MADRE: Aid is Power. Who Do You Want to Empower?
Interesting op-ed piece from MADRE regarding international aid and development:
In the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe like the earthquake in Haiti, you’re focused on one question: How can I help? It’s the right question, but the answer isn’t always what it seems. Many people assume that donating to a large relief agency is the surest way to help meet the overwhelming need. People trust a name-brand; and in fact, these organizations do have a critical role to play, especially where government doesn’t or can’t assume full responsibility for disaster relief.
The problem is that most big relief operations are designed to swoop into a crisis, deliver services and leave. And when they do leave, people are no more knowledgeable, self-reliant or resilient than they were before. Your first priority in a crisis is to help save lives. In Haiti, and other places where people face frequent disasters, it’s critical to help save lives in a way that builds community capacity to respond to the next disaster and ultimately, move toward real development.
Amusing post by Gregory Clark
I read an amusing post by Gregory Clark on the NBR Forum in which he attempted to blast this blog with the following statement:
One of its offshoots is an another cottage industry seeking to pillory
alleged anti-female discriminators. It stumbled recently when its blog
was found to be carrying ads promising to find female partners for
deprived males.
Many blogs and discussion groups that are housed on free servers (as mine used to be) often have ads displayed by the servers themselves. The user usually does not have control over the display of ads or the content. Of course, Mr. Clark leaves out this important detail, making it sound like the user (in this case, me) intentionally placed the ads there and was directly sponsored by them.
Ironically, when I visited Mr. Clark’s own discussion group today, I found that it also had a “sponsored links” section which included a link to a site entitled “Japan Girls Gallery” (screenshot available here).
(There haven’t been any posts on it in years, so one might assume that it too is “stumbling”.)
Perhaps Mr. Clark should take a peek at his own site first before he starts ripping into others.
On Roman Polanski’s arrest
After reading about the case, I realized it is much more complicated than I originally thought. Apparently the judge reneged on a plea bargain and there was some other judicial misconduct. But the big thing for me is that it brings up this woman’s name all over again in the papers, and I’m sure it is not easy for her and her family now. But in the end, Polanski raped a 13 year old girl (and I don’t buy the bull that he didn’t know she was 13), and he fled. Whether there was judicial misconduct or not, he fled. It doesn’t matter how many films he made, how many Oscars he won, or what happened to him in Poland, or what happened to his wife, or what plea bargains were made and broken — he committed a serious crime and he fled. Instead of the “outrage” that the French government is proclaiming, perhaps the outrage should be directed to France for having shielded him for so long.
If it is true that he just “panicked” and fled, and that there was judicial misconduct — and if he is truly repentant like he says he is — then he could have faced up to his crime and gone back to be held accountable for his actions. So while I do sympathize with the woman and her plea for him to be released, there is also a greater principle here — that no one is above the law, and that people who commit serious crimes — particularly crimes like his that do traumatic and lasting damage to someone — need to be held accountable.
But unfortunately, I rather doubt he will… hope I’m proven wrong, though.
Criticism of NYT article on hostesses in Japan
I have to say that I am quite disappointed in a recent NYT article on hostesses in Japan for a number of reasons. First, the emphasis is almost entirely on the increasing popularity and “glamor” of hostessing with very little mentioned about the dangers that women in the industry often face. The article makes it sound like the greatest dangers from hostessing are drinking and partying too much. That, unfortunately, is the least of their worries. Human trafficking is a very real issue in the industry, with women from both overseas and within Japan tricked or coerced into the industry, or being lied to about the working conditions or pay. Women are often pressured or required to go out on “dates”, or “dohan”, with male clients, where sex is often involved.* There is a strong connection between hostess bars and prostitution — both geographically and otherwise — and unfortunately the article devoted very little attention to that.
In addition, the article stated that prostitution is “illegal”. Actually, only the act of coitus is illegal, and even that receives scant enforcement. For instance, if a hostess and her male client go out on a “date” and have sex, the male client can claim that he paid only for the “date” and that they both “consented” to have sex. This is also how the “soaplands” get around the law as well.
What is interesting is that even in a recession, the male demand to spend large amounts of money for the sexual exploitation of women is still high. That plus the fact that there are few opportunities for women to be financially independent and secure in Japanese society make it an increasingly popular option for women. What does it say about a society that the most lucrative jobs available to women are those where they are required to please men?
