Showing posts with label Africa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Africa. Show all posts

#One Billion Rising

on Thursday, February 14, 2013
English: A campaign against female genital mut...
English: A campaign against female genital mutilation – a road sign near , Uganda. עברית: .מאבק נגד מילת נשים - שלט הסברה בצד הכביש, ליד קפצ'ורווה, אוגנדה (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I usually post about writing on Thursdays but today’s a day of action on a topic close to my heart, so please forgive my passion ruling my sense of duty on this occasion. I suspect many of you won’t have heard about a growing movement that aims to act in defence of women subject to violence. It takes many forms: the fight against it, that is. There are many, many places on the web where you can participate without a huge amount of effort.

I’ve never been a campaigner in physical protest, getting out on the street, partaking in revolution or rebellion in a physical way: such protest is too easily high-jacked by those with vested interests in promoting their own violent and often extreme political views. Such protest can frequently do more harm than good. I’m a writer. My skills lie in my ability to communicate through the written word: it’s therefore more appropriate for me to work as a spreader of the word, a reporter on the topic, an informer to the unaware.

So, this piece and my other internet activities constitute my activity, my contribution to the debate. I hope to raise awareness of the issue and perhaps persuade more people, especially men, to become engaged in the cause against violence to women. At the end of this short piece I’ll provide links to sites of interest where you can learn more, participate, and spread the word, as you see fit.

Violence against women, against the female of our species of all ages, is widespread, destructive, unjust and sometimes simply casual. There are societies, political movements, religions, and criminal groups that treat women as commodities; goods and chattels to be used, abused, traded and disposed of without any regard to their humanity.

In certain parts of the world, girl babies are routinely killed because the male line is the one that inherits, and dowries are required to be paid on the marriage of a daughter. There are groups where the insanely cruel practice of female genital mutilation, euphemistically labelled ‘female circumcision’, is routinely carried out on young women approaching puberty. The rationale for this horrific abuse, often controlled by the mothers of the victims, is that a woman incapable of experiencing the real pleasures of sex is unlikely to stray from the marital bed.

Within the more extreme versions of Islam, there are groups that continue to stone to death a raped woman, accusing her of infidelity.

The Catholic church routinely turns a blind eye to the rape and assault of both male and female children at the hands of its priests, whilst condemning any girl subsequently found to be pregnant to suffer the torture of giving birth the bastard so conceived.

Women are beaten daily by tribal husbands in Africa, Asia and the Middle East simply because they fail to satisfy every demand of these men.

In the USA, a land that prides itself on freedom and modernity, the right wing element of the Christian church is more concerned about the rights of an unformed foetus than about those of its raped mother. I could go on, but the list is disappointingly long.

The vast majority of violence against women is perpetrated by men; though some is committed by other women, especially mothers. The greatest single cause of this violence stems from ignorance. Education, of both men and women, is a key route to the solution of the problem. As a consequence of ignorance, fear plays a huge role also: we all know that bullies are, almost without exception, cowards. A man who fears ridicule because a woman rejects him, who fears his sexual prowess will be called into doubt if ‘his’ woman appears to be enamoured of another man, who fears that a woman is actually more intelligent, rational or simply ‘right’, will lash out if he has no social example to show him that this is not acceptable or correct. And it is education that will most surely deal with such ignorance.

Many will complain that changes in custom and tradition are needed to end some of these practices. The argument that cultural difference is an insurmountable difficulty will hold sway with many others. But these attitudes hide a reluctance to face the realities. At base, we’re all aware that the ‘golden rule’ is the only real arbiter of true justice in this world and that all deviations are the result of domination by one group of bullies over another. But we have moved on from the days when might was right. That the world is not uniformly developing a rational and reasonable consciousness does not excuse the toleration of practices that are, by any logical measure, brutal and unjust. The fact that an action stems from custom or tradition does not automatically confer legitimacy upon it. I challenge those who defend brutality on the grounds of culture to apply the golden rule to these actions and examine them in that light. The advantage of using this as a yardstick is that it (Do unto others as you would have them do to you) lies outside the rules, laws and traditions of any religion. The simple idea expressed by this rule is based on mutual respect and informed self-interest. We would do well to make it a universal law in all our dealings with each other and to outlaw all instances of ‘law’ that fail to conform with it.

