Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Is sex education preventing or promoting sex?

I know I am not the sole person in this class who spent the majority of health class giggling when the Nurse uttered the words “penis,” “sex” or any other of the so-called “naughty” words pertaining to the sex education lexicon. However, my immature chuckles are not the single thing I remember from the class. Despite the somewhat awkward vibe I do believe that health class was beneficial when it came to learning about sex education. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, some Utah representatives would not agree with me. On Tuesday 28th February, 2012 House Bill 363 was passed in Utah. The bill states that schools are only able to talk about sex education if they are teaching abstinence and they forbidden from talking about the use of condoms, family planning, and all forms of Planned Parenthood. According to the new bill promoting no sex at all is the singular way to teach sex education in schools. Planned Parenthood and various other people and organizations oppose this bill and want it to be amended so I guess my question is what are your thoughts? What is the best way to teach young people about sex?

Utah is not the only place in the world that struggles with the question of what is the best way to teach adolescences about sex. A British columnist Peter Hitchens expresses his point of view that sex education promotes sex in the United Kingdom, “the more sex education we have the more sexually transmitted diseases, the more abortions, and the more under age pregnancies we have.” Although this clip is not current I thought it might aid us in our discussion of whether sex education is a good or bad thing?

Video http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/9509737.stm

Article http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/bill-barring-mention-contraceptives-okd

Acidity in Pakistan

In Pakistan, women are frequently victims of acid attacks. I read an article about Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy received an Oscar for "Saving Face", a documentary on women in Pakistan who have been burned by acid as a weapon. Acid is cheap and easily acquired, and has a devastating effect. These attacks leave women horribly disfigured and in many cases blind. The documentary has raised awareness of this problem, which happens to over 150 Pakistani women. As many as 70% of the cases go unreported, while few of the attackers are brought to justice. The government in Pakistan passed a law which gives a 14 years to life sentence for anyone found guilty of an acid attack. Like many other laws regarding women, it has yet to be vigorously enforced. The culture needs to reform women's rights before the law can be entirely effective. It will also require the women who have been attacked to stand up and report the incidents, which is very difficult in the current society.

Do you think that with the public support that the movie has gained, the laws will be more strictly enforced and effective?

Monday, February 27, 2012

Integrating Women into Lebanese Politics

Keeping with the theme of women in politics, or more precisely the widespread absence of women in government, I would like to present an article about focusing on women in politics in Lebanon. Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy, and its women have been voting since 1952. Despite the legal access to political office provided Lebanese women, few have been elected to Parliament, with only 4 serving currently of 128 members.

Lebanese-American journalist Raghida Dergham is working to change this inequality by proposing what many see as a radical solution – forming a women’s political party. In a largely patriarchal society such a bold move is bold to some, radical to others. Dergham’s philosophy is that women need to be able to exert acute political pressure by organizing so that they may have real power as voters. Instead of a few strong female voices Dergham hopes to bring together Lebanese women to really push for an advancement of the status of women. The goal is to make progress by integrating women into the political process, instead of fighting for change from the outside or even working against the system.

Not all women support Dergham’s view, labeling it as counterproductive to the feminist cause. Some who oppose it are female lawmakers, such as MP Strida Geagea, who fears that a women’s party would pick candidates based on gender rather than merit. Geagea also worries that such a bold move would push Lebanese men too far, that in such a male-dominated culture a women’s party would only serve to further polarize the genders further. An alternative philosophy is that women should work harder to gain power in existing political parties and pursue public offices more aggressively.

Despite the conflict on how to address the under-representation of women, it seems clear to most that there is a problem. More interestingly is that there is a conversation of the issue in Lebanon, whereas the male domination of the US government is largely accepted. My questions are as follows: would a women’s party would be an effective vessel for change, and what percentage of representation of each gender seems fair in any government?

Friday, February 24, 2012

Violence is Justifiable?

While reading the book half the sky and the short story the hunt, Revenge seemed to play a big role throughout the story. In the first story several women were being attacked and brutally mistreated by Yadav, a “neighborhood” villain. In the second story Mary, a young woman who was being pursued (and attempted rape) by Tehsildar. Both stories ended with the women rising up against the men by killing them. Although I am strictly against the idea of murder I believe that in at least in one of the cases I understand the purpose behind murder. With the first case I can understand the thinking behind the murder of Yadav, there was more “going on” with this case the meets the eye. This man terrorized people daily, and If the political leaders were not helping in anyway, and were going to allow him out of jail these women had no other choice but to end it. If Yadav were to have gotten out of jail he would have came back with vengeance. Their families would have been in more danger than ever. However, in Mary’s case I did not feel the same sympathy as before. I felt as though Mary enjoyed the process of murder to much for it to be justifiable. Yes, although Tehsildar attempted to rape her (which is no way justifiable) Mary’s actions throughout the short story showed her to be sort of nasty. I felt like because of her actions she was capable of murder from the beginning.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

