This critical reflection will compare the writings of Jane Arscott & Manon Tremblay, ?Il reste encore des travaux Ã faire: Feminism and Political Science in Canada and QuÃÂ©bec? and Janine Brodie, ?Restructuring and the Politics of Marginalization?. These two articles pertain to the role of feminism and women?s issues in Canada. Janine Brodie takes on a more factual perspective; she explains that the present restructuring of the state is undertaken in order to accommodate itself with the market. She goes on to explain how this process has excluded women?s issues and in fact is detrimental to feminism. Jane Arscott and Manon Tremblay are more interested in the role of feminism in political science. Their interpretation of the current state agrees with the ideas explored by Janine Brodie, however they lean towards the possible academic solution the study of feminism in political science can offer.
This paper will explore three different issues that are raised by both articles and how they compare to each other.
Jane Arscott & Manon Tremblay argue that women?s issues are not considered ?properly political?. This is idea will be compared with Janine Brodie?s explanation on liberal empiricism as also discrediting women?s issues. Second comparison deals with the redistribution of the welfare state into the market. Related to the second comparison, the demise of the welfare has been fuelled by the debate over rationality between men and women and the effect a male-oriented economy has had on women?s issue. As much as the language is different in both articles, they certainly agree with feminist exclusion from the state.
Jane Arscott & Manon Tremblay argue that women?s issues continue to be considered not ?properly political.? In the sense that women?s issues are not considered serious issues that warrant anything more then showing concern or give the impression that...