Finally, much violence against women is allowed simply because various cultures, religious sects and traditions have debased women. This is almost always the result of ignorance of the biological facts. Consider the old habit of rulers disposing of wives who failed to give them a male heir: we now know that the sex of a child is dependent on the input from the male. Blaming a woman is ignorant and stupid.

The idea of male supremacy stems largely from the brute force that most men are able to apply against women. The simple biological differences between the genders makes men, in general terms, stronger than women. Of course there are exceptions, but the general rule applies and is responsible for the irrational attitude to supremacy that continues in many cultures. We no longer live in a world where brute force is the prime factor in a group’s survival. Other factors, many of them the domain of the female of the species, now apply to the continued health of any society. Education will make this clear. Education will restore the proper respect and sense of worth for women. But, and I understand there’ll be much resistance to this idea, education must be free from the interference of any religion for it to have the necessary effect. It’s clear that much of the religious world was born out of traditional ignorance and to allow it to have undue bearing on the education of our children is to perpetuate the problems we need to solve. If parents want their children to be raised in any given faith, let them do it outside of general institutions of education.

So, to how you can work for the good of women in the world in general. The following links lead to areas you can further develop. Thank you for reading this lengthy piece. I welcome comment, as usual, of course. And if any readers have additional sources of information, please add these to your comments.


I could go on, but I don’t want to overload you. I’d rather you got involved. Thank you for your patience.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Whose Water Is It, Anyway?

on Sunday, October 14, 2012
Water cycle http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/water...
Water cycle http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleprint.html Other language versions: Català Czech español Finnish Greek Japanese Norwegian (bokmål) Portugese Romanian עברית Diné bizaad (Navajo) and no text and guess water vapor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As far as I know, no individual or corporation has laid claim to the air we breathe or the light that stems from sun, moon and stars (though the possibility clearly exists in this materially-obsessed world of ours). We accept that these are naturally occurring phenomena that have enabled life on the planet we inhabit. Logic suggests that water be included in that short list. It’s a natural consequence of a long-established cycle that was not initiated by human activity and it’s a substance that’s the very essence of life. Yet there are those who lay claim to the water that exists in a given region. My view is that water, like air and sunlight, should not be allowed to ‘belong’ to anyone.

I hear the cries of those who either run or own shares in water companies, berating me for robbing them of their profits, and telling me that treated water doesn’t get that way for free. I know. I wouldn’t dream of arguing that it does. That isn’t what I’m suggesting. I’m saying that they do not and cannot make water.

We may clean and modify the raw material. But that raw material is a natural resource and is therefore not something over which someone can rightly claim ownership. The processing, storage and delivery are those elements for which we should expect to pay, allowing the companies concerned to add their reasonable profit for future investment and to pay their workers a living wage. But, to allow anyone to claim rain, which is what all drinking water is at source, as an owned resource is patently mad, bad and stupid. So, as a society, and I am talking worldwide here, we should accept that water, which exists without our intervention, isn’t a commodity to be traded but a resource to be distributed without reference to either profit or boundaries.

Treatment, modification, extraction, storage and delivery are the only elements that should be subject to cost. The raw material should be considered a zero cost component of such a business.

Drinking Water
Drinking Water (Photo credit: SEDACMaps)
Logic suggests that I should go further in my argument. Is rainfall a matter of human control? Only inasmuch as, occasionally, societies have seeded clouds in order to encourage precipitation at a specific time in a specific place, with variable success. We have no control over where and when those clouds are formed. That’s a natural process. It’s true that our activities are increasingly distorting it, but that’s an accidental by-product of our irresponsible behaviour.

So, it follows that not only is water not the property of any individual or company; it isn’t the property of any country or state either. The water cycle knows no boundaries. The presence or absence of water in any given location is due to a combination of natural influences: geology, geography and climate. Of course, there are man-made aquifers, reservoirs and other capture and storage facilities where man has usurped the natural product to direct it for his own purposes. But such activity doesn’t constitute ownership of the actual resource, it merely permits the transient capture of a quantity of it for local consumption and is therefore part of what I’ve referred to as storage.

Over the history of our species, we have instinctively tended to settle near sources of drinking, or fresh, water. The exceptions are nomadic peoples who have taken their chances and followed certain natural cycles in order to obtain their food and water. These are stateless peoples who, for historical reasons often lost in the annals of unrecorded history, have not been able, or allowed, to settle in any given location. But, for the majority of us, a settled existence has been the norm for millennia. And settlements have almost always developed near sources of drinking water simply because its absence would prevent expansion.