In any normal circumstance, I would never condone violence, or even on a much larger scale, murder. However, in the case of Akku Yadav and the women of Kasturba Nagar, I feel as though the actions that the women took in order to eradicate constant fear and torture that Yadav had them in for so long. When the system that is put in place to help protect you fails, I believe that you should take it into your own hands. If the women didn't murder Yadav, the violence, killings, and fear would never leave the little village. That's not to say that I condone murder. I just feel that everyone should have equal protection from abuse and rape, and when the established justice system that can protect the innocent doesn't, then I can't place moral blame on those that take their fates into their own hands.

Two Wrongs Do Not Make A Right

If I put myself in the shoes of Mary from "The Hunt" or in the shoes of the women who stabbed a man to death in chapter three of "Half the Sky," I find myself agreeing that violence is an "okay" solution in the face of systematic injustice. The part of me that thinks about "the greater good," however, disagrees. That is to say, on a small scale maybe most acts of violence or murder are justified in some way. Didn't someone once say that murder is the greatest act of passion? For me, violence is never justified, as "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind." (Ghandi, I think?) If all crimes are avenged on an equal level, then how is the world progressing and becoming a better place?

Thus, although I agree that an unjust judicial system gives plenty of reason to become violently vengeful, the real problem that needs to be fixed is the judicial system itself. If we continue to excuse acts of violence that are in response to a lack of action by governmental systems, then society moves not towards justice but towards lawlessness. Though I think that the solution to fix all corrupt judicial systems around the world is far from being found, I still believe that it exists. Finding this solution will not be easy, but breaking the law to fix it only impedes the process.

Two "wrongs" do not make a "right."

Vengeance is in The Eye of The Beholder

In the short story the Hunt Mary committed murder. After Tehsildar attempted to rape Mary,she falsely seduced Tehsildar and stabbed him to death and threw him in the ravine. The question of rather this murder was justified is open ended. I believe that it was not justified for the simple fact that i believe that violence should not be resolved with violence. Yet instill if i was in her place I dont know if i would have those same feelings especially if there was no justice system to bring justice to my tormentor. In the interview Mahasweta Devi believes "as far as the tribals or the oppressed are concerned, violence is justified. When the system fails in justice violence is justified.(ii)" I agree with Devi when there is no way sometimes violence is needed and justified. Yet in my own situation with violence when my sister was attacked and I decided to use violence could have ended even worse then what it was before. I could have started a gang war on my family and the gang probably still continued to attack my sister or other loved ones. Do i consider this a coward move to go to the system versus taking matters into your own hands NO. Sometimes Vengeance is not the way and sometimes killing someone makes you just a low as your tormentor. Even though I feel like i am on the fence about this situation I do believe Vengeance is in the eye of the beholder for some they may feel they were completely justified and those looking in may say they were wrong. In cases like those in Half the Sky i do believe violence is the only solution because their justice system has failed them completely.

Violence a Key to the Locke?

My first response to the question was that of course it is not morally justifiable. According to John Locke, if a man wrongs another, he has violated someone else’s natural rights (which consist of life, liberty, and property). For example, if a man steals, he has violated someone else’s right to property. Therefore the man from whom he steals is entitled to compensation (i.e. Revenge). However, according to Locke, we as humans are in capable of judging what’s fair in terms of compensation and so we enter a contract (join society) and a few thousands words later, we have a justice system and a way of obtaining justice. Yet, Locke points out that when the justice system is flawed, or if one does not exist, the only person who can judge fairly is God. Therefore, the man who wronged another will be punished by God; the wronged person should not determine his own justice. And again, history points out that violence is not always a necessity when the system is oppressing you. Ghandi, to cite a classic example, peacefully protested against the system itself and was able to achieve justice. Ghandi also famously said that “an eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind.”

In my own personal opinion, I believe that Mary was wrong to kill Tehsildar because she has no right to take someone’s life. When I read about Usha in Half the Sky, I still felt that the women weren’t completely justified in killing Akku. While I understand that the point the book is making is that women shouldn’t be compliant, I do not agree that women have to get violent to achieve justice. I believe that violence to achieve justice is only morally justifiable when acting in self-defense in that moment. If someone is going to kill me, I’m going to fight for survival in that moment. A few days later, however, assuming I escape, I wouldn’t want/be able to violently harm that person. Even in the moment, I wouldn’t be able to do so much as purposely kill somebody. It’s tough for me to sit here and talk about being patient when I can’t even imagine what the women in other cultures are feeling at this moment. While I believe it is morally unjustifiable, if I was one of those women right now, I may allow my frustrations to get the best of me and who knows, I could have ended up violent myself.

