A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Mr Mystery]

Horrible Histories does a wonderful job of exposing the issues that have held women back.

[Broodingman87]

I figured this may be of interest.

(8)If women farmers had the same access to resources as men, the number of hungry in the world could be reduced by up to 150 million.

[url]http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats[/url]

[Wolfshade]

I figured this may be of interest.



[url]http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats[/url]

So, how do we double the resources available?

[Broodingman87]

So, how do we double the resources available?

The number one reason for hunger in the world is infrastructure, there is enough food being produced in the world to feed everyone, the problem is getting it to people. So, questions to ask would be, do women farmers have access to the technology of fertilizer? What tools are women farmers using? Can we get them better tools? , etc.

[Wolfshade]

The number one reason for hunger in the world is infrastructure, there is enough food being produced in the world to feed everyone, the problem is getting it to people. So, questions to ask would be, do women farmers have access to the technology of fertilizer? What tools are women farmers using? Can we get them better tools? , etc.

But that isn't what that quote is saying though is it.

And if there is enough food being produced then the access to technology of female farmers is not the issue. The issue is how food is distributed and why countires like the Uk waste 7 million tonnes of food from house hold sources alone, with a similiar amount from industry.

[Broodingman87]

But that isn't what that quote is saying though is it.

And if there is enough food being produced then the access to technology of female farmers is not the issue. The issue is how food is distributed and why countires like the Uk waste 7 million tonnes of food from house hold sources alone, with a similiar amount from industry.

Oh no, it's totally in line with the data and I'll show you.

There is enough food in the world, if everyone lived in the same part of the world, the problem is they don't. The problem is that the distribution of agriculture in the world is very oblong. The vast majority being produced by North America (US and Canada) and Western Europe (France Germany Britain and Italy), so you have this abundance in one region and nearly nothing in another. I don't know about wholesaling food in Europe but in America, actually has to be picked pre-ripe so that it is ripe by the time it gets from the "bread basket" in the middle of the country to the manufacturing and store on the coast states. So, it's not as simple as picking a few tons of corn from Arkansas and putting it on a boat to the Philippines because it's either doing to be rotten by the time it gets there or it's going be so young it's not worth eating (it would take more calories to eat it than you are getting for eating it). And as for freezing the food, you ever hear of freezer burn?

So the issue is having more farms closer to them, building roads and bridges so that food can get to villages in mountainous regions.

So, the issue isn't US/UK waste.

But, this is the number one cause, we're talking about the eighth.

[Wolfshade]

I am sorry I am not following your line of reasoning.

If there is enough food being produced then there is enough food regardless of who has what tractor, the issue is how food is distributed.

The issue is distribution. The food waste was an illustration that production wasn't the issue.

Countries like the UK cannot actually support their own population with the food that they produce so have to bring it in. So if you can fly lamb halfway across the world (NZ -> UK) without it spoiling you can do the same with food. If I can import freshly picked flowers from north africa to the UK and have them arrive in pristine condition then you can do it with food.

The EU grades foods, so if you end up with a forked or mishappen carrot it will never make it to supermarket shelves.

[Broodingman87]

I am sorry I am not following your line of reasoning.

If there is enough food being produced then there is enough food regardless of who has what tractor, the issue is how food is distributed.

The issue is distribution. The food waste was an illustration that production wasn't the issue.

Countries like the UK cannot actually support their own population with the food that they produce so have to bring it in. So if you can fly lamb halfway across the world (NZ -> UK) without it spoiling you can do the same with food. If I can import freshly picked flowers from north africa to the UK and have them arrive in pristine condition then you can do it with food.

The EU grades foods, so if you end up with a forked or mishappen carrot it will never make it to supermarket shelves.

It does matter because biomass decomposes.

How much did your case of lamb weight, 20 lbs?

Moving a couple pounds is a very different prospect than moving a few thousand tons. Even as massive as the C-5 Galaxy is, it still doesn't have the ability to carry enough cargo for your plan to work. Boats can carry vastly more cargo than a plane, boats are more fuel efficient at moving more cargo over water. That is why most commerce is done by boat.

- - - Updated - - -

This tangent is going on for a while, can we get back to my original post?

[Wolfshade]

We are talking about your original post. Giving female farmers better equipment will not solve the infrastructure problem. It will not stop farmers growing cotton in the 3rd world to export rather than maize for their community to live on.
Zimbabwe went from "the bread basket of africa" to relying on aid. This didn't happen because they suddenly took farming equipment from female farmers. The infrastructure didn't disappear. So it is a little naive to think the issue is female farmers not being able to buy equipment x. Indeed, I imagine, that in a country where female farmer x couldn't buy a new tractor, than male counterpart y probably couldn't either.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm simply not following how the issue of reduced farming output is solved by putting women in charge of the fields. I mean, the right women would probably improve things, but not really any more than the right men...it's not really a thing either gender is known to excel at compared to the other? If anything, the typically stronger upper-body of the male would be an advantage women wouldn't have, but increasing output is more a matter of environmental management and careful agriculture techniques than anything else.