|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exploitation difference? (holmes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2430 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
OK, holmes, here's how I see the differences and similarities between the exploitation engaged in by missionaries and by those offering sex work to Afghan women.
Both situations involve desperate people in dire need of the basic necessities of life. Both situations offer assistance in exchange for something. Both situations exploit the desperate need for the basics of life and encourage/require the helped to do something they ordinarity would not do if they were on equal terms with the people assisting them. In the case of the missionaries, it is a feeling of obligation which is engendered in order to influence religious conversion, which I agree is dishonest and sneaky and arrogant. In the case of the mag owner wanting to pay Afghan women to pose nude, I also agree it is completely up front. It is a job. There is nothing deceptive about it. However, this does not make it non-exploitative. To me, it is somewhat similar to the way US military recruiters go into the poorest cities and towns in America and walk around at the mall in their dress uniforms, talking to young men and women about the great future they could have in the military. The only reason they target the poor people is because those people are desperate for paid work and have few other options. The recruiters do not stand outside Saks Fifth Avenue in Manhattan trying to get the twentysomethings who shop there to enlist. Afghan women have few options these days (more since the Taliban was ousted), but their needs are obviously great. They are largely Islamic, which means that posing for nude photographs would be very much against their religion, and would almost certainly get them in large amounts of trouble; disowned from her family, or possibly imprisoned or executed. Isn't offering money to a person to do what they ordinarily would not do if they were not in need of the basic necessities of life exploitative, especially when the whole point of the nude photographs is that they were of Islamic women from a war-torn area? ABE: And while I not really want to rehash too much, I seem to recall that your reason for bringing this issue up in the first place was that you objected to the US government letting other aid organizations into Afghanistan but not this porn mag photographer. Consider the diplomatic nightmare if one of the first things the US brings to an Islamic country is pornography. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-23-2005 09:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6080 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Both situations offer assistance in exchange for something. That is the first problem. A philanthropic aid organization is not supposed to be giving out aid in exchange for anything. Charity is just that: giving with the expectation of nothing in return. Thus any missionary organization raising money (including gov't grants) to do charity work and then does expect something from (or tries to get something out of) those it is using the resources to help, would be exploiting. The exploitation is worse when those who are being coerced (or influenced) to change are at a disadvantage and so likely to give in, where they would not have under normal circumstances. A commercial business is not giving out aid at all. Any and all businesses are by nature exploitation. They offer money in compensation for work, which is less than is expected to be received for the product of the work. It is however up to the worker to choose the amount of money they are willing to work for. It is true that a person in a poverty stricken area is more likely to accept a job that if they had money they may not have chosen, or work for cheaper than in a more affluent country. But that is always true with all businesses and work. There will always be jobs which are not desirable and yet someone must do them. It will often be the people who need money that choose to do them. This points up why charities are not supposed to act like businesses and get something in return for the aid they provide. Charities are not supposed to be businesses, not even "spirit" businesses. Unless you were going to exclude commercial business from Afghanistan, afghanis were going to be exploited as all employees are. The poorest would have accepted very bad jobs. Since this is impossible (unless contra is right and we switch to a communist production model... though I would point out someone would still get stuck with the shit jobs) companies were going to come in. What makes sexual work different than other businesses, other than your own moral position?
The only reason they target the poor people is because those people are desperate for paid work and have few other options. This is obviously NOT what was motivating Hustler, and I would imagine any other established sexually oriented business going into Afghanistan. Regions such as that (extreme poverty and war torn) are dangerous and have setups costs which make them prohibitive. That is to say, if all one was doing was trying to find the cheapest people to get to do the work, one would not be going into Afghanistan. It is true that they'd probably be willing to work for lesser salaries (compared to US actors) but that wouldn't make up the difference.