Virginia's "Rape Bill"


The state of Virginia is currently trying to pass a new bill regulating a women’s access to abortions. Until February 23, 2012 Governor McDonnell fully indorsed the new abortion bill that would require women to undergo a vaginal ultrasound, even without consent, before having an abortion. However, due to national attention, Governor McDonnell has shifted his views to a abdominal ultrasound (required in most if not all states), instead of a forced vaginal probe ultrasound. Media speculates that this shift only occurred because of protests in the state and, “One Democrat was prompted to denounce it as a “rape” bill” (Tavernise) and “the requirement that the probe be inserted vaginally was tantamount to “state-sponsored rape.” (Tavernise and Eckholm). However, women in Virginia are not out of the woods yet. According to The New York Times, there is a, “companion bill in the State Senate that has language identical to that in the old version” (Tavernise). Both pro-choice and pro-life advocates are extremely invested in this bill because it will either greatly help pro-life organizations to block women from receiving abortions and greatly detriment pro-choice organizations from helping women get the care they need. Both sides of the debate have spoken out on the bill saying it is, “a rule that anti-abortion forces hope will cause some women to change their minds but that women’s advocates call an effort to shame women and interfere with their privacy” (Tavernise and Eckholm). As well as being extremely invasive at the time, the bill will force to women to relive her abortion over and over by requiring, “that a printout of the ultrasound image be placed in a woman’s medical record” (Tavernise and Eckholm). Republicans simply argue that a woman is already invading her body with the abortion, so why not require a vaginal ultrasound as a prerequisite.

Is it hypocritical for the United States to step in and tell other countries how to treat and respect women when laws here are just as horrendous? Should politicians, especially men, have the most highly regarded opinion on women's health?

Rachel Maddow Clip

SNL Clip

Violence

In both readings, violence is used as a means to carry out justice. I believe that it is necessary for justice to occur, even if it is through violence. If a person is guilty of heinous crimes, beyond any reasonable doubt, but hides behind corruption and escapes the law, then the women in these stories had no choice. They were forced to kill the men because a corrupt and classist society left them with no other option. If the women in Kasturba Nagar had not killed Akku Yadav, he would have gotten away with murder, rape, torture, and countless other atrocities. The system would not have brought justice for any of the victims, and Akku Yadav could have gone out and terrorized even more people. In The Hunt, Mary stopped Tehsildar from attempting to rape other women and from 'raping' the villages again for sal wood in the coming years. In both cases, the men were undoubtably guilty, but because of their status and the status of the people they targeted, they would get away with it. The women provided the only justice that they could, which was death.

Violence Can Be Justified

My response to this question is actually pretty lame because I don’t know how I feel about using violence as an act of vengeance. Despite the fact that my parents raised me to believe that “an eye for an eye” is not the answer, however as my exposure to the world increases I am starting to learn that this is not a simplistic black and white phrase. In my opinion using violence is circumstantial and only sometimes justified. In Half The Sky I absolutely sympathise with the protagonist Usha. Half The Sky describes the town of Kasturba Naga where female inhabitants constantly fear that they will fall victim to gang abuse and rape. Unfortunately for the women there is no established justice system that provides the females a sense security and protection. So, when Usha resulted to violence to suppress her oppressor I had no problem with disregarding my traditional beliefs and fully supporting the murder of her tormentor.

Violence Justified

Throughout our lives, it has been constantly been ingrained into our minds that violence is never the solution. Never. However, the story of Usha and that of Mary in “The Hunt” raise the interesting question: is it okay to use violence, if that is the only way to bring an end to horrible systematic oppression? Like many others have already said in the blog, despite my usual uneasiness to endorse violence, I do agree that it is morally defensible to attack your attacker in these strenuous circumstances.
In both Usha’s story, and in the short story, “The Hunt”, both protagonists and communities were put in a circumstance in which a violent reaction was the only way to successfully retaliate to the oppressor. As mentioned in “Half the Sky”, the community of Kasturba Nagar was basically under the oppressive rule of Akku Yudav. Under his gang rule, the whole community lived in constant fear; justified terror since Yudav was almost constantly abusing and gang-raping the women of the community. Despite these horrible circumstances, at first, Usha did not resort to violence but rather tried to resolve the solution peacefully; talking to the police, trying to file a claim and even get him arrested. Yet, despite these constructive steps, nothing was done to stop the horrid rule of Yadav but rather made him more hostile towards Usha. In the end, the problem was solved when all the women banded together and killed, maybe rather crudely, Yudav. Despite the rather violent nature of resolution, I do believe it was necessary. Like shown throughout the chapter, the women of the Kasturba Nagar were in a circumstance where all previous peaceful actions were virtually useless. Similarly, in “The Hunt” due to the higher class and economic authority of Tehsildar, Mary had no other way to stop the abuse from him. However, I do believe that Kasturba Nagar’s circumstances did seem more severe and thus their violent actions much more justified than that of Mary.
In both instances, I found it interesting that the violent, justified retaliation were taken as means of serving justice for the entire community. In both Usha’s story and in “The Hunt”, not only one woman was being abused but also rather all the women of the communities were being systematically oppressed. Thus, as Mahasweta Devi said in her interview, she justified Mary’s actions on the night of the hunt as, “She resurrected the real meaning of the annual hunting festival day by dealing out justice for a crime committed against the entire tribal society” (the author in conversation). Similarity, in India, the whole of women collectively killed the attacker. Thus perhaps I am okay with these violent responses since they were the only working solution and were needed by the entire community.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Moral Ambiguity of Justice Through Violence

