Leading Post: Just 'Sew' It

The two chapters in The Curious Feminist, Enloe divulges the disconnect between companies' labor practices, especially multi-million sneaker companies like Nike and Reeboks, and their public image. After the Cold War, many sneaker companies outsourced their production to Asian countries like South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and China. Not only was labor extremely cheap, but the political and cultural atmosphere in these countries easily allowed Americans to profit. The Asian cultural values of "feminized respectability" and "daughterly patriotism," make Asian women the perfect target for exploitation. Because of their strong belief in family orientated traditions, Asian women are more accepting of their gender role, and thus making them the best employees for American companies because company owners can continue to oppress female workers and keep their wages way below that compared to American wages. The huge disparity between wages in Asia, ranging from 10 cents to $2.27, and wages in American, ranging from $7.38 to $7.94, reminds me of the philosophy--not in my backyard: Americans can allow and support cheap labor as long as its not in our homeland. I know consumers are not oblivious to the fact that most products made outside of the USA is probably made under low wages and bad working conditions in sweatshops; however I don't think consumers are conscious of the indirect support they are giving when they purchase products made outside of the USA. Americans hypocritical practices is not only apparent in the wage disparity, but also in companies public image and their actually practices. Enole discuses the discourse between what Nike and Reeboks portray as their concern for labor, such as "human rights production and standards" and "a company with a soul that recongnizes the value of human being." These sells pitch are only mechanisms that persuade consumers to support and purchase their products. However, in actuality, Nike and Reeboks carry out labor practices that contradict their false concern for human rights in the work field. Multi-million corporations profit at the expense of workers being deprived of their human rights--as in for Nike and Reebok, they take full advantage of docile Asian women for cheap labor. As brought up in the comic strip, if consumers were more aware of the true practices of companies, will that spark change in consumers' spending habits?

Anuradha Shyam's account illustrates how this plight Asian women face is not only restricted to Asia only, but the cultural value of daughterly and motherly loyalty is still apparent in Asian women in America. Her personal life experiences suggest how women, especially Asian women, have internalized their gender role and their responsibilities as a member of a family. Although Shyam now holds a high position job in an accounting firm, she once aspired to be just like her mother. She grew up in an environment where Asian women's primary purpose of life is not to be independent and disconnected from their families, but closely attached in supporting their family; Asian women in America, not only have to strive for their own success, but they also have to and are held accountable for supporting their family and responsible for the traditional household activities. Shyam also examines domestic violence and encourages women to become "self-reliant and economically independent" so they can have the courage and resources to leave a violence relationship. Shyam's story touches upon the plight of many women face in their lives--the decision between family and career (or being able to balance the two). She states how many women with high position well-off careers often compromise it to enter motherhood. However, as an South Asian women in the United States, she have to combine her own aspirations with her cultural family values.          

In discussion with both authors, I find it interesting the cultural differences in work habits between Asian women and American women. Enloe explained how because Asian women are wrapped up with family as the core value, it is easier to exploit them. And Shyam discuss how even though she is in America, many of her traditional values about family still hold true. On the other hand, women in America pursue careers mainly for themselves and would gladly choose their promising careers over having a family. In my Intro to Sociology class, we discussed how relative ties have gone down (most people have 0-1 person they can rely on, for example to pick up their child if they are unable to do so). As technology increase and become better, people are more and more disconnected with their families. So, I am a bit conflicted about the idea that because Asian women play a key role in their family, they are usually held back, in a sense. Like, I understand it is wrong to take advantage of Asian cultural values, in relation to family, and exploit them. In a sense, are we trying to promote distance in families rather than embrace the kinship Asians have with theirs?