Luminesa wrote:Des-Bal wrote:
Do you think Oprah is from the third world? That is the west supporting the education of girls in the third world, it is people volunteering their resources to aid girl's education.
That's...not what I meant. I guess I should have worded it better. People like Oprah have tons of money, but she's a celebrity and she has more money than most people in the United States. What I was trying to say that we, the normal Westerners, who hope for a better future for all girls, should support the girls in third-world countries, and we can't just leave it up to celebrities to do so. Which means yes, volunteering resources to help young girls is awesome. And we should be doing more of it, and helping girls in the third-world should be a more mainstream part of feminism.
The problem comes with how exactly you choose to support these women, and with whose help. Private charity led by billionaires is its own can of philosophical and practical worms, since there is an argument to be made that the function of private charity by people like Oprah is less to create a definitive, practical, long-term solution to a given issue, and more to wash their own hands, to disavow themselves of their responsibility as part of the overarching socioeconomic and cultural systems that help create these dire circumstances.
So... yeah, normal people in our regions can and should support progress elsewhere, but "charity" probably ain't gonna cut it. Rather, your best bet might be just giving people in the "third world" the political and economic tools to create their own path forward on their own terms.