Thoughts on the Gates arrest
As more facts trickle out, and the media frenzy seems to calm down a bit, I’d like to take this time to offer my thoughts and observations about the Gates arrest and ensuing debate. Basically, I think the focus has been on race when it really should be more about masculinity.
To summarize: Professor Gates was coming home after a long flight from China. I can say from personal experience that I often feel disoriented and exhausted after a long flight over several time zones, and I suspect that Gates probably felt the same way. Then he couldn’t get into his house and had to bust his way in. So he probably wasn’t in a great mood when he finally was able to get into his home.
Meanwhile, a passerby calls 911 and reports that there are two men trying to break in to a home. According to the Washington Post:
The tape revealed that the woman who reported seeing two men trying to break into a house did not know their race. When pressed twice by the dispatcher to identify the men by race, Lucia Whalen said: “Um, well, there were two larger men. One looked kind of Hispanic, but I’m not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn’t see what he looked like at all.”
We really don’t know what was said when the officer came to the door. The officer may have been professional and courteous, or he may have been rude and disrespectful. And we really don’t know what experiences Gates has had in his own life with the police. Gates was most likely already in a sour mood, and he probably felt that he was being harassed in his own home by the police. And he was most likely belligerent and uncooperative.
He probably should not have been arrested, however. Aside from the questionable legal basis for his arrest, there was really nothing to be gained by arresting him. Even if we assume that the police report is correct — that he was screaming and cursing at the police — he was not using physical threats or intimidation. It would have been better for the police to simply get in their patrol cars and leave. And of course, it would have been better for Gates to not raise his voice or insult the officers — or anyone else for that matter. Yelling and cursing at people generally isn’t a productive way of going about solving a conflict.
Obama really should have stayed out of it. He may have been right — the police did act stupidly — but so did Gates. And there is no reason for the President of the United States to insert himself into a case in which he admitted he didn’t have all the facts. What baffles me is why he said that he did, especially given his reputation as being a disciplined and focused speaker. I find it unlikely that he or his staff did not anticipate this question coming up in the press conference, and I find it even more unlikely that they would have recommended his commenting on it in the way he did. Of course, Obama also grew up as a black man in America, and we don’t know what experiences he or those he knows have had with the police — so he may have been reacting to this on more of a personal level, particularly since Gates is his friend.
I also find it baffling how Gates now says he is going to make a documentary about racial profiling in the United States. Was he not aware that this was going on before? Or did it only become important to him when he perceived it was happening to him?
What was most interesting, however, is how so many people — including the President — were willing to jump to conclusions without all the facts. Some said that it was a clear case of racial profiling, while others said that the cop was just trying to do his job. I think it probably had more to do with masculinity than race — both men were in a standoff and neither one wanted to back down. Gates could have simply gone back in his house and filed a complaint with the police department if he felt he was treated in an unprofessional manner. The officer simply could have gotten in his patrol car and left after he determined that it was Gates’ house. But neither one was willing to do that, and it didn’t turn out well for either of them in the end.
Our culture teaches men that to back down from a conflict is a sign of weakness. That I believe is a much larger societal issue that is being overlooked. Hopefully that will be included in Gates’ future documentary as well.
Criticism of “Sour Strawberries”
The Kansai Scene recently reviewed a documentary called Sour Strawberries, which focuses on the exploitation of foreign laborers in Japan.
To begin with, the Kansai Scene article describes Kabuchiko as “one of Japan’s foreigner friendly hotspots”. The glaring omission in this description, of course, is that Kabukicho is a hotspot for sexual exploitation — hostess bars, pornographic video stores, and, of course, brothels. This omission, along with the characterization of Kabukicho as a “hotspot” for foreigners, is troubling.
I myself purchased the film recently. While overall I thought it was interesting, I found the scene with Debito in Kabukiko problematic on a number of levels. In this scene, Debito is walking in Kabukicho and discovers a sign which prohibits foreigners from entering an establishment. He raises objections to the sign with a staff member, and an argument ensues.
