A year ago in May, my husband Jay and I met a new friend in the backseat of a Guatemalan bus. On the 7 hour ride along dusty roads, mountain passes, and pine forests, we discovered that this girl from Greece was a Harvard grad and had a passion for helping women in conflict zones.

At the time of our meeting, Roxanne was affiliated with the UN, designing and implementing intervention-based projects in conflict and post-conflict zones for the reintegration of women in peaceful communities.  She joked that she had all the wrong stamps in her passport to get through U.S. customs “ having lived, travelled, or worked in India, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Uganda, Sudan, Israel, the West Bank, Colombia, Ecuador and Guatemala.”

Though we only spent 48 hours together, we’ve since become good friends with Roxanne.  At the beginning of our online friendship I realized that she is a reader, and recently I came across these words scribbled into my journal: “Must read Half the Sky.” A recommendation from Roxanne.

Considering that she probably knows more about women’s issues on the ground than anyone I know, I decided to take Roxanne up on her offer and have spent the last few weeks grappling with the content of this well-written, powerful book.  I hope the following review leads you to pick up Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity For Women Worldwide.

Back cover synopsis:

“From two of our most fiercely moral voices, a passionate call to arms against our era’s most pervasive human rights violation: the oppression of women and girls in the developing world. With Pulizer Prize winners Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn as our guides, we undertake an odyssey through Africa and Asia to meet the extraordinary women struggling there, among them a Cambodian teenager sold into sex slavery and an Ethiopian woman who suffered devastating injuries in childbirth.  Drawing on the breadth of experience, Kristof and WuDunn depict our world with anger, sadness, clarity, and, ultimately, hope.”

Feelings I experienced reading this book:

• Deeply troubled
• Nauseous
• Frustrated that the issues are so complex
• Inspired by people who use their power to empower, not exploit.
• Moved by women’s courage and wondering I would be so brave in their shoes.
• Determined to show people dignity and to not withhold good from others when it is in my power to act.

A third of the book is on sex trafficking and forced prostitution, while the other sections focus on honour killings, mass rape, and maternal morality. Reading this book helped me see that these issues are interconnected, and that in order to understand the nature of sex trafficking we must understand women’s plight as a whole.

It’s not about women’s rights, but human rights for women.  The authors write:

“In the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery.  In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism.  We believe that this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality around the world.”

The term “gender equality” gets a bad rep.  To be honest, the first thing I picture when I hear the term is a bunch of whiny women in business suits and high heels.  I do not wish to downplay the struggles women face in the North American workplace and admire those who are breaking through the glass ceiling and shattering stereotypes.  But for those of you who get similar images in your head when you think about gender equality and are turned off before even reading a book like this, I’d like to remind you that the majority of the world’s women are oppressed and discriminated against on a whole other level.

Malnourished Ethiopian girls filling emergency feeding centres while brothers in the same family are perfectly nourished at home, hundreds of women a year in Pakistan’s twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi being doused in kerosene and set alight or burned with acid for perceived disobedience, and girls being kidnapped and sold into brothels in Cambodia are just a few examples of why gender equality is so important in the developing world.

Three things I appreciate about this book:

• Not only is it story-based, but the stories are told with excellence, clarity, and compassion.
• It is real.  Kristof and WuDunn don’t shy away from the complexities of the issues, but include details that break the mold of our expectations.
• It challenges cultural and religious norms without being disrespectful.

Three women in the book whose stories captured my heart: Momm, Neth, and Mahabouba.  I hope you read the book so you can meet them too!

A word about the authors: Nicholas and Sheryl are the first married couple to win a Pulitzer prize in journalism.  I love that they write books together.  I can only imagine how close two people can get working as a team on such important projects.

In summary: This book is a must-read, and now on my top 5 favourite books list.  Women, pick up this book and learn about what your sisters around the world are going through.  Men (especially those of you who are wary of feminists and women’s rights), I challenge you to read this book and let me know if it helps you think about gender issues differently.  Borrow it from your local library or buy it here.

What an opportunity we have to turn oppression into opportunity for women worldwide!

