Talk:Gender and development

Hey Kazushige Kobayashi, I agree with the changes made. Thank you for your input! (Quentin.Ncs (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC))

Hi Samuele Ro FeministGeekOBE Quentin.Ncs Simonfuerstenberg!! To improve our article quality, I made substantial editing to the article formats; please see changes below and suggest further improvements if necessary. ● The first paragraph after our Gender and development From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia title was remaining the old one (i.e. it said that this article talks about GAD, which is no longer true). So I put an overview of the approaches we have examined as introductory paragraph, please feel free to add or amend if necessary. ● I have read through other literature and textbooks in library, and found that our exclusive focus on economic literature may not fully represent the diversity of contemporary debates; so, I made a new (but brief) section to highlight other important approaches (Marxism for example), to demonstrate that the dominant discourse is not the sole approach. I believe this change is necessary regarding Wikipedia's policy of neutrality by balancing (incorporating different views instead of mainstreaming or advocating a specific stance). ● Our different subsections did not have coherent structure; so I made changes to format and sections to have the same components as much as possible; however, your writing was not changed to substantial degree. ● There were like only 9 references put into our cited references section, so I sorted out all the references in alphabetic order and put into there. I also added several textbooks to further readings section.

Hi Samuele Ro ! Thank you for adjusting your part! I read through your part, and realized that probably your section and my smart economics section in the end fit together, since you specifically addressed the issues of institutions and economic policies. So I edited some styling, please see and revise if you have better idea! ● I moved my section into yours and created the Neoliberal Approaches section, I think now it fits better. ● Your second section can be categorized as financial crisis and economic policy, which was an important component missing from our neoliberal argument (many argued that financial crises are absent from neoliberal approaches). So I amended the title to emphasize it without changing your writing, what do you think?

Hi FeministGeekOBE ! I added [Theoretical Approach] title to your part to make it more coherent corresponding to other parts; but no part or word of your writing has changed. Thank you incorporating my past comments; it was not posted here so I cite it again if you missed some of them, but I see that you made changes? ● "Influenced by this work, by the late 1970s, some people working in the field of development stated to question the adequacy of focusing on women in isolation.[5] -Here, "some people" seems too generic; maybe you can identify if they are scholars, practitioners, or development agencies who began to pose such questions. ● "In an attempt to create ‘gender equity’ also referred to as gender equality, (denoting women having same opportunities as men, including ability to participate in the public sphere;[14] -Probably, distinction between equity and equality should be more clearly argued here since I do not think these two concepts are completely identical. ● "GAD policies challenge traditional construction of gender role expectations." here the world "challenge" seems to me too strong, it a bit sounds like GAD primarily intends to overthrow the existing social institutions (although I know that this is not what you mean). May be you can say like GAD policies aim to open new horizon for traditional construction of gender role expectations, this sounds less revolutionary. ● "Criticisms" I think you plan to cite more of criticisms in the near future since this is just draft? Theories and criticisms do not need to be completely balanced (400 words/400 words), but I think a better balance should be sought (but do not delete what you have written, they are good and I don't think you should cut any part). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Quentin.Ncs ! I have edited your section, I believe your contents were great but it looks better if you distinguish the theoretical approach and criticism to maintain the single format of the article. ● I moved [The Women in Development approach was the first contemporary movement to specifically integrate women in the broader development agenda and acted as the precursor to later movements such as the Women and Development (WAD), and ultimately, the Gender and Development approach, departing from some of the criticized aspects imputed to the WID.] into the end of theoretical approach and made [criticism] section, none of your writing was changed. ● Your part was missing links to other pages, so I put all the links (what I thought was important); please see the linked pages and confirm if the linked page matches to what you are talking of. I have checked myself and I think it's fine but maybe you meant something else, possibly.

Hi Simonfuerstenberg! I have seen your part and i liked you have emphasized distinction between WID and WAD; some textbooks (like Women, Gender and Development Reader) distinguishes these two but I think it is often confused. I did not change any part of your writing, but introduced some amendments. ● I out (intersectionality) concept in parentheses in your writing, you ahve talked about the concept in the criticism section but did not mention the name of the concept, I believe it is good if we mention since it is central concept in gender studies. ● Your part was missing links to other pages, so I put all the links (what I thought was important); please see the linked pages and confirm if the linked page matches to what you are talking of. I have checked myself and I think it's fine but maybe you meant something else, possibly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Guys, we should put pictures! I wanna incert this [1] but I tried and failed like 200 timess..does anybody know?? (Quentin.Ncs (talk) ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just noticed that the first two parts (WID & WAD) still need some links to other articles on wikipedia. Best, Samuele Ro (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Samuele Ro (talk), Kazushige Kobayashi (talk), Simonfuerstenberg (talk) and FeministGeekOBE (talk), I noticed the Sources section is not up to date. Can you please update it using the footnotes you have already created? Its just copy pasting, and removing the after the footnote code to add to the resource list. (Quentin.Ncs (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

Hi! Samuele Ro (talk) (Quentin.Ncs (talk) I have edited the outline of our article, now it looks more coherent. Should we maintain the Theories section embracing WID WAD GAD or should we separate them to make 5 sections? What do you think? Hi Ituta (talk) I was updating this page on Monday, and it repeatedly showed "Editing Conflict" page and I could not upload my part, I tried on Tuesday but it said same....today it seems working, what do you think was the cause of this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Kazu, Kazushige Kobayashi (talk I agree, we could transform that into five different sections. That would also make it easier to get an overview and to make links directly to the sub-parts.Samuele Ro (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Samuel! Samuele Ro (talk) There is remaining 'usage' section from the old article, I believe it is related to your part. Could you incorporate? Plus, you mention of 2012 Report but I have also mentioned it since it is the foundation of Smart Economics; probably it is better that you mention it briefly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 04:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kazu. Kazushige Kobayashi (talk) Thanks a lot for your useful feedback. I have incorporated the part in question. Also, I have introduced smart economics as being part of the Bank's Gender Action Plan and will make a direct Link to your Part on SE.Samuele Ro (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The part "Women In Development" has been added, and the sources updated. Please refer to my sandbox for the format we elected to follow in our group discussion. (Quentin.Ncs (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Neoliberal approaches

I intend to add a part on neoliberal approaches, which has a closer look at how neoliberal economic development policy affects gender and how feminist/gender literature reacts to it. This point is currently omitted and I think it needs to be added. Please refer to my sandbox where you can find a first draft of it. Samuele Ro (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now added my part on neoliberal approaches. Please feel free to let me know any remarks and/or suggestions. Samuele Ro (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)