There is a great extension between the developed world and the developing world’s political idealism. The political situation envelops the key leadership in developing their key developmental strategies. Much of the realism emanates from ensuring its citizens can meet their basic needs. To be termed a developing world means a strenuous matrix of citizens meeting their basic needs, such as shelter, food, and healthy living standards (Baradat and Phillips 293). Imperialism extended a country’s power and authoritarian influence via colonization to gain state policies (Baradat and Phillips 294). Direct territorial acquisitions affected most developing countries. For instance, during the first colonial era, such countries as Spain, France, and Portugal dominated India and Africa. The colonies could produce precious metals and items for trade, but they were forced to provide agricultural goods for their masters in the Western Hemisphere.
Due to imperialism, many developing countries were subjected to the slave trade. Many African countries had a slave trade, and other countries that were defiant of the colonial collaboration had a forced slave trade. The aim was to get as many people as possible to cater to the industrial era in their colony’s territories. The effect of the slave trade damaged cultures and created disunities among the developing countries (Baradat and Phillips 294). It also affected their mode of living because some of the expertise was stripped from them to concentrate on agricultural production. Equally, many states became polarized to align themselves with such superpowers as the US and the Soviet Union (Baradat and Phillips 295). Some developing countries, such as Paraguay and Guatemala, had their governments destabilized for their colonial rulers to conquer.
Colonialism affected the political development in developing countries because most of the local leaders became less accountable to their citizens. The art of collaboration and non-collaborators in developing countries made trade ventures a one-way venture. The colonizing countries were the beneficiaries of the trade, while the collaborators were sidelined. The colonizers were competing for economic competition, while the countries colonized had problems with their social, economic, and political structures (Baradat and Phillips 297). For instance, Nigeria faced economic instability and ethnic rivalries after the colonial era (Baradat and Phillips 297). There was also a rise in human rights violations during the colonial period.
Post-colonialism is the influence of foreign occupants on countries after colonization. Post-colonialism affected capitalism in developing countries because it patched the effects of colonial rule (Baradat and Phillips 298). Democracy is expensive, and the structural outlook of the political leaders was the focus while other colonizers had moved past the simple logarithm of leadership. Having a working government that can meet its population demands regarding job creation and sustainability enabled developed countries to move at a higher pace than developing counties (Baradat and Phillips 298). Postcolonialism made people in developing countries focus on developing their immediate needs and creating intellectual spaces.
Nationalism advocates for self-sufficiency to retain political independence within a given nation. During the First and Second World Wars, most of the developing nations were predominant in most parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Nationalism affected countries like Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda because their democracies resorted to authoritarian measures to remain in power. The developing countries seemed to be dominated by military confrontation, and before they sorted out their political idealism, they were absorbed in economic competition (Baradat and Phillips 297). The struggle of competition made the countries have nationalistic jealousies. Tribalism kicked in, and it made the modes of social cohesion even harder because every ethnic group fought for power while developed nations had gone further in being industrialized.
The historical analogy of feminism is affiliated with the political quest for economic opportunity, educational equity, political inclusion, and civil rights. The claims include women’s right to control their bodies against harmful sexual behaviors. The first feminist to be documented was Mary Wollstonecraft, and she was initiated into radical political circles (Baradat and Phillips 326). Wollstonecraft married anarchist William Godwin in 1796, and she wrote such books as “A vindication of the Rights of Woman” (1792) and “Thoughts on the Education of Daughters” (1787). In the mid-nineteenth century, such political philosophers as Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill started advocating for women’s equality in society. The movements for equality started being fruitful in New York with early women leaders such as Elizabeth Candy Stanton and Susan Antony (Baradat and Phillips 326). The first successful women’s rights convention was held at Seneca Falls in 1848 (Baradat and Phillips 326). Many other conventions were held in various parts of the world regarding women’s activism.
The feminism vector was strategized in four phases for the ideologies to sink into the political arena and actions to be taken. The first wave emerged during urban industrialism and socialist politics. The first phase was to open opportunities and pose equality for women and men. During the first phase, the rejuvenation of feminism was to enhance socio-economic facts (Baradat and Phillips 328). The second phase began in 1960, and civil rights and anti-war movements influenced it. The second phase was highly radicalized, and it advocated for Equal Rights Amendment. Reproductive rights and social equality dominated the second wave. The second wave got Betty Friedan ready to publish “The Feminine Mystique” in 1963, and the book posed women’s frustrations in the male-dominated society.