Afghan women... are largely Islamic, which means that posing for nude photographs would be very much against their religion, and would almost certainly get them in large amounts of trouble; disowned from her family, or possibly imprisoned or executed. Isn't offering money to a person to do what they ordinarily would not do if they were not in need of the basic necessities of life exploitative, especially when the whole point of the nude photographs is that they were of Islamic women from a war-torn area? Now this is ironic. We go in and overthrow an Islamic regime that was repressing women and are now (using force of arms) allowing them to take jobs and get educations that are forbidden according to many there, yet turn around and say they should not get into sexual work because THAT is against their religion and culture. Don't you realize you are simply saying enough freedom to offend their common cultural biases, but not enough freedom to offend our own? What makes this more amusing is that I am sure you felt great about all the images of women not wearing their head/body coverings, or wearing makeup or getting an education (viewing that as freeing themselves), yet appear to feel that the same women getting undressed and feeling good about their bodies would NOT be freeing themselves. Interestingly enough both sets of images are equally offensive to the religious conservatives of that culture. When photographers paid women to shoot them as they went to school or work, how was that less exploitative? Because the women would do one but not the other? Hmmmmmmm. I already told you I have friends from that region. Despite the rigid codes there is porn and there are people making it, and wanting to make it because they like sexual freedom and expression just as much as people anywhere else. What happened after Saddam fell? Even though not a religious conservative, even he had repressed sexual imagery, so after he fell the movie houses began showing R and X-rated movies. That was NOT US media coming in to set things up. They do it all by themselves. It is a bias to think women there want X but not Y, because you view X as something desirable and not Y. Now, could there be women who decide to take a sexual job in order to make the money, though they would not normally do so and do not like the risk that it will pose? Maybe. But you name me jobs that women are going to work where they will not face the same problem? If women are going to finally be able to work, they will do so against cultural proscriptions, and perhaps their own desires, out of necessity. Right?
especially when the whole point of the nude photographs is that they were of Islamic women from a war-torn area? No no no. The point was to show women in that region freeing themselves of repression they had been living under, especially sexual expression. Again it is a bit hypocritical to cheer women as they remove the Bhurka and then blanche at the idea of them taking anything else off.
I seem to recall that your reason for bringing this issue up in the first place was that you objected to the US government letting other aid organizations into Afghanistan but not this porn mag photographer. No. The US allowed press in from all other organizations, including those that would normally not be acceptable, to take all sorts of pictures, including images that would not be acceptable to general Afghanis, and yet denied Hustler because it was deemed offensive to US and Afghan beliefs. That's hypocrisy.
Consider the diplomatic nightmare if one of the first things the US brings to an Islamic country is pornography. But they already did. We allowed women to shed the mandated clothing (which to them is the equivalent of going nude in our society), as well as wearing makeup (which is specifically like dressing as a hooker), and then having pictures taken by our press and broadcast all over the world. Your statement above can only come from an ethnocentric bias. And by the way we also allowed them to get educated and become more independent of their families and husbands. Why is that not a diplomatic problem? Oh yeah, because that's what WE wanted to see. In the end we were removing a restrictive gov't in order to change that culture, or allow it to change. Many of our changes though well broadcast to the smiles of people in the US, are offensive to many there. In the end, ask yourself this... Is a woman who chooses to brave the censure of many in her culture to do what she is willing to do, perhaps sometimes out of necessity to make money rather than do exactly what she wants, doing a good thing or a bad thing? Should she be able to if she wants to? Now what if that includes taking off her clothes for a camera or being sexual in some way? If there is suddenly a difference, what is it? But back to the main argument. Clearly a charity should not be raising issues like this at all. They should give the people what they need, without further expectation. The people receiving the aid should have confidence in that process. This message has been edited by holmes, 02-23-2005 15:09 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2430 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Both situations offer assistance in exchange for something. quote: Agreed.
quote: "There will always be jobs which are not desirable and yet someone must do them." Posing for nude photographs is a job that "must" be done? Since when?
quote: It is not the work, but the source of it. If this work arises out of the culture because the women choose it out of a large spectrum of many choices, then great, more power to them. If it's a choice between eating or keeping a roof over one's head and posing nude, then it isn't really much of a choice, is it?
The only reason they target the poor people is because those people are desperate for paid work and have few other options. quote: I checked the exchange rate this morning, and it is 42 Afghan currency to $1US. This is likely much better now than it was when Huslter wanted to go in, right after the invasion. I disagree that the costs wouldn't make up the difference. They obviously thought that the potential for profit would be worth it. Surely you aren't suggesting that Hustler was on a charitable humanitarian mission? No, it's sensationalistic to do this, and would have given them tons of publicity.
