Domestic violence etc.
Karen Turner TURNER at holycross.edu
Mon May 28 08:46:07 PDT 2007
Just a footnote to some of the discussions. While in Hanoi during fall 2006, some of my friends were beginning to admit that HCM might have been responsible for some of the excesses of land reform and other policies they had earlier blamed on other figures--one person said, "Uncle Ho used to cry on the radio to tell us he was sorry. But now we think maybe he had a part in it all along." On domestic violence--I worked with Le Thi Quy in her capacity as director of Women and Gender Studies, an "ngo" located at Hanoi University and through her had a chance to meet with quite a few women concerned with the problem. Quy has set up "safe families" in some of the northern villages she and her team have targetted, places where abused women can seek refuge and families who will mediate--this in the absence of any funds for the kinds of safe houses we have in the U.S. Quy and many other women I met believe that violence in the home is a terrible problem, not only in the countryside, but in the cities as well, though few want to admit it. WE had some interesting discussions about the causes--long periods of war, dislocation etc. I have never seen Quy as downhearted as on the day the Assembly decided not to act on the anti-domestic violence legislation. Her take on the problem is that some men really don't know that it is a problem and that having the government take a stand would at least serve as a beginning. Quy has written about some of these issues and I would be glad to provide references for anyone interested. Karen Turner
Adam at UoM fforde at unimelb.edu.au
Mon May 28 16:30:47 PDT 2007
Reading the comments below I was reminded of various discussions I had when
I was teaching in Singapore, where it was clear to many that the
'developmental' agenda ('obtain higher efficiency in relations of production
through actions that influence relations of reproduction - aka state
subsidised child care, actions to improve female productivity and
participation through gender equality including targeting of patriarchy
expressed through domestic violence, suitable propaganda etc etc) would,
when push came to shove, be treated as of secondary importance to the
'patriarchy' agenda ('secure greater social stability (understood in
suitable ways) by tolerating lower efficiency as relations of production are
subordinated to relations of reproduction' - aka encouraging rapid
re-integration of women into the labour force willy-nilly (poor parental
leave conditions, weaning at 6 weeks, discouragement of crиches, propaganda
that supports the 'super woman' syndrome etc etc; the most hilarious example
of this contradiction could be found in attitudes to women who wanted to
become Doctors)).
It is of course outrageous that such legislation not be passed by the Quoc
Hoi. That the Party, which when push comes to shove carries the can for
things like this, went this way is revealing of where the 'schwerpunkt'
currently lies. Shades of the Forsythe Saga? And what does this imply for
the emerging labour regime in the private sector?
I am also struck, as I often am, by the ways in which I can appreciate Co
Quy's position in terms of <<'45 NOT '54'>>. I first had this put to me in
1987 whilst studying allegations of forced female recruitment to the raw
material zone of the Bai Bang Mill. If it happened (we found that it tended
not to be) it was felt wrong because it was seen as unfair and violated the
values expressed in 1945.
Regards
Adam