About this Blog

Below are two sample blogs from a course I took in college. The course was titled, "Gender Violence in a Global Context." It explored gender violence using a different framework than that one would find in the media and popular culture. Each blog would be a summary and reflection of the assigned class readings for the week (which are mentioned in the blog).

Reproductive Rights

Friday, November 4, 2011

Alyssa Janks 11/4/2011

In Betsy Hartmann’s book, Reproductive Rights & Wrongs, she discusses the idea of population control. In Hartmann’s opinion, population control is simply wrong, for several reasons. She details these reasons throughout her book and backs them up with research and case studies, which will be discussed later in the blog. She even states that this policy is “antiwomen” (Hartmann, xviii). However, she clarifies that she is not antiabortion. She believes that women should have the choice whether or not they want to have more children. Furthermore, she details that in most cases, it is not as clear-cut as it seems or as the media may portray it to be. For example, there are many cases of families who have many children that are healthy and well fed. Then, there are also families who have only one or two children that are poorly fed and malnourished. To summarize, Hartmann believes that “what is needed is a genuinely prowoman alternative which challenges both the population control and antiabortion positions and which guides family planning, contraceptive research and health policy” (Hartmann, xviii). Furthermore, she believes that the forceful use of contraceptives or other measures to prevent population growth is a violation of basic human rights (Hartmann, xix). Hartman states that the philosophy of population control rests on three basic assumptions. This blog will focus on only one to keep the scope narrow and specific enough to allow for a more detailed examination. This assumption is that “rapid population growth is the primary cause of the Third World’s development problems, notably hunger, environmental destruction, economic stagnation, and political instability” (xix). 

As I mentioned, we will focus only on Part One of the book which analyzes the causes and consequences of rapid population growth. This will help to put the population problem into perspective. Hartmann's basic framework is that an alternative to population control, a more prowoman policy must be developed and implemented. She states the widely accepted “truth” that many believe and that is often portrayed in the media -- the idea is that there are too many people and too little resources to adequately feed and cloth the population. However, many of these analyses are old and outdated and have not taken recent technological innovations into account. I would agree with many of Hartmann’s points, they are thoughtful and well supported. She makes the point that it is difficult to generalize on a global level; the population growth differs from country to country. I think this is something that has been repeatedly mentioned throughout our readings in this class – we must analyze things on a specific level. If you generalize, you will miss key points that could help solve problems. One of her key points is that ignorance is an issue. This correlates with the former point. For example, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm wrote that the US should stop giving relief funds to African countries since “such aid would ‘merely multiply empty stomachs.’”

She analyzes from the point of the Third World. Hartmann has conducted first hand research to dispel the ideas that the greater the population, the less food for all. In fact she states that “food supplies are not fixed and can be influenced by population growth in positive ways,” as well. Hartmann’s analyses are filled with facts and evidence making it is hard to disagree with her stance. As discussed in previous seminars and blogs, the media has a huge influence on the general population and their thoughts and beliefs. Because the media has stressed the idea that population growth must be controlled, it is something the people believe. However, even the basis of Hartmann’s analysis is difficult to argue. Individuals should have the choice to decide what to do with their bodies and their families. She believes that instead of population control, policies must be changed at the most fundamental level. In a world where there is more than enough food for all and yet there are countries where many are starving, I would be hard pressed to find someone who disagreed with this statement. Hartmann makes a valid argument throughout her Part One of her book, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs.

Today's Clip: 

This discussion reminded me of happenings in the United States. In the US, there is an extreme dichotomy between the rich and the poor. Despite the fact that the level of poverty does not compare to the level of poverty in foreign countries, there are still issues that need to be addressed. For example, the US government pays farmers not to produce crops, yet there are people starving in this very country, not to mention around the world. This uneven distribution of funds and government resources is definitely in need of a policy change. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

After reading this book, I have several questions. First of all, how relevant and current is the information presented in the book to our world today? It was originally written in 1987 and updated 1995. I realize that there are still famines today, simply opening up to a news website will tell you that, but there are deeper issues than that. What is the best approach to easing the burden? Would it be most effective to focus on what Hartmann’s ultimately defines, that is, instead of focusing on hunger as an issue, should we try to implement policies that are more prowoman and the rest will fall into place?