When you have been systematically oppressed, is it morally defensible to violently attack your attacker in order to deliver justice?

Morality is by nature an ambiguous entity, based on cultural norms, upbringing, and general environment; thus what may be morally acceptable in one situation is completely out of line in another. An obvious example is that of Usha and the women of her community as detailed in Half the Sky. Failing to find justice or protection through legal avenues the women, many of who were rape victims, took justice into their own hands and lashed out violently. The authors acknowledge the breadth of emotion such a resolution causes in an outside observer:

After years of watching women quietly accept abuse, it is cathartic to see someone like Usha lead acountercharge – even if we’re uncomfortable with the bloody denouement and cannot condone murder(Kristoff 53).

It’s easy to make blanket statements condemning violence or murder when there is no emotional connection, but when a situation is presented on a more personal level black and white fades into shades of gray.

In a situation where an individual or a group of people has been systematically oppressed I would argue that ideally violence should never come into play, but realistically I have no moral qualms about delivering justice or achieving security through violence. I shy more from the discrediting effect and poor precedent that violence sets more than from the moral problems. When someone has behaved as monstrously as Akku Yadav I believe they no longer deserve asylum from the vengence of their victims. What concerns me is that when victims lash out violently they discredit their cause by using the same tools as their attackers. It is comparable to the toppling of dictators in revolutions, such as the recent felling of Ghadaffi in Libya. While it would have been preferable to have tried Ghadaffi and held him accountable for his crimes, few were upset by his demise at the hands of his victims. Unfortunately, such an end discredits the rebels for not using established channels of justice and instead sinking to the level of their enemy. In addition, condoning violence in any event sets a precedent for the acceptability of violence in the future. If it becomes the norm for women to murder their rapists because it was acceptable in this specific incident then is society really better off? Again, it is hard to discern right from wrong, but I will maintain that within my moral code it is not objectionable for an oppressed person(s) to use violence to achieve justice although it may not be the best solution practically.

Justice

When you have been systematically oppressed, is it morally defensible to violently attack your attacker in order to deliver justice?

Personally, I am a firm believer in solving problems verbally instead of physically. However, I feel that there are such cases where physical action is the only option or alternative. This was the case in Usha's story in Chapter 3 of Half the Sky, "Learning to Speak Up." The women Dalits of Kasturba Nagar were being constantly abused and oppressed in their society. They were beaten, mutilated, threatened, and raped on a daily basis by Akku Yadev and his gang, constantly living in fear and danger everyday. Because their justice system did little to meet the needs of the poor, there was no guarantee that Akku Yadev would be stopped from continually hurting the women, and so, the women took matters into their own hands, killing Akku.

I believe that when a person is not left with any means of protection and is oppressed by their justice system or other people, it is justifiable to retaliate violently by means of self-defense. I've seen countless films where women have been physically and sexually abused by men or even their husbands, and are denied protection from their peers or the justice system. As a result, the women will often resort to killing their abusers so that they will not be subjected to abuse any longer. Although I believe all murder is wrong, I believe that this kind of retaliation is understandable and sometimes necessary when there is absolutely no other way to protect or defend one's self from further abuse.

With that said, I do not think that Mary's killing of Tehsildar in The Hunt was exactly justifiable. I feel this way because I think that Mary's problem with Tehsildar could have been more easily solved simply because of the type of woman Mary was - one who is headstrong and puts up a fairly good fight. I personally feel that Mary could have prevented Tehsildar from raping her by using her threats and strong will like she had used with others before. I do not see Mary's accosting someone after an unsuccessful attempt at rape as easily justifiable as the women Dalits' killing of Akku Yadev.

JUSTICE

When you have been systematically oppressed, is it morally defensible to
violently attack your attacker in order to deliver justice?

