Previous to reading the newest Newsweek, I knew relatively little about Burma. The article, The Lady's Destiny , painted a picture of a politician who had a family, but did not broadcast it. Aung San Suu Kyi is a strikingly beautiful woman who led the Burmese democratic revolution, by chance. She had come to the country to take care of her mother, with a determination to leave as soon as possible and return to Oxford and her family. However, being the daughter of Gen. Aung San, the man who negotiated freedom for his country from England and established the first army, many students and revolutionists were determined to have her participate in the revolution. After hesitation, she took on the role. Her husband had minimal say in the matter, for upon their engagement "she struck a deal: if her people should ever need her, she would have to return to them...and Michael unhesitatingly agreed." (42) Suu Kyi fought for her country and was placed under house arrest as a political prisoner, unable to leave the house even when her husband died of cancer. She has not seen her son, Alexander, since he was 15 years old on a brief trip that her family took to Burma. As the article put it, "few of us could imagine being asked to choose our country over our family, as she has effectively had to do" (42)
In a country where family is used as a prop for campaigns, can anyone in our country actually imagine the consequences of doing that? While Suu Kyi is hailed in Burma as the Mother of Democracy, she is often criticized for choosing her political career before her family. How can we learn to reconcile the two in order for women to progress in society to the same point that men have?
No comments:
Post a Comment