However, the establishment was most likely a hostess bar, brothel, or some other venue where men sexually exploit women, in an area teaming with similar establishments. As Debito has pointed out, these establishments often hire and exploit foreign women. In fact, the human trafficking of foreign women for sexual exploitation in Japan has been well-documented (see here as well as Debito’s recent post on the UN’s criticism of Japan in this regard). In a documentary about the exploitation of foreign workers in Japan, wouldn’t it have made more sense to focus attention on the plight of these women rather than on the men who fuel the demand for the industry which exploits them?
UPDATE: The above was also posted in the comments section on debito.org, where a discussion of my comments is taking place.
Offensive Bacardi ads
An Israeli company recently put together an ad campaign for Bacardi that is one of the offensive and hateful ad campaigns I have seen. I’ve come across quite a few misogynistic alcohol ads before, but this one really takes it to a whole new level.
Here is the response that was posted on the Women’s Media Center blog from “Bacardi”:
Thank you for taking the time to post your story regarding Bacardi Breezer.
The campaign you are referring to ran in 2008 for two months in Israel. Even though Bacardi Breezer is not sold or distributed in the United States, we immediately notified the appropriate Bacardi affiliate and had this website shut down.
Bacardi proudly celebrates diversity and we do not endorse the views of this site. We sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by this site and thank you for bringing it to our attention.
I did a bit of research to make sure it wasn’t bogus. It appears to be a form letter response from Bacardi to those who have complained about the ad — the same stock response from Bacardi is referred to on another blog about this ad campaign as well. (I couldn’t find anything on the Bacardi web site itself, however.)
In my opinion, it’s a first step, but not enough. I think they need to explain how this ad got produced in the first place. Explaining it away as a decision by some rogue affiliate is not enough. It was using the Bacardi name and advertising a Bacardi product, so Bacardi needs to show that they have taken steps to make sure that these kinds of ads do appear again.
However, given that another Bacardi ad has a of a woman’s half-naked back with a Bacardi tattoo stamped just above her ass, I wouldn’t count on that happening.
No more Bacardi for me.
UPDATE: It appears that Bacardi is getting a lot of flak over this — a lot of blogs and discussion groups have been talking about this for the last few days. Bacardi has since revised their response, which they have been posting in the comments section on several blogs in response to the controversy:
We wish to thank all of you who have written us about a past promotional campaign for Bacardi Breezer.
As a Company and as individuals we are also angered and dismayed that such a campaign was ever created and we have taken immediate action to stop it as it violated our stringent global marketing principles that we firmly support.
By way of explanation, but by no means an excuse, Bacardi never sponsored nor developed this promotion. But we understand it is our brand and our reputation and you are our consumers. We are also embarrassed that we didn’t catch this breach sooner. We have been urgently looking into this matter to make sure this type of activity is never repeated.
What we do know is that a third-party developed and activated this brief campaign in one small market more than a year ago without our clearance. When we discovered this promotion, we instructed our distributor to shut it down as it did not comply with our global marketing standards. We are now urgently looking into the reasons why this program was recently reposted on the internet. In markets where Bacardi does not have a corporate presence, we are represented by third parties; in this case a distributor and its advertising agency, but they must adhere to our stringent marketing principles, which clearly this campaign did not.
When Bacardi found out about this recent reposting, we immediately notified the agency and distributor to shutdown the website.
Bacardi proudly celebrates diversity and we do not endorse the views of this site or the campaign, as it is offensive and completely inappropriate. We sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by this campaign and thank you, our consumers for bringing it to our attention.
Sincerely,
Bacardi Limited
This explanation is certainly better than their first attempt. I think they have realized that this is doing serious damage to their brand.
What’s interesting is that the publicist for Bacardi, Sean-Patrick Hillman, wrote a tweet on Twitter (which has since been removed): “Ah, crisis communication on a Sunday… why can’t people get a brain… or at least use the one they were born with?” Hopefully the brainless people he refers to would be those at McCann Digital.