Human Trafficking

Monday, November 21, 2011

Alyssa Janks - November 21

In Pardis Mahdavi’s book, Gridlock: Labor, Migration and Human Trafficking in Dubai, she examines the misconceptions linked with human trafficking all around the globe. I will be examining her chapter called “Trafficking Trafficking” which sets the framework for the book. Mahdavi believes that the popular discourse on trafficking does not adequately address the issue and is often more harmful than helpful to trafficking "victims." Currently, “trafficking discourse is focused on sex work and operates within a criminalization framework” (33). Many people think of sex work when they hear the word trafficking. Because this is the most sensationalized and flashy part of trafficking, it automatically becomes the most “interesting” -- and thus the focal point of popular discourse. However, trafficking also includes forced and migrant labor. In fact, “many of the most harrowing tales of abuse came from those working in industries such as construction work, domestic work, or other types of service employment” (33). This element of trafficking is just as if not more harmful than sex work. However, because it both lacks the hysteria created by sickening images popularized by the media and carries the stigma associated with “migrant labor,” it does not receive enough attention to adequately help these victims.

When considering policies, Mahadvi points out that many which are set up to “help” trafficking victims are either misdirected efforts or political agendas masked with philanthropic intentions. What is more, many policies “fail to acknowledge the larger macro-social forces that shape migrants’ decision-making processes” (32). Mahdavi wishes to make the point that “the majority of migrant workers who do face instances of abuse (in the Gulf) work in industries outside of sex work” (33). Finally, she believes that “creating a labor and migrants’ rights framework would alleviate many of the challenges migrants face and help avert further instances of force, fraud and coercion” (33).

Mahdavi makes several points in her work; there are two main points on which I will focus. The first is the fact that the popular discourse on trafficking does not adequately address the issue and creates more harm for victims. I would agree with this statement to a certain extent. I would consider myself an educated person; however before these trafficking readings, I did not realize it was comprised of more than just sex work. After reviewing Mahdavi's work & the other trafficking readings, it is clear that migrant labor is also an important issue that must be addressed in the trafficking discourse. Mahdavi makes an interesting point when discussing the terms associated with trafficking. She mentions that the term “trafficked” is often only used to refer to women in the sex industry while the word “migrant” has a masculine and class-based connotation. The term “migrant” usually has a negative connotation as well – a person who comes in to a country without citizenship or the right -- and performs manual labor. The work is usually some type of farming and is performed for extremely low wages, thus “stealing” the jobs of (in our case) Americans. In Mahdavi's opinion, this definition of a migrant worker is not accurate -- it is the connotation that the word carries. It is no wonder with such a negative attachment that migrant workers -- “job stealers and illegal immigrants" -- would not receive equal treatment or attention by philanthropists, the media, and politicans as sex workers -- “helpless women forced into a life of depravity and corruption.” In this case, I would agree with Pardis Mahdavi that we must push education initiatives so that people are aware and changes can be make to help the people who truly need help.

I mentioned there are two points I will focus on. The second is Mahdavi’s last point of the “Trafficking Trafficking” chapter; she believes “creating a labor and migrants’ rights framework would alleviate many of the challenges migrants face and help avert further instances of force, fraud or coercion.” While I agree that migrant’s rights must be addressed, I think this will be the more challenging of the two goals to accomplish. There are economic implications of the implementation of these migrant rights that will not be easy to avoid or deny. For example, I will focus on the United States (rather than the UAE), as the US often sets the standard around the world because of the power it possesses. The implementation a migrants' rights framework would become very “sticky” very fast and it would be nearly impossible to push through the American justice system. 

At the present time, there are a shortage of jobs in the US. Creating such a protection would allow migrants, despite their circumstances, the chance to remain in the US while using American taxpayer dollars. This would create more of an incentive for migrant workers to come to the US because they know that they will be afforded protection if all else fails. One could make the argument that migrant workers might not have the education or the knowledge of such rights and thus the act will not have such a negative economic impact. It is true that right now, I am not making a distinction between willing migrant workers and trafficked migrant workers. However, I do not believe such a framework would be able to distinguish between the two either. Therein lies the problem. Such a set of rights would require funds that many countries physically could not provide. If this type of law was enacted at the international level, there would be an extreme difficulty with actual implementation. While I agree that each and every human being deserves rights and protections, the economic implications of such an act are difficult to deny.

Today's Clip: This act of trafficking is often called “modern day slavery” in today’s media. While a strong statement, I cannot say that it is deniable. It is interesting that on the week we are discussing trafficking I happened to stumble upon an article on the home page of CNN part of a series called the “CNN Freedom project." The particular article that I found focused on domestic servitude and used the term “trafficking” in the article. Perhaps there is more progress than we think if a major news source is featuring such an article on their homepage. http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/17/domestic-servitude/?hpt=hp_c1 .

After reading this, my question is this: Would it be better and more realistic to simply promote awareness using channels such as CNN and other forms of media. Or, is Mahdavi correct in saying that a complete policy overhaul needed in order to make the changes necessary?