I believe systemic oppression occurs when no authority figure - police officers,religious leaders, employers, etc stands up to stop injustice. Leaving the oppressed to fend for themselves and helpless victims to the crimes of their oppresses. In these cases I whole-heartedly agree that it is morally defensible to violently attack ones attacker to deliver justice and save oneself.

In chapter 3 of "Half the Sky", Usha Narayane's 'village' was under rule of Akku Yadav, a ruthless gangster. He would harass, rape, injure and kill the people in order to get what he wanted. "The more barbaric the behavior, the more the population was cowed in acquiescence" (Kristof 49). The police men of the area did little to help protect the people and in one scenerio they gang raped a women who came to report that she had just been gang raped by Akku Yadav and his men. What does one expect these people to do? Silently sit in a corner and continue to take the abuse! I think not. Though the scene in the court house was goury, I felt like it did not amount to the extreme of the horrid things Akku had made them endure. The justice system was not going to save them and the had to set themselves free.

Justice or Revenge?

When you have been systematically oppressed, is it morally defensible to violently attack your attacker in order to deliver justice?

In "The Author in Conversation," as interviewed by Gayatri Spivak, Mahasweta Devi explains that Mary has dealed "out justice for a crime committed against the entire tribal society." The crime, in this case, is attempted rape, which, among the tribals, is the considered the greatest offense. Mary dealed out justice by murdering her offender, Tehslidar. In this society, the only feasible way to deliver justice for a crime so heinois is murder because the crime is not just personal, but one against the entire society. Raping one women, idealogically, is like saying you disrespect all women and are willing to rape all of them. Thus, the crime becomes one against all of society. Revenge is the equivalent of justice "when," as Devi puts it, "the system fails in--justice."


This same principle applies to Ushu's story from Half the Sky. Ushu organized the women in the village to kill the man who terrorized the village and raped so many women in the village. The violence is not only justified, but the equivalent of justice, partially because of the magnitude of Asho Bhagat's crimes, but mostly because the government, the system, failed to protect the women from Bhagat and so the women had no other choice to escape from the violence.


This is really complicated moral question. In ideal principle, I want to say that violence is never okay. But I think that's true because there are other, better, non-violent ways to solve problems. I think my conclusion is that violence is not, cannot, and will not be OKAY, but may be necessarry in a certain situation to solve a problem.


With the situation in Ushu's village, I can't celebrate the violence, but recognize that it was necessarry and the only feasible solution. in Mary's situation, where revenge really equates to justice, I don't think it had been needed. Even though accoring to cultural tradition, rape is the worst offense, Mary's actions don't seem necessarry, but a response according to culture, tradition, and pride.


There are a few different definitions of justified. One definition is having done something according to good and legitimate reason. One is to declare free from blame.


Both Mary and Ushu can be said to have good and legitimate reason, though I think Mary's is questionable. Neither are free from blame. Ushu is free from legal blame (like victims who use self-defense are free from legal blame), but not from what I would call moral blame. Her violence should not celebrated, because it is principally wrong. It should be seen for what it is or, I guess more accurately, should be: not bloody vengeance, but the only possible solution. When revenge is brought into the equation, then the violence is just as disgusting as the offenders and cannot be just. Justice means the equality of beign fair or reasonable, while delivering implies something that is wholly unjust: reciprical action, or revenge.


Revenge against the Serially Inhumane

In the prologue of The Hunt, author Mahasweta Devi states, “Violence is justified. When the system fails – justice, violence is justified” (Mahasweta Devi). While I do not condone violent retaliation in all situations, I do believe that there are extreme cases where violence is the only answer. Self-defense is one of these cases. Even in the United States, if one is acting in self-defense, violence against one’s attacker is seen as acceptable; while there are criteria for deadly and non-deadly force used, there are situations where deadly force is condoned by the United States government. (Self-Defense (United States)). Along with self-defense, I believe that situations where the system has repeatedly failed to remove or handle an extremely dangerous threat, one could consider violence. I specify an extreme threat. By this, I mean someone who has repeatedly committed offenses that are horrifyingly inhumane and yet has been disregarded or freed by the system; for example, serial murderers, serial rapists, really serial any violent crime. The story of Usha in Half the Sky is an example of an extreme case ignored by the government and the system in which violence was the only answer. A retired judge commented on the stabbing of Akku Yadav saying, “in the circumstances they underwent, they were left with no alternative but to finish Akku. The women repeatedly pleaded with the police for their security. But the police failed to protect them” (Half the Sky 52). For the women of Half the Sky, the system had failed, over and over and over again, and had left them with no choice but to protect themselves and their daughters by taking justice into their own hands and murdering Akku Yadav (a gangster, serial murderer and serial rapist). These women did what was necessary and what was right for their extreme case.

