Laurie Penny has a robust notion of feminism – and she’s not shy about what wrong with compromising.
“Feminism” is the one F-word that really will make eyes widen in polite company. Saying it implies you might have demands that can’t be met by waiting politely for some man in charge to make the world a little bit fairer. It’s a word that suggests dissatisfaction, even anger – and if there’s one thing that a nice girl isn’t supposed to be, it’s angry.
Often, fear of the word “feminism” comes from women ourselves. In many years of activism, I’ve frequently heard it suggested that feminism simply needs to “rebrand”; to find a better, more soothing way of asking that women and girls should be treated like human beings rather than drudges or brainless sex toys. It’s a typical solution for the age of PR and the politics of the focus group: just put a fluffy spin on feminism and you’ll be able to sell it to the sceptics. It turns out, however, that while a watered-down vision of women’s empowerment can be used to flog shoes, chocolate and dull jobs in the service sector, real-life feminist politics – which involves giving women and girls control over our lives and bodies – is much tougher to sell.
Here’s another example of a debate where framing, in this case to favor the U.S. Navy, is disputable. Robert Farley and Chris van Avery continue a discussion about China and India.
But, Peter Drysdale has to make it all so messy.
Both China and India are expanding their defence budgets, China not uniquely so.
China certainly remains more open to trade and foreign investment than India – India’s foreign trade is five times smaller than that of China – and partners have levelled an equal number of complaints against them in the WTO.
China and India are also pursuing similar energy strategies via state firms and in developing economies.
What could be worse, the Asian Miracle is waning. or that the United States is succeeding by means I would rather it wasn’t? Yikes, isn’t there some good news somewhere on this planet!
For the past five years or so, the idea had become commonplace that the United States was losing the race for global competitiveness. In my own book, The Emerging Markets Century, I wrote about how the rise of China and India was shifting the competitive edge and how some emerging multinationals (from Samsung Electronics in South Korea to Embraer in Brazil) were becoming world-class companies. All of that remains true; emerging markets remain the place to be for the next decade at least. But, interestingly, the creative, competitive response I had expected seems to be coming even faster than I had thought. In fact, the United States may be doing better than we thought, and China and other rising powers may not be doing quite as well as believed.
We have all come to assume that the developed world lost itsdrive or “will to win,” ceding manufacturing to emerging markets. China and India built impressive manufacturing platforms or back-office strengths based on a belated unleashing of private-sector initiative, low labor costs, and impressive investment in infrastructure. China and others gained a near monopoly on making cheap goods cheaply. Consumers in the United States began to feel that China had won the battle for shelf space in Walmart. American infrastructure fell way behind in building a 21st-century network of roads, rails, bridges, pipelines, airports, and communications technology. Political antagonism combined with the budget and debt crises had placed the onus on “expense cutting” instead of rebuilding infrastructure to remain export-competitive and promote manufacturing. America’s traditional brands had lost some of their luster: No longer was General Motors the pride of global automaking; iPhones were neat, but made in China. Meanwhile, India’s Tata Corp. bought iconic brands like Jaguar, Land Rover, and Tetley Tea. China’s Geely bought Volvo, while Lenovo purchased IBM’s computer division. In South Korea, Samsung and Hyundai became major players; in Taiwan, HTC came from nowhere to be a recognized and respected brand name. To cap it all off, it seemed an irreversible trend: The United States had missed the boat in becoming a “green” leader in a more environmentally conscious world as it ceded ground to mass production in China and innovation in Europe.