Afghan women... are largely Islamic, which means that posing for nude photographs would be very much against their religion, and would almost certainly get them in large amounts of trouble; disowned from her family, or possibly imprisoned or executed. Isn't offering money to a person to do what they ordinarily would not do if they were not in need of the basic necessities of life exploitative, especially when the whole point of the nude photographs is that they were of Islamic women from a war-torn area? quote: I'm not saying they cannot get into sexual work. I just think it should arise naturally out of their own culture if they choose it rather than being influenced by another culture and coerced and exploited when they are desperate for the basic necessities of life. Let Hustler come in when the Afghanis INVITE them.
quote: If they are free to choose eating or posing nude, is that real freedom?
quote: Never said that. If those women want to get undressed and feel good about their bodies, I'm delighted for them. If they did it for free, we could be sure they were "freeing themselves", and not doing what they have to, and in fact are highly opposed to, simply to survive.
quote: Going to school, removing veils, and wearing makeup arose naturally from them. Nobody paid them to do these things. Did journalists pay the women to be photographed going to school or work? I wasn't aware that news organizations paid people in this way.
quote: Exactly. They do it all by themselves.
quote: I don't know what they want, and I don't view sex work as always undesireable. It should come from the people, however.
quote: No, not right. Page Not Found | Webster University
Afghan women in rural areas have always worked alongside men in the fields. In the capitol, women often wore Western dress, served on Parliament, and worked in a variety of professions, including medicine, engineering, architecture, media and law. During the many years of war, as men were killed, went missing, or became disabled, the survival of the family came to depend on women's income. Before the Taliban ban on female employment, 70 percent of the teachers in Kabul were women, 50 percent of the civil servants and college students were women, and 40 percent of the doctors were women. The Taliban militia came to full power in Afghanistan 1996. The culture of the Afghan people is not that of the Taliban. The extreme restrictions on women's public lives is their imposition.
especially when the whole point of the nude photographs is that they were of Islamic women from a war-torn area? quote: Sorry, I don't buy that. The point was to make money. Hustler makes money not by lifting people out of repression, but by paying people to perform sex acts on camera and then selling the images. Or do you really subscribe to the view that Hustler is on a high-minded, self-sacrificing crusade to liberate the women of the world? It was about the money. It's always about the money.
quote: I don't. It should arise naturally from their own culture, when they have lots of choices, not when they are in dire straits.
I seem to recall that your reason for bringing this issue up in the first place was that you objected to the US government letting other aid organizations into Afghanistan but not this porn mag photographer. quote: Which other images that were taken would not be acceptable to general afghanis, given the relatively cosmopolitan nature of Kabul not 10 years before?
Consider the diplomatic nightmare if one of the first things the US brings to an Islamic country is pornography. quote: Those were the impositions of the TALIBAN on Afghani culture.
quote: No, I think I have it pretty much right. I also don't think the Jimmy Dean Sausage company should be setting up pig farms and sausage factories over there right now, either. Might seem a little like cultural imperialism, don't you think?
quote: We didn't "allow" that. We gave them the choice to return to how it was for them before the Taliban came, and they did.
quote: It's also what THEY wanted to have happen.
quote: No, we removed a restrictive government in order to return the culture back to what it was before the restrictive government siezed power without the consent of most Afghanis.
quote: Really? Are you sure? Are the conservative Islamics representative of the majority of people in Kabul and Afghanistan?
quote: There is no difference, if it comes from within her culture and is part of a wide spectrum of choices. A "necessity to make money" is not the same as "a necessity to make money to buy food because one is starving". The first is a choice, the second is desperation, and will cause people to make desperate choices. A company that knowingly takes advantage of this desperation, like Hustler wanted to, is exploitative.
quote: Agreed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
holmes writes: There will always be jobs which are not desirable and yet someone must do them." schraf writes: Posing for nude photographs is a job that "must" be done? Since when? Good point. But would you both agree to this: There will always be jobs which are not desirable and yet someone WILL do them.
schraf writes: It is not the work, but the source of it. If this work arises out of the culture because the women choose it out of a large spectrum of many choices, then great, more power to them.
I don't understand the distinction. Are you saying if an Afghani woman has equal opportunity to be a teacher, a homemaker, a scientist, or a nude model and she chooses to be a nude model, that you wouldn't have any problems with that? Also, are you suggesting you have no problems with American women choosing to pose nude for Hustler because they have other career options available to them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6080 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Let me start by saying I did not like how you treated my post. That said, maybe it was due to misunderstandings brought about by how I wrote my own post. I realize I had some slight to moderate sarcasm or "wise-assery" which was probably not appropriate given that this is a hot button issue with both of us.
