Perhaps if it was written this way it would be more biased. In the WID section, it needs to be clearer that the approach was created in order to promote equal footing for women and men. The relationship between productivity, labor, and income needs to be addressed as well since it is mentioned in the criticism. Before criticizing a point, it must first be addressed. The critique section itself fails to mention that the WID approach does not acknowledge flaws in the economic system. This is important because knowing this criticism can help the reader understand how the next approaches developed and attempt to address the economic structure itself. There also needs to be attention placed on how WID was institutionalized because implementation is crucial for change yet can also skew the goals of an approach.

The WAD section poorly defines the origins of the WAD approach as well as the basis for the approach. Specifically, attention needs to be drawn to the call for change within the economic structure for development and how this structure has its roots in colonialism. This is so important because this is the root reason why development needs to address gender. In the GAD approach section as well, capital accumulation and reproduction– two key concepts mentioned in our text– are not mentioned. The article not only fails to mention reproduction but rather states that it is ignored when in fact it is understood through unpaid labor sectors and the perceived value of women's labor. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the feminist agenda. An example is how the GAD attempted to grapple with choosing between short term and long term feminist goals and whether to address immediate hardship and safety or work towards longer term goals. The heavier focus on intersectionality in the GAD approach and the reasons for such focus are neglected as well.

Neoliberalism isn't clearly defined anywhere in the article even though 'Neoliberal Approaches' is its own section. Smart economics is also poorly defined. These two concepts seem to be quite disconnected from the first section on the WID, WAD, and GAD approaches. With a clearer definition there would be a more cohesive understanding of gender and development. There seems to be a lot of focus on the criticisms of both, so this inequality between explanation and criticism needs to be addressed. One other subject matter that is mentioned which needs more elaborating is the World Bank's role and what effect it has on development and women's livelihoods globally. If this were expanded, the article would relay a clearer understanding of the critiques of neoliberalism. A discussion of values needs to be had not only in this section but also in the previous section when introducing colonialism's role. To understand the feminist critiques, there needs to be an understanding of values. The World Bank's values and motivations impact implementation of the feminist agenda. Since values are not addressed, the consequence of values is not realized and therefore the article lacks.

It seems that overall the article lacks in understanding the core feminist agendas that motivate the criticism and evolution of these economic approaches. In class we use a feminist mindset to understand economics, yet this article uses economics to attempt to navigate feminist critique of economics. The sources used for the article are reliable and plentiful.