The free market system demonstrates a number of advantages, including competition, low prices, free trade, and ease of commerce. Yet the economic benefits of the free markets come with deleterious effects: they harm people who are not in power. It is evident that women and minorities are often pushed to the wayside while men dominate discourse and dictate the economic status quo. Imposing a limitation on markets will curtail or terminate the propagation of harmful masculinity – dangerous male attitudes and perceptions of superiority – that leads to the discrimination against women and minorities by excluding them from political discussion, employing them for sexual pleasure, and exploiting them for profit. Unequal representation based on
…show more content…
When individuals can hire someone to wait in line for Congressional hearings for them, or when Representatives pay favors to large donors rather than constituents, the participants with the largest disposable incomes, primarily males, can assure a spot in the discussion, while others may be excluded due to lower income. Through this transaction, groups focused less on profits and more on equity – such as social or environmental activists – are unfairly excluded or pushed out of the conversation. Considering that Democratic women are 15% more likely than the average American to participate in activism and are 13% more likely to participate than Democratic men, the ability to buy a voice in politics pushes women away from the arena, only further silencing their voices (Clement, Somashekhar, & Chandler 2017). Furthermore, a 2014 study found that women compose slightly over half of environmental activists, and their representation continues to grow (Taylor). Yet they may never obtain change because men with larger disposable incomes– CEO’s, Representatives, lobbyists – purchase their right to join into the political and economic …show more content…
As stated in Why Some Things Should not be For Sale by Debra Satz (2012), the selling of organs is a “desperate exchange” and would be avoided unless under crucial circumstances (p.141). Primarily individuals in troubling financial situations donate organs, and women are more likely than men to face poverty. In the United States, women are 35% more likely than men to live in poverty, 13.4 and 9.9 percent of the larger populations, respectively (Tucker & Lowell 2016). Evidently, as women face poverty and lack of support from the government, they may be more likely to turn to illegal organ sales to make ends meet. In 2012, a Spanish mother attempted to sell her kidneys, corneas, a lung, and a piece of her liver just to afford rent and her daughter’s education (Hsu). On the receiving end, doctors and organ gang leaders, who are primarily males, escape with extreme profits from the transaction. Reports indicate that doctors or organ sellers make $100-200,000 on organs that paid only $2-5,000 for (Efrat 2016). By placing a limit on the illegal organ market, women will be shielded from the dangers of male masculinity exploiting them for
When individuals can hire someone to wait in line for Congressional hearings for them, or when Representatives pay favors to large donors rather than constituents, the participants with the largest disposable incomes, primarily males, can assure a spot in the discussion, while others may be excluded due to lower income. Through this transaction, groups focused less on profits and more on equity – such as social or environmental activists – are unfairly excluded or pushed out of the conversation. Considering that Democratic women are 15% more likely than the average American to participate in activism and are 13% more likely to participate than Democratic men, the ability to buy a voice in politics pushes women away from the arena, only further silencing their voices (Clement, Somashekhar, & Chandler 2017). Furthermore, a 2014 study found that women compose slightly over half of environmental activists, and their representation continues to grow (Taylor). Yet they may never obtain change because men with larger disposable incomes– CEO’s, Representatives, lobbyists – purchase their right to join into the political and economic …show more content…
As stated in Why Some Things Should not be For Sale by Debra Satz (2012), the selling of organs is a “desperate exchange” and would be avoided unless under crucial circumstances (p.141). Primarily individuals in troubling financial situations donate organs, and women are more likely than men to face poverty. In the United States, women are 35% more likely than men to live in poverty, 13.4 and 9.9 percent of the larger populations, respectively (Tucker & Lowell 2016). Evidently, as women face poverty and lack of support from the government, they may be more likely to turn to illegal organ sales to make ends meet. In 2012, a Spanish mother attempted to sell her kidneys, corneas, a lung, and a piece of her liver just to afford rent and her daughter’s education (Hsu). On the receiving end, doctors and organ gang leaders, who are primarily males, escape with extreme profits from the transaction. Reports indicate that doctors or organ sellers make $100-200,000 on organs that paid only $2-5,000 for (Efrat 2016). By placing a limit on the illegal organ market, women will be shielded from the dangers of male masculinity exploiting them for