I am going to rewrite my position with a little less "enthusiasm" and hopefully it will be a bit more clear. I will try to address some of your points which sprang out of this, and were not related to the misunderstanding of my position. In any society there are jobs which must be done. That includes jobs which are both morally (or socially) repugnant and would not usually be done except by those who are most in need of money. What this means is that once freed to take on work of their own choosing, women were going to take on jobs that were socially repugnant, indeed women taking jobs at all would still be repugnant to many Afghanis. This means that the commercial exploitation that you dislike was going to happen anyway, including women being treated badly for their choice of work. I was not suggesting that sexual work was a "must" category, or that it had to be. As I see custard has already pointed out there is the class of work which will be done. It is not necessary, but humans naturally end up wanting it and so opportunties open for making money at it. Some of these jobs are also socially repugnant, may attract those more in desire of money than in the job itself. Sexual work is clearly a "will" category, but so is scrubbing toilets (except for in gov't buildings). So back to a specific case in point... We liberated the Afghani people from the ruling Taliban gov't. As part of that liberation we freed women to choose what kinds of jobs they could work at. That included both must and will kinds of work. The Afghans are an extremely diverse population with many regional norms. What is not true to say is that the Taliban did not represent many within the populations view of how women should be allowed to work. Even if not necessarily as strict (this includes clothes and education) there were still moral attitudes regarding the nature of positions women could hold. The fact of the matter is that the Taliban did not rule all of Afghanistan, and so the fact that you saw such strict behaviors in some rural areas beyond Taliban control points out that it was not just the Taliban who had these ideals. The article you linked to was not exactly an accurate assessment of Afgan culture. It did not explain what life was like before the Soviets moved in. I can only assume the high percentage figures of women at work within Kabul were post Soviet progressive education programs. Perhaps you should read more about the history of Afghanistan (not being sarcastic). Soviets moved in and began imposing equality programs for women, finally bringing them education and moving them into gov'ts. Indeed the fact that they mention parlaiment sort of underscores what time frame we are talking about. This was against the will of the majority of Afghans. That is why they rebelled against it. Indeed if you ever see clips of our gov't officials speaking to the Afghans at that time you will see that our message to them is that they should not be forced to accept foreign ideas like equality for women and thus fight to restore their traditional beliefs. So arguing that they should be returned to soviet occupied cultural norms is a bit shaky at best. Interestingly enough it was during this time that I was asking why we wanted the soviets to lose, and why we were egging on people that wanted oppression. In the end the Taliban was essentially a return to traditional values (a bit more strict, but not completely off base). In any case, it is well known that even now, after the liberation, there are women who are still choosing to where the bhurka and not got to school or get a job (even in Kabul) because that is what is expected from their families. So the question is what jobs are women supposed to be freed to do. None that can possibly be socially unacceptable? Socially unacceptable if a must? Or any range of occupation because the principle is that women should be given the right to choose their own path, including socially questionable jobs if they feel it is worth it? As far as the idea that such a thing as sexual photography comes from outside of Afghan, and so Hustler would be imposing our culture on them, I have already said that within these conservative cultures it goes on all the time. It does so just like it did in the US not 50-70 years ago when it was completely illegal here. Sexual expression, and sexual work has always gone on and is chosen as work for a variety of reasons. From your own citation...