Violence is not always the answer; in fact it is almost never the answer. However, in the most extreme cases in which the government and the system have failed to protect the innocent and the victims, sometimes, violence is the only resolution to restore peace and safety. Violence is an extreme measure of only the most extreme situations.

When Revenge Is More Than Vengence

The nuance of this question that allows violence that I would otherwise never condone is that the fight is against a system or a representative of a system that is oppressive. While I have deep respect for Gandhi's work, I do believe that in a fight for justice where the system that should provide said justice is doing the crimes, violence is not only condonable but also arguably necessary. This is because when the fight is against the prevelant system it is a revolution and how many of those have ever been bloodless? V for Vendetta offers the interesting conundrum of a man who can be seen both as a terrorist and a freedom fighter. This distinction can be difficult to make, but in the circumstance in Half the Sky, the situation seems relatively clear.

These women attempted to use the system in place. They addressed the police repeatedly and were turned away, if not abused further. If the alternative peaceful options have been fully explored and found unfruitful, violence is preferable to continued abuse. The actions of these women saved an entire village and potentially its future generations. It also set a precedent for intolerance for oppression. I won't expand too extensively here because we already significantly addressed this in class.

For the same reasons that the Half the Sky decision was clear, the Hunt decision was less so. Mary was acting within the system of justice her village observed. Rape was considered the highest crime and therefore punishable by death; she observed this. The Hunt was the time to seek justice; she did so. Still, the calculating and practically joyful method with which she brutally murdered her assaulter caused me alarm. Even though throughout the story I felt enormous respect and admiration for Mary, her actions seemed callus and manic out of the context of her system. I then conclude that it is the system itself that is too brutal. I do not believe in an eye for an eye--that is if we equate rape and murder. However even this seemingly firm opinion is undermined. What other options for punishment could the village afford? There is clearly no prison. They cannot banish him (due to his economic standing and their lack of apparent military). It seems that the only self defense against rape is murder. Despite my discomfort with the idea, I have come to the same conclusion as I did the Half the Sky story. There remain no other options for Mary to protect herself. She took the only action available to save herself.

Killing Your Attacker Is Justified

After reading the stories in Half The Sky and The Hunt, I do believe that the only way to truly get justice in those cases is to kill the attacker. In Chapter 3 of Half The Sky, we read about Akku Yadav. For a long time he basically ruled Kasturba Nagar, and he got away with whatever he wanted. He ruined many lives, and he would have continued doing so if Usha hadn't come along and stood up against him. He bribed the police, so the only way the people of Kasturba Nagar could truly get rid of him was to kill him. In The Hunt, rape was considered the worst of crimes, and was met with the harshest of punishments. When Tehsildar tried to rape Mary, he deserved to die. So when Mary finally did kill him, her actions were completely justified. That is the law, and no one is above it. I believe that what these women did was justified, and that the attackers got what they deserved.

Retaliation

I do believe in the motto "If you get hit, hit them back". Now it may not be wise to always retaliate in certain situations, I do believe in the case of rape victims it is neccesary to retaliate. In the chapter 3 of Half the Sky, the thug Akku Yadav went around terrorizing and raping women of the slum to maintain his control. When the women rose against him in the court room, by each stabbing him at least once, it was kind of inspiring. The women made Akku feel the pain he brought on them with his brutally tactics. They knew the law wasn't going to deliver the punishment he deserved and the justice they deserved. In the case of Mary in The Hunt, although the whole situation was more weird than inspiring, I feel like the death of Tehsildar wasn't justifiable. Usha in Half the Sky tried to go to the police and seek justice, but when she saw nothing was going to happen all the women took matters into their own hands. Mary didn't try to seek justice at all, and when he attacked her in Tohri she immediately knew she was going to kill him during the hunt. Mary's murder seemed more brutal and cruel, and she never thought to seek legal justice against him.

Team Whoever-Killed-Akku-Yadav

While reading Half the Sky, I felt myself rooting for the women in the town, wishing that they exact their revenge by death even before that conclusion was reached. A firm believer in the death penalty, according to a study done by Bryn Mawr College, approximately 1 in 25 people in the United States are sociopaths. Now what is a sociopath you ask? A sociopath is someone who does not regret their actions, no matter how reprehensible the common people find them. Often times when people think of sociopaths, serial killers and rapists come to mind. However, they can be anyone from your neighbor to the guy selling you carpet. It is clear through Akku Yadav's actions that he is, in fact, a sociopath. Even if there were a system in place for exacting justice by putting him in jail, he would not learn his lesson whatsoever, and most likely seek violent revenge after his inevitable release. Sociopaths regret nothing and often neglect to see the problems with their actions. Prison does nothing to change their frame of mind and many can even withstand isolation extremely well. If people are able to learn from their mistakes, then by all means put them in jail. Almost no prison systems in the world can boast positive stats concerning relapses, or even report a change in the demeanor of the person jailed. In that case, what other recourse is there other than death. It was absolutely certain that Akku Yadav had did these awful things to the women and men of Kasturba Nagar and considering his blatancy in threatening Usha Narayane, he would never learn to regret his actions. I believe that there are constantly occasions like this and we must stay vigilant in order to protect.