English: Mwamanongu Village water source, Tanz...
English: Mwamanongu Village water source, Tanzania. "In Meatu district, Shinyanga region, Tanzania, water most often comes from open holes dug in the sand of dry riverbeds, and it is invariably contaminated." . Français : Point d'eau du village de Mwamanongu, en Tanzanie. "Dans le district de Meatu (région de Shinyanga, Tanzanie), L'eau provient le plus souvent de trous creusés dans le sable de lits de rivières asséchées. Elle est systématiquement contaminée." (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
So, whether that water is obtained from boreholes, lakes, wells or rivers, it remains a natural resource. Yes, there have been more recent settlements that have provided their own man-made storage facilities and collected or redirected the water needed to fill them. But the water, the result of rainfall, remains a natural resource, along with sunlight and air. (I’m aware that my argument can be developed to include other natural resources, by the way, but I intend to discuss that in a later piece).

It follows that national borders are irrelevant to the incidence of water. Presence or absence is an accident of geography for any state, since this aspect of the cycle is unfixed. A city can grow up on the banks of a river which then changes course. A settlement can develop around a lake which subsequently drains due to tectonic or mineralogical activity. The boreholes leading to an underground aquifer can end up as mere holes in the ground when natural changes shift the level of that aquifer.

Yes, we, as a species, can and do make changes aimed at preventing such dangers to our second most essential resource. But the fact remains that the substance itself stands outside ownership or borders. Something that falls from the sky in the way that precipitation develops water sources can hardly be claimed as the property of any person, corporation or state. We are custodians only. Modifiers; nothing more.

In the near future, water, or its lack, will become an increasing source of dispute between nations. There are already signs of conflict arising from the reduction of available water in certain geographical areas. The famines in parts of Africa are almost entirely driven by changes in the water cycle in those regions; increased population has merely exacerbated the problem. My guess is that the problems in Israel are fundamentally caused by the perception that the most important source of fresh water is growing insufficient to sustain more than a given population. There are signs that drought will soon invade the fertile plains of the Punjab in India, making it impossible for them to provide the food on which that huge continent depends. The western states of the USA are finding more and more difficulty in obtaining water for agriculture, industry and human consumption. Not that this has stopped certain organisations from squandering the precious resource in displays of irresponsible excess.

If, as a world society, we fail to recognise the basic fact that water is a natural resource belonging to all and to none, regardless of source, we will have conflict in the near future. Almost certainly, the next major wars will be over the ownership of fresh water: man killing man through an inability to accept a basic truth. Water, like air and sunlight, is a natural consequence of the location and geography of the planet and belongs to no one and to everyone. It is time we dealt with it in that way.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Since or because?

on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
A composed satellite photograph of Africa.Image via Wikipedia
Since or because?
Since: adverb – then, immediately after; from the specified time until now; at a time between that time and now or that time and the time under consideration; ago, before: conjunction - from the time that; during or in the time subsequent; from the time in the past when; up to the present time or the time being considered from the time in the past; the time when; when; because, seeing that.

Because: adverb - for the reason that; by reason of, on account of: conjunction- for the reason that, inasmuch as, since; can also be used elliptically in answer to a question, implying that a full response has been withheld; in order that, with the purpose that.

Whilst these terms can be and, indeed, often are used as if interchangeable, in writing it's probably best to stick to 'since' only when referring to time and to use 'because' to establish causality. When 'since' is used to suggest cause it may make your reader to stop to consider its meaning. Such pause for thought is not often something you'd want to encourage.

'Because Frances wanted the company of more than one animal in her home, she filled the place with cats, dogs, rabbits and even a rather ancient and mangy donkey she'd discovered wandering the streets.'

'Since Sandra stopped shopping sequentially, she sought some significant substitute.'  This is poor, as the reader doesn't know whether the cessation of shopping was responsible for Sandra's search or whether she merely decided to seek something different once she'd finished her shopping.

'Because Sandra stopped….' Is a much clearer way of stating the former, I think; though it lacks the alliteration, of course.

'Since mankind wandered out of Africa and set up shop over the various continents of the world, the search for commodities to buy has grown continuously.'  Here, it's clear that we're referring to the passage of time between the exodus and the present day.

Enhanced by Zemanta