Michelle Brock

***Photographers, send in your photos on this theme for a chance to win a copy of Invisible Chains by Benjamin Perrin!

In International Relations discourse, some believe that military intervention in a troubled area is justified if the benefits outweigh the costs.  Some of these costs typically include aggressive actions taken by the hostile state (decreasing the region’s security), environmental damage, and loss of life.  But according to an article by Samantha T. Godec entitled Between Rhetoric and Reality: Exploring the Impact of Military Humanitarian Intervention Upon Sexual Violence – Post-conflict sex Trafficking in Kosovo (2010), the impact on women is often not calculated into this equation, making many of them vulnerable to trafficking and sexual exploitation.

The inaction of the international community during the Rwanda massacre still haunts us, creating a lens through which we approach the conflicts of our time.  The plight of women in conflict zones is being used as a moral imperative to launch a military intervention missions, as seen in this interview with Laura Bush.  It is all part of the ‘hero narrative,’ where the white male is not only the hero of the ‘poor non-white female’ but also an enemy (quite conveniently) of the oppressor state.

Godec argues that military intervention in Kosovo 1999 has increased the trafficking of women into the area for the following reasons:

• The sudden presence of military  personnel created an increase in demand for sexual services in an area with previously negligible demands.
• The post intervention militarization sustained this demand and fostered an environment in which organized criminal networks can reap great profits.
• Disruption of the economy and society saw a rise in the number of vulnerable women and girls, due to lack of job opportunities.
• The failure of UNMIK (interim administration in Kosovo) to address the trafficking problem created a culture of complacency which has allowed the industry to prevail.

Though the “peace-makers” are supposed to fight on behalf of those who are vulnerable, their very presence often creates an environment where men can violate women without consequences. The militarization of a society often increases impunity for gender-based violence.

In the Kosovo case, trafficking increased dramatically when the intervention began.  Godec’s case study confirms what I wrote in my previous post about international peacekeepers needing accountability.  But what about places like the Congo, where women are being systematically raped as a war strategy?  Does that condone military intervention?

Godec acknowledges that women usually have to choose between two evils:  an oppressive regime or foreign military intervention.  The price of conflict disproportionately falls on them either way.

My biggest concern is that countries are using ‘save the women’ rhetoric to justify military ventures. If women’s rights were a real priority, international military personnel and peacekeepers would be held accountable for their actions, and gender-based strategies would receive more attention.

What could such strategies look like?  Can they co-exist with military intervention, or does the presence of a foreign military inherently undermine women’s rights?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Michelle Brock

My friend Dan sent me a message last week that has annoyed me, intrigued me, and inspired me.  It raises some questions that have always been in the back of my mind but I have been too busy to address.  Here is the email that has had me pondering all weekend:

I was thinking today about all the work that you’re doing in regards to sex trafficking. I know some big changes are going to come about in that area because of the work that you’re doing!  I’m basically just writing to offer a tiny piece of food for thought.

I’ve noticed that you often refer to the efforts as anti-trafficking, which is true and accurate. I was thinking though that it might be more effective to look at the positive side and what you’re FOR rather than what you’re against. Kind of like how advocates refer to it as ‘pro-life’ rather than ‘anti-abortion’.

Like I said just something to think over. You know more of the ins and outs of this subject more than I do (obviously) so maybe the ‘anti’ stance is more effective, just wanted to offer the thought.

Hmm.  Dan certainly has a good point.  Calling myself an anti-trafficker doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue very easily, and it leaves room for confusion for those who don’t know about the issues.  In fact I once had a girl ask me why I was against traffic lights!  So here are a few terms that I have come up with as possibilities for what to call myself and those who fight trafficking:

• Abolitionist: Abolishing modern day slavery is a noble goal and a cause worth fighting for.  William Wilberforce, who played a key role in abolishing the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is often referred to as an abolitionist.  Out of all the terms out there, I like this one the most.  However, it causes some confusion in the academic world. When it comes to the fight against trafficking, there are two camps that are recognized in formal debates:  the abolitionist position and the sex work/regulatory position. Abolitionists claim that no woman would choose prostitution and that it must be abolished in order for trafficking and exploitation to end.  Those in the sex work camp argue that some women do choose prostitution as a profession and it must be regulated to weed out the traffickers.  Unlike the abolitionists, I do believe that some women (a very small minority) choose to prostitute themselves. However I believe that legalizing prostitution merely fuels trafficking.  Because of this raging debate and the titles given to each camp, using the label abolitionist can get a bit confusing in the academic realm.

