User talk:Clairesulek/sandbox

This Wikipedia article does have a lot of relevant and effectively explained information and after reading, I found some elements that keep more content or editing. I noticed in the Gender and microfinace portion of the article that they mention a group that oversees many programs that implement a microlending approach to women and development issues. I think this section could possibly use some more information about “Gender Action” and the group keeps an eye on organizations and their microcredit work with women. This group probably has more information on their work, or there are writings about their work that could supplement how effective microfinance programs are on gender equity both economically and in other facets. Moreover, I think the term “development” needs to be addressed and defined in different ways as seen in the article we read in class called, “Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses” by Chandra Talpade Mohanty. Discussing development with a different definition than economic development creates a new framework to approach analyzing gender and development. The difference between development and economic development pushes for very different implications, needs and solutions for women. Also, the first section under the Gender and Development section of the article, the differences between the initial WID perspective and the later GAD framework are introduced. The article does not mention two terms that the textbook discusses where they could expand upon this point by new adding language. In Gender, Development and Globalization: Economics as if All People Mattered pointed out that the focus on “capital accumulation” and the “value system” created uneven income and wage disparities that greatly affected women and men differently. Benería and Sen’s key focus is to expand the view of how gender is impacted by economic development and redefine Boserup’s definition of “colonialism” and the true needs of women in order to encapsulate their entire experience. Including links to capital accumulation and a value system would also add more insight about the topic as well. As for where the article could be improved, the first section of the article lies out quite broadly lies out the programs and policies targeted at women initially when development and gender were first discussed. The sentence reads, “Women first came into focus in development as objects of welfare policies, including those focused on birth control, nutrition, and pregnancy.[1]” Though this statement is true and the same perspective and types of action remain today, I think this could use some explanation afterword. Or because of the complexity of the topic and the intersecting layers that encompass women and development, maybe the introduction to the sentence could include more context as to how women came to fit into development as they did in the past and do now. Something else that I think could be improved is the section on the dependency theory. Just because I am someone who does not know much about the topic, I think this section could use some buffing up with more information in studies done. I would like to see more information pertaining to its application or the view’s idea on possible solutions. In the second paragraph of the “Theoretical approach” under WID, I really think the point about the roots women’s strict domestic role in both their homes and in relation to development is underrepresented and use more information. I think more could be added in this section to supplement the context of the approach. Another example of Ester Boserup’s work is explained in our text book, that talks about Boserup’s research in Africa, using the negative effect of “cash crop agriculture” (Taylor an Francis pg. 12) on both men, but mostly women, as explanation for a call for more education programs and resources for women and support developmental gender equality. Additionally, this example could be used in the “Criticism” section of the article under WID because it gives further explanation and insight into the later about gender and development. Our textbook also identifies the arguments and views that complicate WID, like the authors, Beneria and Sen, who argue that female education is not the ultimate solution to the problems women face because of global development and the programs and policies associated with them. I also noticed that the article did not contain any discussion about postmodernism, though it does mention and link to post-colonialism. I think postmodern feminism and its perspectives and views on development are significant and could be included more in the article. In our textbook, there is an entire section on this view’s approach to development and gender that I think is worth including in this article, even if it is just supplemental to the information already presented. In the second paragraph of the “Theoretical approach” under WID, I really think the point about the roots women’s strict domestic role in both their homes and in relation to development is underrepresented and use more information. I think more could be added in this section to supplement the context of the approach. Another example of Ester Boserup’s work is explained in our text book, that talks about Boserup’s research in Africa, using the negative effect of “cash crop agriculture” (Taylor an Francis pg. 12) on both men, but mostly women, as explanation for a call for more education programs and resources for women and support developmental gender equality. Additionally, this example could be used in the “Criticism” section of the article under WID because it gives further explanation and insight into the later about gender and development. Our textbook also identifies the arguments and views that complicate WID, like the authors, Beneria and Sen, who argue that female education is not the ultimate solution to the problems women face because of global development and the programs and policies associated with them. I also noticed that the article did not contain any discussion about postmodernism, though it does mention and link to post-colonialism. I think postmodern feminism and its perspectives and views on development are significant and could be included more in the article. In our textbook, there is an entire section on this view’s approach to development and gender that I think is worth including in this article, even if it is just supplemental to the information already presented. Also, this article in part of WikiProject Gender Studies and WikiProject International development. Because this topic is a very complex and intersecting one, it falls under both categories. This is very interesting because the Gender Studies Wikiproject monitors and keeps up to date articles, such as “Gender and development,” to avoid prejudice and subjectivity based on gender, while also including other complex topics like “microfinance” into the article. I also notice, under the “To Do List” tab for WikiProject International Development, there are a plethora of articles in need of more information, while WikiProject Gender studies just lists some articles within their project that are under review. Both the lack of a working to-do list for Gender studies project, in correlation with the bias tone the Gender and development article already notes of, it seems there is little awareness and encouragement to add to less neutral content. In addition, this article does even have a rating based on a quality scale or importance scale, so it could use more information about the topic overall. In order to for this article to gain more popularity, this article will need more robust information and insights to then receive ratings.Clairesulek (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)