One of the most disturbing aspects of this story is that the trafficker is a woman. The trafficker allegedly sold her own sister into sex slavery. This story is a sad but accurate illustration of how women participate in or perpetuate many human rights violations against other women. In Kyrgyzstan, for instance, bride kidnapping is often encouraged by female relatives of the kidnapper. Often the kidnappee's female relatives perpetuate the practice by encouraging her to stay with her kidnapper rather than risk her reputation by leaving.
It's important to note, however, that female participation in harmful practices in no way overrides or negates male accountability. The same way that African participation in the slave trade did not excuse European slave traders, female sex traffickers wouldn't bother abducting and harming children if none of the men wanted to have sex with children.
We'll be highlighting a few more of Cristoff's videos about sex trafficking and slavery in the coming weeks. In the meantime, keep reading because we have some very insightful and informative guest posts coming up.
Question/Comment:
ReplyDeleteYou say: "It's important to note, however, that female participation in harmful practices in no way overrides or negates male accountability. The same way that African participation in the slave trade did not excuse European slave traders, female sex traffickers wouldn't bother abducting and harming children if none of the men wanted to have sex with children."
I wonder though, what is it that motivates us to propagate the perspective that white men are somehow better than the rest of the world? By holding that men are to be more accountable than women, and that the white Europeans are more guilty than their African counterparts, it seems that there is a latent assumption that more should be expected of white men. If we didn't think that the white men should always be the backbone of the problem, then why do we so often qualify and mitigate the involvement of the similar gender/sex, or race by reminding the audience that the white men are the real problem. In the case of the trafficking people, yes often it is men who are doing the purchasing, but when it comes to drugs we almost immediately blame the trafficker not the purchaser for being the primary problem, so why in this case do we flip-flop and say that the purchasers are more at fault than the trafficker. I haven't read a ton of feminist theory, so maybe there is something I'm overlooking, but either way I was hoping you could explain the justification for accentuating white male involvement and diminishing the involvement of others.
To tell you the truth, Jeremy, I think we're arguing semantics again. When I said that female participation "in no way overrides or negates male accountability," I meant that women were not more culpable than men. There are some out there (not you of course, but some) who would try to excuse men going to child prostitutes or male police officers not squelching the problem by saying "well yeah, but women are the ones who are running these brothels." But women participating in human rights violations doesn't excuse men from participating in them too.
ReplyDeleteAnd the same goes for white Europeans and the slave trade - being able to blame it on white men can lead to the false impression that African tribes were faultless for the roles they played in the slave trade. But they were still responsible. They were still adults, just as capable of thinking outside cultural norms as their European cousins. And if we're going to excuse their behavior by saying "it was part of their culture," then we have to excuse the European men on the same grounds.
So, to clarify again - I'm not saying each man who participates in sex trafficking is more culpable than each woman who participates in sex trafficking. I just don't want anyone to say "Oh, well if women are doing it, then it's their fault! You can't blame the men!"
Might I also point out that it's quite symptomatic of binary thinking that when I said "This doesn't excuse men!" you took it to mean "Men are more responsible"?
ReplyDeleteI watched a film on male and female communication patterns last year. The film argued, among other things, that male communication was in general more shaped by hierarchy than women's communication (though I'm oversimplifying a bit here). Anyway, the lady in the film told a story about going on a talk show and making a statement about wanting equality in marriage and how that meant that the man couldn't be in charge - because no one person could be in charge. She took the time to explain that this also meant that women couldn't be in charge either, since that wouldn't be egalitarian. A few minutes later, a man called in to the show and said "That's the problem with you women! You always want to be in charge!"
She said that she wanted to scream at the time, but she later concluded that the man was so stuck in a binary where if you have two people one will always be higher up than the other, that if a woman refused to be lower than him, he assumed she wanted to be higher than him.
I don't think all men think that way, mind you. I actually took issue with quite a few of the generalizations in that film. But I can never walk away from the opportunity to chime in on the evils of binary thinking.