• Freedom Fighter: This definitely clarifies what we are for…freedom.  But freedom fighter sounds a bit over-the-top Hollywoodish.

• Rights Advocate: This would also work, because we are for human rights.  However it is not specific enough.  Rights advocate could imply a number of different areas in the human rights arena.  Sex rights advocate could also work, but that sounds more like someone addressing the gay/lesbian rights movement.

Ultimately, here is what the anti-trafficking movement is FOR:

• Freedom
• Justice
• Repatriation
• Restoration of relationships
• Strong families
• Economic sustainability
• Job skills
• Compassion
• Fair trade
• Women’s rights
• Children’s Rights
• Social Reform
• Healthy community
• Empowerment for the marginalized

Can you add any more to this list?  Based on the idea of what we are FOR, can you come up with any terms we can apply to ourselves in addition to abolitionist, freedom fighter, and rights advocate?  Or do you think that we should stick with ‘anti-trafficking?’

Thanks Dan for raising such a great point!  You’ve sparked an important discussion.

Michelle Brock

In 1999, Sweden passed a law the prohibits the purchase of sexual services.  Under this law, men who use prostituted women or buy sexual services are criminalized and nailed with a fine and/or or up to six months in prison.  Meanwhile, the women are not criminalized, but offered exit strategies to get them out of prostitution.  Though the majority of Swedes supported this law, there are a few that are not so pleased.

Here is a short interview with Swedish sex worker Pye Jacobsson, who has some serious issues with the legislation.  We have added our response to the interview below, addressing how this all relates to sex trafficking.  Please watch the clip, read our comments, and add yours.

• To begin, Jacobsson criticizes how the law states that “no prostitution is prostitution out of free will” and that “every woman engaging in prostitution is a victim.”  In our opinion, maybe the Swedish government did go a little too far in making this statement. We know that there are some women (usually white, middle-class) who choose to make this their profession for one reason or another. However, the majority of women and girls in prostitution do not have the luxury of sitting in an IKEA furnished room with a coffee, cigarettes, nice clothes, and a coy smile while chatting on camera about their choices when it comes to sex work.  If you throw in some drugs, second-hand clothing, and the watchful eye of a pimp, you’ve got yourself a more realistic picture of what the majority have for a work environment.

• Jacobsson claims to be representative of sex workers in Sweden. Maybe she is representative of her circle of sex worker friends.  She alludes later in her interview to the fact that they are able to compete against foreign sex workers because their clients feel safer with Swedish women.  Who does she mean by foreign sex workers?  The ones that came by their “free will” to prostitute themselves on the cold streets of Stockholm?  I highly doubt the is representative of these individuals as well.  Therefore, Jacobsson only represents Swedish middle-class sex workers who work indoors. This means she cannot speak on behalf of the sex trade industry, specifically when it comes to trafficking victims.

• She continues to criticize the law because it has had so many amendments.  To this we say: just because a law is not perfect does not mean it cannot be improved upon. It’s not about the law itself but the spirit of the law, which aims to protect those who are victimized.  Even laws regarding crimes like murder and drunk driving have developed over the years.  Ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade was an implementation nightmare, yet it was taken on because it was the right thing to do.  And eventually the trade came to an end.  Sure, business owners were no longer able to use slaves, and many revolted because their “rights to use free labour” were being taken away. But the law dictated that the rights of the downtrodden had to prevail over the profits and “rights” of the slave masters.   It is the same with prostitution.  Because sex trafficking increases when prostitution is legalized or tolerated, we believe that sex workers must make a sacrifice in order to spare those who are victims.