Defend/Challenge/Qualify

Make sure to address Half the Sky and/or "The Hunt" in your post.

Resolved:

When you have been systematically oppressed, it is morally defensible to violently attack your attacker in order to deliver justice. 

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Cross-Gender Dressing Banned in Suffolk

In Suffolk, Virginia, the school district is considering banning cross-gender dressing in students, in order to help protect students from bullying and harassment. The board addressing this issue decided to pursue the ban after teachers noticed "some male students were dressing like girls," and received complaints from other students. Board member say that this has nothing to do with gender discrimination, but to protect students after relatively recent suicides of other children who were harassed. The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia called the ban unconstitutional, calling the ban " vague and sexually discriminating". James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia, brought up the point of educating the students. He suggested that that not only the students be educated on lesbian, gay, and transgendered students, but he called for district administrators to be more educated as well.

As a leading question, I guess I would have to ask, is there value in this ban, or do you agree with the ACLU that it's unconstitutional? Would it help to educate the authority figures first, and then focus on the youth?

Monday, February 20, 2012

'Cultural Tradition' is No Excuse for Female Genital Mutilation


U.S secretary of State Hillary Clinton claims that FGM cannot be excused as an Cultural Tradition. She believes that Government and non government organizations needs to stand together and inform the people about this issues and try to stop FGM. Although she believes that cultural differences are important and must be respected she said "We cannot excuse this as a cultural tradition. There are many cultural traditions that used to exist in many parts of the world that are no longer acceptable. We cannot excuse it as a private matter because it has very broad public implications. It has no medical benefits. It is, plain and simply, a human rights violation,”. The article discusses how this issue affect not only Africa but the Middle East, Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines ad other migrant communities in Western European countries. Clinton disclosed at a State Department Event that the Obama Administration will be joining the University of Nairobi to create a Pan-African Center of Excellence to promote and create strategies to end FGM for good. My question to the class in situations like these where some countries disapprove others' cultural differences is it okay for government and law to interfere with Tradition?

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Changing The World Starts At The Roots: How Grassroots Organizations Can Help

Blog after blog, article after article, you can find the facts of how sex trafficking and slavery is still in our communities today. You can find endless stories and many calls to action. However, how attainable are these goals? If so much is a cultural shift, how is it that people our age are supposed to aid these girls who seem thousands of miles away? In the book, a local Indian man states that "prostitution is inevitable. There has always been prostitution in every country" (24). While the book focused on particularly sex trafficking, much of the information I came across was about sex trafficking and an issue that was barely mentioned, which was people trafficked for slavery purposes. Without stopping both, we have no hope in stopping either and both of those begin at the grassroots level.

As we have discussed many times in class, the world must not rely primarily on the west for pressure to improve their own situations. However, it has been proven many times throughout the world that global attention and global pressure can make a change. This is the philosophy behind Free 2 Work . Anyone can go on their website or download their app and instantly be able to look up if their favorite companies are less than ethical. The organization has been featured on Forbes as a top company who has used social media in order to gain a huge position of power and has been cited to create such a large impact that even the mega corporation, Amazon, changed their treatment of workers in China.

One of the best things about Free 2 Work is that they are not only accessible, but work in conjunction with many other organizations that are aimed to stop human trafficking. Not For Sale is a partner organization that works to raise awareness of human trafficking and turn things around for the girls and boys involved. They provide ways for students, companies, and entire communities to change the view of human trafficking and create healthy alternatives. You can raise awareness, raise money and even report incidences using Slavery Map, a website that brings the issue to home by allowing you to view incidences that happen in your, and surrounding, communities. While Half the Sky boasts that you can help women "worldwide", organizations like Free 2 Work and Not For Sale work to help within the community, bringing the issue to you. There is hope and it starts with you.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Prostitution creats harmony???

