Meanwhile, Halliday proposes that there is a need to examine the implications of the “gender dichotomy” or the system exclusion of women and seek to understand why women have been excluded from international relations theorizing (Halliday, cited in Lecture 9 Seminar Notes, n. d. , p. 1). To cite some statistics, women make up 50 percent of the global population, perform one third of paid work and two thirds of unpaid work, grow 50 percent of the world’s food and 75 percent of the food in Africa from subsistence agriculture.
Inspite of these statistics, women make up less than five percent of all heads of state and government cabinet ministers, get only ten percent of the world’s income, own only one percent of global property, account for almost 60 percent of all illiterates, and make up 80 percent of all refugees (Lecture 9 Seminar Notes, n. d. , p. 1). Taking these findings vis-a-vis those of Wittig (1981), we find an expressive individual stating, “One is not born a woman,” a materialist feminist approach to women’s oppression destroys the concept that women are a natural group.
On the other hand, a lesbian society practically reveals that the division from men is of a political nature. The term, according to her, has been distorted such as that in the end, oppression is a consequence of this nature. Wittig mentions that most feminists in America believe that the basis of women’s expression is biological as well as historical.
The term gender itself is seen in the context of the differences in men and women as social constructs, with some of the approaches to the theory referring to the biological and natural differences between the two and other approaches focusing more on such socially constructed definitions of their differences. Wittig (1981) goes further as to conclude that “we are escapees from our class in the same way as the American runaway slaves were when escaping slavery and becoming free.
” Wittig minces strong words as she ends her article with the conclusion that “This can be accomplished only by the destruction of heterosexuality as a social system which is based on the oppression of women by men and which produces the doctrine of the difference between the sexes to justify this oppression. A melding of the traditional social welfare activities of the women’s movement and its newly revised political activism appears to have occurred.
Diverse groups are supporting small-scale projects that focus on empowering women. They have been involved in such activities as instituting legal aid for indigent women, opposing the gendered segregation of universities, and publicizing and condemning the growing incidents of violence against women. Indeed, today, nations are obliged to pass laws to ensure the equality of women in choices of work, wages and conditions. A professor of women’s studies at the University of Adelaide.
Chilla Bulbeck, asked 420 students from Year 11 and 12 from South Australia and Western Australia to go on an imaginary tour. They were to imagine that they were 80 years old. These were written and journaled. In looking back, most of them wrote about sex, marriage, children and career. ” (Bulbeck, Chilla, 2004). Bulbeck acknowledges that the “women’s movement will rise again from the ashes”. She believes that the women of today will form a different kind of activism. (Bulbeck, Chilla, 2004).
It was not like this before though. In the past women developed the so-called "woman movement. ” Politics absorbed the attention of many women's groups. By 1890, despite some complaints that members were neglecting their responsibilities to home and family, the nationwide woman's club phenomenon was well under way. Because clubs throughout the nation usually focused their lobbying on the same legislation, the woman's club movement was influential in securing many municipal, state, and federal reforms (Blair, n. p. ).