• Jacobsson expresses her concern that there are a number of women in the strip and porn industry who have had their children taken away from them.  I wonder, what is this number in comparison to the number of mothers who have lost their children to traffickers? Or the number of children that have been born with Johns as fathers?

• She claims that the law is responsible for the increased stereotypes of prostitutes; that the law makes society view them as less human – and that as a result sex workers are treated more poorly by the men that use them.  But what I would say to her is this:  the men that are willing to come rent your body parts already see you as less than human! Human beings are more than sexual objects.  Paying to have sex with a prostituted woman/sex worker is inherently dehumanizing because it takes the wholeness out of the woman’s humanity. So don’t tell me that it is the law that dehumanizes prostituted women.  Men do it just fine on their own.

• I think the most outrageous argument Jacobsson brings to the table is when she says that the normal way for the police to find out about trafficking victims is from “good clients, who report trafficking victims when they discover them.  She claims that now that the law is in place, these men are afraid to report them because buying sex is illegal, and therefore trafficking victims have no one to rescue them.  It is incredibly naive to think that there was ever a point in history where the users of prostituted women were the heroes that rescued victims of sexual exploitation by giving police the necessary alerts between their sexcapades. The financially secure CEO with five kids and a wife was calling the police regularly with updates on the trafficking situation in Sweden.  Right.  Sure, there may have been a few girls that were rescued from tips received by “nice Johns,” but if the Johns weren’t the ones creating demand there would be no trafficking problem in the first place. Jacobsson’s assertion that Johns need to feel safe while they fuel the industry through demand – so they can “rescue” victims –  is absurd.

• Finally, Jacobsson says that women are not offered exit programs.  But in fact the Representatives of the Prostitution Unit in Stockholm, a group that helps individuals leave prostitution, say that 60% of the people they have had contact with between after the law was put into place have left prostitution permanently.  Many of these women pointed to the law (and the funded exit programs) as their reason for seeking help.

According to Gunilla Ekberg’s article, The Swedish Law That Prohibits the Purchase of A Sexual Service: Best Practices for Prevention of Prostitution and Trafficking in Human Beings, here are some more facts about the law’s effectiveness Sweden.

• When buyers  risk punishment, the number of men who buy prostituted women decreases, and local prostitution markets become less lucrative.  By 2004, the number of buyers in Sweden had fallen by 75%-80%.

• Human traffickers now have to transport girls to various hidden locations and move them around, which requires more money,  more time, and more local contacts. As a result, traffickers (in conversations recorded during crime investigations) have expressed frustration about setting up shop in Sweden, and choose other, more profitable destinations.

• According to the testimonies of human trafficking victims, since the law was put into place, traffickers prefer Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain, where prostitution is legalized or tolerated, and men are not criminalized.

Though Pye Jacobsson makes some good points in defending her group of sex workers in Sweden, she fails to see that prostitution and sex trafficking cannot be separated.  This has been seen time and time again in several global contexts.  And because they are linked, the world should follow Sweden’s model by criminalizing men who pay for sex and offering exit programs to the majority of women and girls who are, in fact, victims.

Your thoughts?

Michelle Brock

As competition in the brothels of Bangladesh increases, prostituted women and trafficked children are driven to take some desperate measures to survive. In an area where desperation is already commonplace, “desperate measures” go way beyond what we in the West could even imagine.

Bangladeshi men like ‘bigger,’ developed girls and women, a hormone called Oradexon has been introduced into the brothels to address this preference. Prostituted women are taking Oradexon to make them stronger, bigger, and supposedly more beautiful. Child trafficking victims are being force-fed the drug to make them appear older.

And what else is Oradexon known for? Farmers use it to fatten up their cattle before taking them to the market.

The long-term effects of this hormone can be deadly. Short term side-effects include rashes, high blood pressure, and liver damage. The madams who run the brothels deny the possibility of such health risks. As long as they are raking in the cash, Oradexon is simply a profit-booster.

For more information on this growing trend, please check out what
BBC News and Amanda Kloer from Change.org have to say.

** Reminder: Today is your last chance to write a Senator about passing Bill C-268, which is being reviewed tomorrow, June 2.**

Michelle Brock
Via @Nowhere2Hide