Before reading chapter 2 of Half the Sky I already knew a little about human trafficking, but
all I thought it mainly happened in Southeast Asian countries, parts of Europe and some states in America. I didn’t knowthat it was that prevalent worldwide.
According to unglobalcompact.org human trafficking occurs in 161 countries in the
world and 12.3 million People have been trafficked.
While reading the chapter I was wondering why human
trafficking even existed. According to
the Polaris project human trafficking exist because of the low risk and the
high demand/profit from the industry. It
is a low risk because it is very unlikely that any criminal investigation would
affect the pimps’ organization. Out of every 800 sex trafficking cases only one is convicted. It is also a low risk because there has to be a lot of evidence involved in order to prosecute the pimps or the johns, but it is easier to convict the victim of solicitation even if it was forced. Law enforcement is very ineffective in breaking up the sex trafficking rings. It is in high demand because individuals are asking for sexual acts, which creates a market for prostitution. The sex trafficking industry generates 32 billion dollars a year. In the book the police said, “…what’s a young man going to do from the time when he turns eighteen until when he gets married at thirty…These girls are sacrificed so that we can have harmony in society. So that good girls can be safe,” (24). Theses young men create the market for commercial sex acts because they get too horny waiting for their good
wife. He basically said that peasants who turn into prostitutes bring harmony into the world by being raped and locked away from the rest of society.

Being considered Sub-human and the T.I.P "Trafficking in Persons Report"

Upon reading chapter two in Half the Sky, written by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn , I was instantly drawn to the idea that young girls are specifically sought out and trafficked based on their status in society. On the second page of the chapter when the author Nick asks a officer about the girls that are trafficked and made sex slaves the officers responds, " Oh, yes, but those are the peasant girls. They can't even read. They're from the countryside. The good Indian girl are safe." Basically what the officer was implying was that because these girls were not per-say educated or wealthy they deserved to be put in brothels and sold like candy. While reading this piece I felt as though the officer had marked the girls almost sub-human like. Later the author talks about this idea of being "sub-human" when he says, " People get away with enslaving village girls for the same reason that people got away with enslaving blacks two hundred years ago: There victims are perceived as discounted humans". This is true, in history time and time again it has been shown that people who ruled over another people felt as though those being oppressed were "subservient" to them. The idea of another human being lower in status than another always baffles me because we are all the same. If genetically we are all pretty much the same (except for a few) then how can we treat another person so badly. The idea of trafficking connects to the "Trafficking in Persons report" which is one of the many ways the United States is trying to stop the idea of human trafficking world wide. This report takes statistics world wide and produces a compilations of the number of humans being trafficked as well as the different governments progress towards stopping it. Yes, in American we have our share of prostitutes and trafficking, but we are striving to correct that. The T.I.P is process encouraging other countries to join in the fight against trafficking. The article later states that ," The 2011 report reflects upgrades for 23 countries in recognition of progress made and downgrades for 22 countries demonstrating sparse victim protections, desultory implementation, or inadequate legal structures. Of 37 countries ranked Tier 2 Watch List in 2010 and facing a possible statutory downgrade to Tier 3....", this kind of progress is what we like to see. Although there has been progress in this area what about the cultures like in Nepali where the idea of prostitutes and human trafficking is considered a natural process there. Countries where the poorer are stripped of their basic human rights to make their own decision for the happiness or the "protection" of others.

Trafficking In Ohio: What is really there?

As we read about human trafficking, I was horrified. But I was horrified in the I can't believe this is happening to young girls in far away, underdevloped, strikingly unsimilar to the United States places. Because the issue seems so distant, I was pretty shocked to hear that this form of, let's call it what it is, slavery is not only occuring in the United States, but is present in Ohio. I did a little research and ended up reading pieces of the (very long and very thorough) RAND report on human trafficking in Ohio, meant to raise awareness and discussion of the topic. The very first issue that the report addresses is the difficulty in knowing exactly how much human trafficking is going on. It establishes 15 cases in Ohio as the absolute bare minimum, but noted that dozens are currently under investigation. The report goes on to identify Toledo and Columbus as the most active sites of human trafficking. Columbus is noted to lack awareness, funds and appropriate legal structure to properly address the issue, many are completely unaware that juveniles are at all involved. The Toledo justice system, on the other hand, "has made significant changes to promote awareness, identification, and investigation of
human-trafficking cases." Both cities appear to lack appropriate response mechanisms. The child wellfare system does not work in synch with the justice system effectively and largely the issue itself is so completely under the radar that officials don't even seem to know what they are looking for. The report offers several Ohio specific solutions:

1. Improve awareness and response through training, education,
and outreach.
2. Improve victim programs and resources.
3. Improve law enforcement capacity.
4. Improve practitioner collaboration.
5. Refine departmental policies.
6. Use analyses to develop evidence-based programs and responses.
7. Consider and assess legislative, legal, and regulatory changes.

(quoted directly)

For the most part, I found that this report was missing statistics, hard numbers. I left it wondering what exactly is going on. And that, right there, that is the problem. There seems to be sufficient suspicion; we know that human trafficking is happening. But the lack of awareness of the extent to which it is occuring is preventing significant action. We can't address the problem until we really know how big the problem is. The Ohio community needs thorough and well funded research to just begin to tackle this issue.