Tourism allows for female independence

The argument

The argument begins with a description of the arrangement that tourism is said to change. In many developing countries tradition takes a prominent role in society, and that tradition assigns work by gender: women generally take care of the children, create dishware, weave and cook, while men provide for the family. The significant feature of this division, on this account, is not the labour itself but its economic standing. The tasks women perform are real work and demand real skill, yet because what they produce stays inside the household it generates no income, and the absence of income is what leaves women generally dependent on men. Tourism, proponents argue, breaks that link by supplying something the domestic economy does not: an incoming population willing to pay for what women already know how to make. A skill such as weaving, which would typically only be used for domestic purposes, can be turned outward and made into a business. No retraining and no change of role is required for the mechanism to work; the same competence simply acquires a price, which is why the effect can appear without first dismantling the surrounding tradition. The consequences follow from that shift. Women who turn a profit can provide for their families and even purchase things for themselves, so the dependence described at the outset no longer holds automatically. Self esteem is improved, both because the work is now valued by others and because the person doing it controls the proceeds, and independent working opportunities increase as visible success makes such enterprises a recognised option for women who have not yet tried them. The gain is not confined to those women either: each new business is a new method of income within the local economy, so the same activity that creates independence also stimulates the economy. Because tourism allows for female independence in this way, proponents conclude, tourism is beneficial to developing countries.

Premises

Counter-arguments

This can also go the other way. The new income could cause female suppression to a further degree, the influx of money simply putting more power in the hands of the men. Equality and independence may become even less of a possibility for the women in these growing countries.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] Women do not necessarily gain independence from tourism.