The Taliban denial of women to have jobs has created a flood of unemployed women with families to feed. These women face serious financial problems and as a natural consequence their children suffer from hunger, malnutrition, a variety of illnesses, and a chronic state of poverty. Those who could afford to leave the country did so, yet others are left without a means of income. These women make up the bulk of the beggars and prostitutes in Afghanistan. A large number of these women are ex-teachers and civil servants. The ban on female beggars to enter shops, inns, or other trading areas has further affected their income, forcing many of these women to enter into prostitution for their survival and the survival of their children. As the income levels for women are decreasing, the number of prostitutes is increasing. HIV infection is on the rise among young prostitutes where it claims many victims. Women convicted of "corrupting society" are often hanged in a sports stadium, their face hidden behind the ever-present burqa. Even though written from an obvious ethnocentric bias (prostitution is considered an evil) the point is clear. Women were already choosing sexual work within Afghanistan, including when the risk was their own life. While this does show that more women were pushed into it due to a lack of alternatives under the Taliban, that does not argue that such jobs did not exist before or that they won't exist once opportunities for other work return. It also does not mean that all women who choose to enter that kind of work (when they have alternatives) only do so out of desperation (though they may have done so for better money comparable to other "good" jobs available). I would think sexual modeling would tend to mirror prostitution, when one is considering the "for pay" versions. And I would think it would mirror what we have had in the US before porn was made legal. People chose to make it and be in it, both because of the good money and not finding it objectionable (indeed preferable to other work) despite cultural and legal concerns. This is borne out by people I know from those countries who have said that is what it is like, and what can be seen within nations like Iraq (where sexual movies and prostitution have returned without US commercial interest). Thus Hustler coming in would not be some foreign element totally unheard of or unchosen by Afghan women before the fall of the Taliban. It would only be the legitimation of a choice for work that women had already making. In fact it could have the positive effect of raising standards for women working in that field... as you can see most women were getting killed for such things before. It would seem a hypocritical to say on the one hand they were choosing job X and got hung under the Taliban and so it is good that we let them do so again, but not job Y because it was against cultural standards as one can see because they were being hung under the Taliban. Is it not the empowerment of women to choose their occupation, outside of cultural concerns that is the issue here? Is it not selective, to say sexual work should not because it is bad when clearly women working at all is also still a divisive issue? In any other case, wouldn't a woman's choosing to work in an occupation, even if socially undesirable or for need of money, be a sign that it is coming from within the culture? Especially if one has evidence of it already existing before Hustler got there? As far as the Hustler issue goes, while Hustler has full sexual acts within some of their products, unless they changed the nature of their main magazine, it was not fully sexual (that is they avoided full intercourse or even completely hard men). As it goes they stated what they wanted and it was not for full sexual content. It was women posing nude. Was it going to be for profit? Heck yes. Certainly they saw a profit being generated by such a topical subject. But it was NOT profitable in the way you suggested. You said people go in to prey on those that are in poverty and so likely to agree to do work, and do work cheaper, than others. That would be making a profit because your costs were going to be much lower, though your product sold the same. In this case Hustler saw the increased value of such a product (it would sell more), and so went in despite costs which would essentially run equal. And despite the exchange rate, you can find low exchange rates elsewhere, or desperate people elsewhere. If it was pure exploitation based on lower pay for product, it would have been much easier to go elsewhere. I think it is unfair of you to charge them as having no interest in who they would hire, or that they really didn't have an interest in the political angle of women freeing themselves of religious dogma, now that they were being freed to supposedly choose "anything they want to do." Flynt is known for his highly political interests regarding freedom of sexual expression. This guy chose to go to jail several times in defense of that freedom, and has written about it often enough. You may not like his art, and you may not like his politics, but he does have his own artistic style and political beliefs and yes it does make it into Hustler, as well as in their choices of what to do. You say you would be against Jimmy Dean sausage businesses being brought to Afghanistan. Are you saying you would really not want it being allowed, if Afghanis wanted to open up such shops? We certainly allowed in press to cover things that were not what many Afghans wanted. Yes they did pay for stories (that is often how press and documentary crews get their stories), especially if it included footage. I watched as a CNN guy ended up getting the go ahead (on camera) to specifically break a cultural taboo to shoot women out eating ice cream. Shall we not allow in MTV, CNN, New York Times based on content that traditional Afghans would not like? You do know that images (even drawn) of the human form are not acceptable according to Islamic Law right? Much of our media is not welcome to them. especially for the tradionalists who still exist whether the Taliban is gone or not. Indeed the new gov't is almost as stable as the Taliban one. It is in conflict with many of the same factions as the Taliban had been. And many view it as overly western. What degree of freedom are Afganis supposed to be able to choose, how much western thought can be allowed in? I understand not having it come in via aid organizations, but commercial ones seem to me to be the choice of the people. This message has been edited by holmes, 02-25-2005 05:18 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6080 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I thought you wanted to discuss this? I'm almost surprised you didn't answer immediately since I left you an area of attack that was at least arguable (honest difference of opinion).
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024