IR is personal? (Christine Porcaro, Week 9, Substative)

In Cynthia Enloe's conclusion of her book Bananas, Beaches and Bases she talks about how "the international is personal." When I was reading this I kept thinking of the relationship between Mexico and the United States and how it affects the male and especially the female workers in Mexico. With the hundreds of factories owned by US companies placed in Mexican territory, it has brought a lot of new jobs to Mexico. This relationship between the US and Mexico has created economic ties that are supposed to create a benefit for both countries. What is interesting about this is that while the people in power in Mexico and the United States (the majority of them being men) are reaping more of the benefit of US factories being stationed in Mexico, the poor women and men of Mexico are left to work long hours under horrendous conditions with minimum payment. These international decisions made by the people in power reflect their own personal interests. These decisions, however, have a profound affect on the people within the country. Women need to be made visible so that when international decisions are being made, they will not be exploited, like they have been in the past through economic agreements controlled by men. This is where I feel that feminism can become quite narrow. Women are not the only ones to be exploited or taken advantage of because of their lack of visibility. People of various religions, cultures, economic status, etc have been overlooked by the people that wield power like it was a god given right. The international is personal and I feel that people need to be more aware of the gender and cultural dichotomies that they perpetuate through their use of power. Ignorance of these dichotomies is easier than confronting them but what is easiest is not always the most effective or beneficial response to problems that past ignorance has already created.