The third wave began in the mid-90s, and postmodern thinking drove it. Universal womanhood and heteronormativity influenced the constructs of the third wave. The fourth and last phase was the creation of general awareness about the need to respect women and have equality in society. Women started championing the need to go for masculine courses and seeking space in the constitution. The best analogy was to see gender bigotry and concentrate on government appropriation to bring family understanding (Baradat and Phillips 329). The dynamism ensured that the globe realized a need for the girl child to be educated and given a chance to lead others. The chances were created in political arenas, voting rights, and occupying influential offices.
Reform feminism entails having many societal changes that do not affect their daily realism. Reform feminism views men and women as different people in society, and they play an important role in their jurisdictions (Baradat and Phillips 331). Therefore, advocating for equality does not mean having identical ideologies but fighting for objectives that do not make another gender subordinate to the other. For instance, when seeking some rights, there is a need to be within the jurisdiction that does not affect the other party—reform feminism links with the philosophical outlook of liberal political analogy (Baradat and Phillips 331). Liberal augmentation posits that women and men have individualistic rights to be respected. Men have social norms and political systems that can suppress women. However, women are granted fundamental tasks such as preserving species (Baradat and Phillips 331). Men have the power to dominate materialism and control societal values.
The best mode of reversing reform feminism is to ensure a partnership between men and women in understanding the need to balance social values. Creating laws that treat women and men the same regarding their social matters and occupational ontology will provide an ambient role of equality. For instance, women’s role in society can be shadowed through the provision of medical care, prenatal care, and maternal leave. Additionally, when women undergo various provisions, men should handle housework and take care of the kids instead of ignoring it.
Revolutionary feminism dooms the reforms of cooperative relationships between women and men. Everything proposed in reform feminism goes against the ideologies contained in revolutionary feminism (Baradat and Phillips 331). According to revolutionary feminism, the anti-feminism bias is rooted in the basic principle of men being used as agents of change. The venture does not promote joint efforts in a cohesive society. Revolutionary feminism forces ideologies that do not conform to male support, not regard male outlooks. For instance, women can force some rights and assume their effect on their male counterparts so long it favors them. The revolution asserts men control patriarchy to the extent that getting a neutral society is impossible; it concludes that reforms are impossible.
The feminine values in revolutionary feminists invoke the art of mutual consideration, and it revokes modes of sidelining other genders’ values. In the same way, previous feminist movements had gravitated toward variance, the liberationist movements resisted the urge to subordinate women to men (Baradat and Phillips 332). The analogies contained in revolutionary feminism recognize ethnic egalitarianism, social divisions, LGBT rights, and kinship racialism. The distinction has an immediate focus on violence and sexual violence. The feminist ontology opposes pornography, rape, sexual harassment, and other painful manifestations that males overpower women. Women must endure changing the world as much as they can so that their female generation can evade the negative thrills of the globe.
Separatist feminists accord the urge for women to ignore men and create a female structure aimed at their well-being. It is possible to assume male cultures and ensure various ventures are done with utmost precision for the male to feel the effect of females without their influence (Baradat and Phillips 332). According to the separatists, they agree with revolutionaries on the basic changes that will empower women. The assumptions made lapse with the moral outlook that it is better to consider the rights of others before moving into being considerate about a specific gender. Separating violence from rights should be done with precision for both genders to realize it is for their good. The separatists always contend that it is ideal for women to unite because men have dominated the world. The oppressive phenomena within the male environment provoke heterosexual lovemaking.
The quintessential power needs to have a vertical vector for the man to be on the same level as the woman, and it will enable both people to argue from the same perspective. Heterosexual relationships are unnecessary because separatists focus on perpetuated demands as assumed archaic. Therefore, women in separatist feminism can develop egalitarian relationships amongst themselves. When power is divided, women can live comfortably without fearing their oppressors (Baradat and Phillips 332). The mode of liberation creates values that encourage feminists to flourish within the society that surrounds them.
Baradat, Leon P., and John A. Phillips. Political ideologies: Their origins and impact. Routledge, 2016.