By the way, for those of you on Twitter who want to contact McCann Digital on Twitter to express how you feel about their ad campaign — and the fact that they were so proud of it that they submitted it to a festival in Cannes — they can be reached at @McCann_Israel , or you can contact their associates directly: @alonbrenner @shaygoren @Refuah @Yuval32 @vivi6 @shaialmagor @Meravkan
Questions regarding “A Missed Chance To Defend Women’s Rights”
With regard to a recent piece on Forbes, I would like to focus on this excerpt:
“But to mention what sexism remains in American society in the same breath as the brutal misogyny still pervasive in many parts of the Islamic world is absurd. If Joe locks his wife in the closet, beats her senseless, forbids her to talk to other men and monitors every penny she spends, Bill should be able to express disapproval of his actions without castigating himself for failing to do exactly half of the housework and child care.”
I’m having some difficulty understanding this statement. First, it seems to be implying that there is not much sexism and misogyny that remains in the United States, an implication that I find to be unsupportable (one needs only to look at the rates of sexual assault in the U.S. to find ample evidence which counters this assumption). Second, there is the implication that a husband who doesn’t share the responsibilities of housework with his wife is somehow exempt from any criticism regarding his own behaviors and beliefs. I believe the author has set up a bit of a false dichotomy here.
Men should criticize misogyny and sexism both abroad and at home; they should offer criticism towards the behaviors of other men as well as themselves. It is not an either-or situation.
UPDATE: I posted this on the writer’s blog and an interesting dialog ensued in the comments section.
Are women human?
A friend and colleague of mine sent me the link to an article in the most recent issue of The Atlantic. It is a textbook example of “male normativity” — that is, equating those things male to all things human. In this case, the author takes a longitudinal study of 268 college-educated men and makes conclusions regarding the entire human race, despite the fact that those who make up half of the human race were not even represented in the study:
In response, I wrote the following message to the author, and will write a similar letter to the editors of the Atlantic (most of whom, not surprisingly, are men):
I would like to offer my comments regarding your recent article entitled, “What Makes Us Happy?” In this article, you examined a study of 268 men and claimed that it provided “profound insight into the human condition”. I would respectfully disagree. The study may indeed provide the general public with insight into a certain class of men, but it does not provide us with insight into the human condition, as it completely lacks an entire half of the human race — women.
I can’t help but wonder how your article would have been written had the study been of 268 women. Would you have made the same sweeping generalizations about the “human” desire for happiness? Would you have claimed that the lives and experiences of 268 women were representative of all human beings — both men and women?
With all due respect, drawing wide conclusions about the human condition based on a subset of college-educated men is illogical at best. At worst, it renders women invisible and equates the term “man” with “human”, something that I, as a member of the human race, find offensive and insulting.
I hope that you will consider these comments the next time you decide to write on “human” nature.
I will post a follow-up comment here if I receive a response.
On Susan Boyle and the theories of evolutionary psychology
Posted by sgsilver in Uncategorized on April 26th, 2009
I have a number of issues with a recent article in the NYT on phenomenon of Susan Boyle ("Yes, Looks Do Matter", April 24).
First, the use of the word "spinster" to describe a single woman over a certain age is sexist and has no place in the New York Times. If anyone doubts this, then just think of the connotation of this word when paired up with the word "bachelor" to describe men.
Second, it makes the implicit suggestion — as do many of the evolutionary psychology theories — that society’s behaviors are primarily caused by biological factors rather than societal factors, and that there is little or nothing which can be done to mitigate that fact. It minimizes or ignores the very real impact that our society, and especially the mass media, have on our sense of what constitutes beauty and our formation of stereotypes. If the perception of beauty were so rooted in our biology, then how would it explain the wide variations of the perception of physical beauty between cultures — and between individuals of that culture? Or how perceptions of beauty change often change over time? If we look at American culture and how the perception of female beauty has changed significantly within just the last 50 years, we can see that this is primarily due to societal factors rather than biology.
The fact is that women receive much more pressure than men to fit a narrow standard of physical beauty. Susan Boyle was treated with disdain by the audience because she did not fit within that standard. It was only when she displayed her musical talent did she finally win acceptance and adulation. Now she has been "made over" with dyed hair, makeup, and a new wardrobe — as though the real Susan Boyle is no longer acceptable for the big time. It is a prime example of how toxic our society is and what it does to women. We would be remiss if we just dismissed this as an inevitable function of our genes rather than taking a good, hard look at our own expectations of women and challenge them — instead of simply taking the easy way out by blaming it on our DNA.
Recent Comments