THBT all states should create special economic zones in cities where all economic activities (except the purchase of goods and services are carried out by women).
Mr. Speaker Ladies and Gentleman,
Make no mistake in this debate, we live in a segregated state. Unlike apartheid South Africa the majority of the world has men and women living together, eating together, and walking on the same sidewalks, but when the workday begins at 9 AM, they go to different levels for different jobs, for different pay. We say that the arc of justice is bending too slowly. Virginia Woolf said that in order for women to prosper we need to give them a room of their own. We say, fuck the room. We’ll give them cities.
A three part model from opening government:
First of all, we’re going to give these women the most economically advantageous part of the country. We don’t think that’s going to be that difficult. Given that the population of Africa is supposed to rise to 500 million within the next couple of decades, we’re going to pick out the next best city that’s starting to rise that’s starting to urbanize. Second, as is realistically the case when you set up any special economic zone, we’re going to give them tax breaks, we’re going to give them incentives for businesses to go in, we’re going to enact pro business legislation like setting up good infrastructure like you would in any FDC. Finally we’ll give these women’s businesses the same freedoms as other businesses have like trading on the stock market.
Given that, we’re going to give you two arguments. First of all, this liberates women where all other alternatives have failed. Second, this is economically advantageous for those countries.
First of all, this liberates women.
We think this is probably the most important question in this debate. Given that even if we can’t show that the quality of life increases overall, we say that relative equality is something worth pursuing in and of itself. Given that you leave half the population out in the cold as currently occurs. What do the opposition realistically need to defend and what is the comparative. They need to defend other measures that are mitigatory at reducing the gender imbalance. That increases things like quotas, that increases things like giving slightly more money to women owned businesses. That looks like fair pay legislation. What’s wrong with that? It relies on the good will of those who currently hold the power. That is to say those who are willing and in many instances they simply won’t pass legislation to allow those things to happen outside ….. But second of all, even where formal equality exists, it requires the good will of those in power to not do shitty things like not allow fair pay on account of women becoming pregnant and things like that. What changes. We’re going to give you the materialist power that says the source of all political power is in economic control. Why is that the case.
First because women, when they own businesses, become a member at the negotiating table on all things like tax policy. Because they hold the capital that they could take away if the state does something wrong. Second, it leads to political enfranchisement because not only are they more likely to vote in those elections because they’re motivated by certain economic policies, but because they become a donor base when they have access to capital. Finally, they have access to unions that are under their control if they employ vast swaths of people, they can exert an influence over the political system. Four benefits of that.
First of all, you reduce the pay gap. We not only think that women are more likely to pay other women higher wages, by and large we think that the fact of relative equality exists in societies and hiring women ….. It means that women have capital for the first time that they’re able to wield, not only in a political sense, but within the family where they can use their own money because it’s something they earn.
Second, it leads to political enfranchisement right. We’re likely to say that on the comparative in India, rape and the abuse of women is far less likely to be a problem in a city in which women hold power, women can tell the police that this is not okay.
Third it incentivizes the state to increase education for women because they know that that is going to be the workforce, particularly important in cities.
Last point is that it is better for the perception of those women. We don’t think realistically that this looks like all the women in one place. When the women see you succeed within those economic zones, we think it makes a lot of sense for mainline companies to approach women and bring them onboard. It moreover means that women no longer need to act male within the boardroom. That is to say for the first time you get a specific female style of leadership which we’ve never seen before. This liberates women where no other alternatives have worked.
Second, this is economically beneficial to the state.
POI: Is it necessary to create a policy that sends a message that women have no place in mainstream society. They have their own area so just stay there.
Answer: No because that’s literally just checks out of an argument for anything you can do on the behalf of women ever right. Why your votes have to support things like quotas … imbalance, but second of all, we think that as soon as they reap the benefits of an economically flowing city, all of those things will change.
So this is economically advantageous. Three things.
First of all, there exists no free market in a segregated state. A state doesn’t operate ….. When they randomly select 50% of the population and don’t give them jobs for which they are qualified. It means they don’t have the best people doing the labor that’s available. It means some people aren’t incentivized to seek out an education because they know they won’t have access to those opportunities.
Second, this is crucial. This reduces the gender imbalance particularly in developing countries. In the 1990s, Amartya Sen wrote that 100,000 people are missing, 100,000 women are missing in India. It hasn’t gotten better. For every man, ah, for every one woman, there is 1.3 men in many of these areas. How does this change under our side. First of all, it means that families are less likely to take the kinds of actions that leads to the gender imbalance. It means things like neglect when they are infants. It means things like sex selective abortions. The benefits of that not only accrue to women, whose perception is they are lesser, but to all of society. Social imbalances in gender have greater rates of crime, greater rates of rape, greater rates of unhappiness, right. Those things cost the state billions upon billions of dollars to rectify every year, and it’s not getting better. There is no better solution to the gender imbalance that currently exists, than to improve conditions for women and their perception. That changes under our side.
Finally, this gives these countries access to certain forms of capital that otherwise wouldn’t be available to them. The IMF has made it a priority that they’re going to look at the role that women play in developing societies to be contingent on the aid that they provide. We have female run hedge funds that specifically support feminist organizations. That’s money they could be getting under our side.
Liberation of women must come now, and this is the best solution to do it. We’re very proud to propose.