“We are…mothers, women of colour, asylum seekers, indigenous and rural women, women in waged work, lesbian and bisexual women, sex workers, rape survivors, women with disabilities, older and younger women, religious activists, immigrant women, grandmothers” (Global Women’s Strike, globalwomensstrike.net). These are the constituents that make up the Global Women’s Strike (GWS), an international grassroots network focused on compensating women throughout the world for their largely unpaid and unacknowledged work as caregivers. These constituents also represent the primary voices that have been excluded over time by both mainstream and academic discourse. Due to the canonization of social theory within sociology and the social sciences, the homogenous, white, capitalist, male perspective characterizes the single voice that has been elevated and carried forward as truth. Alternatively, feminist theory asks us to consider critical questions such as, how can these perspectives attempt to theorize about the social world when they miss so many of the experiences that shape it? The answer is they simply cannot. Rather, they can only be expected to speak for one piece, one group of interests. Constructing an entire discipline from such a narrow set of ideas is both inaccurate and irresponsible. Using the GWS campaign Invest in Caring Not Killing as a framework for examining feminist theory, this brief paper will look at why women’s work is undervalued as well as some solutions for correcting the injustice.
Joey Sprague developed a couple of key concepts for understanding how the canonization of a few white male theorists has been maintained throughout sociology. The first is what she calls the hierarchy of the social. This is wholly dependent on privilege and who is given attention. The argument is that because men have historically worked in the public sphere versus women who predominantly oversee the domain of the home, the private, men’s perspectives receive more attention. These values are measured and determined by capital. Although this experience is less common today for westernized women, they too continue to be forced to choose between family and capital. Capital is decidedly more important; hence the structural barriers in place for women who want to prioritize their families. Unless you are economically privileged, it is deeply challenging to survive on one income. According to GWS, “Women and girls do 2/3 of the world’s work, most of it unwaged” (globalwomensstrike.net). Their campaign calls on the redistribution of military monies spent across the globe as a way to support the work of women and provide for essential community-based needs. “[More than] $1 trillion/year is spent on the military worldwide, more than half by the U.S. 10% of this would provide the essentials of life for all: water, sanitation, basic health, nutrition, literacy, and a minimum income” (globalwomensstrike.net).
The second conceptualized problem Sprague identifies is poor/dominant analytic categories which in essence are logical dichotomies such as woman versus man. The issue is that these dominant analytic categories fail to comprehensively capture the full picture because they leave no room for those in between or outside of said boundaries. The example of men versus women leaves out an entire trans and gender queer community. Black versus white excludes entire populations within the universe that fit neither group. The GWS understands this and is truly feminist in its approach to involve men and reach an entire global community that isn’t constrained by one need or identity. Therefore their demands are broad-ranging and straightforward. A few of their demands include the following: Payment for all caring work, food security, accessible clean water, housing, transport, literacy, protection and asylum (globalwomensstrike.net). Moreover, their work makes a point of understanding intersectionality, the idea that identities and experiences are not homogenous and therefore require a variety of considerations when addressing problems.
Lastly, Sprague emphasizes why social theory is misguided. Her main point is that past theory has not sufficiently emphasized nor guided movements for liberation. Again, this is where GWS provides a great example. Their work is centered on radical, long term, and systemic change. Their demands are nothing shy of revolutionary and transformative.
Ultimately, Sprague’s explanation of feminist theory hones in on three primary solutions: connection, engagement, and integration of diverse standpoints. Each of these I have attempted to highlight in my examples of the GWS. Connection of ideas across perspectives, engagement with others, and the incorporation of diverse standpoints all appear to be approaches that ground the GWS work. We must always question that which is laid out before us to consider which perspectives are present and which may be absent. And in addition to theorizing about how to transform the world, we must also act! Support the GWS today and sign their petition!
Joey Sprague developed a couple of key concepts for understanding how the canonization of a few white male theorists has been maintained throughout sociology. The first is what she calls the hierarchy of the social. This is wholly dependent on privilege and who is given attention. The argument is that because men have historically worked in the public sphere versus women who predominantly oversee the domain of the home, the private, men’s perspectives receive more attention. These values are measured and determined by capital. Although this experience is less common today for westernized women, they too continue to be forced to choose between family and capital. Capital is decidedly more important; hence the structural barriers in place for women who want to prioritize their families. Unless you are economically privileged, it is deeply challenging to survive on one income. According to GWS, “Women and girls do 2/3 of the world’s work, most of it unwaged” (globalwomensstrike.net). Their campaign calls on the redistribution of military monies spent across the globe as a way to support the work of women and provide for essential community-based needs. “[More than] $1 trillion/year is spent on the military worldwide, more than half by the U.S. 10% of this would provide the essentials of life for all: water, sanitation, basic health, nutrition, literacy, and a minimum income” (globalwomensstrike.net).
The second conceptualized problem Sprague identifies is poor/dominant analytic categories which in essence are logical dichotomies such as woman versus man. The issue is that these dominant analytic categories fail to comprehensively capture the full picture because they leave no room for those in between or outside of said boundaries. The example of men versus women leaves out an entire trans and gender queer community. Black versus white excludes entire populations within the universe that fit neither group. The GWS understands this and is truly feminist in its approach to involve men and reach an entire global community that isn’t constrained by one need or identity. Therefore their demands are broad-ranging and straightforward. A few of their demands include the following: Payment for all caring work, food security, accessible clean water, housing, transport, literacy, protection and asylum (globalwomensstrike.net). Moreover, their work makes a point of understanding intersectionality, the idea that identities and experiences are not homogenous and therefore require a variety of considerations when addressing problems.
Lastly, Sprague emphasizes why social theory is misguided. Her main point is that past theory has not sufficiently emphasized nor guided movements for liberation. Again, this is where GWS provides a great example. Their work is centered on radical, long term, and systemic change. Their demands are nothing shy of revolutionary and transformative.
Ultimately, Sprague’s explanation of feminist theory hones in on three primary solutions: connection, engagement, and integration of diverse standpoints. Each of these I have attempted to highlight in my examples of the GWS. Connection of ideas across perspectives, engagement with others, and the incorporation of diverse standpoints all appear to be approaches that ground the GWS work. We must always question that which is laid out before us to consider which perspectives are present and which may be absent. And in addition to theorizing about how to transform the world, we must also act! Support the GWS today and sign their petition!