On page 27, there is an example of “good intentions gone wrong.” Senator Harkin introduced legislation banning products made by young girls in Bangladesh. As a result, Bangladeshi factories shut down and girls ended up in brothels. What do you think should be done? On page 210, the authors state that Chinese sweatshops have given women a boost because they no longer have to toil in the fields. Yet factory women face forced overtime, sexual harassment, and dangerous working conditions. Do you agree with this statement?
Senator Harkin was right in introducing legislation banning products made by young girls in Bangladesh but he was wrong to not provide an Alternative.
ReplyDeleteThe flow of power often if not always correlates to the flow of money. Thusly when women begin to make money they are empowered. When they lose that opportunity, they are oppressed by the social conditions (mainly poverty). Thusly although voluntary factory work may not be perfect, it is a step in the right direction.
However involuntary (below a certain age classifies as this) work of any kind is oppressive and a step backwards for these women, for they make very little if any money and therefore do not influence the social structure. They are in effect slaves, working for the meager rations that only allow them to only live on. Therefore Senator Harkin was right but also wrong.
What should be done is offer an aid deal in which we in effect pay for both the education and nourishment of the child, on the condition that they do well in school. This combined with some work study program will or would have made the women leave the factories in droves. Also the few that do remain, because of the natural pressures or economics, would receive higher wages and better conditions, since labor is now scarcer.
KC5728
In the case of Senator Harkin, he did a good thing by banning products made by young girls. It was unlawful and unethical to sell things made by young girls in Bangledesh. Although it was a good thing to do he did not give the girls anything else to do. Instead he should have provided them with some elementary jobs or a place to get some education.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this statement because in essence there was no change for the women. It was merely annoying for them to toil out in the fields and when they move into the sweatshops they are being sexually harassed and made to work more than normal. The bottom line is that in a place like China, no matter what women do they will always be looked at as worse.
KC 1745
Senator Harkin had good intentions with his legislative action toward products made by the
ReplyDeleteBangladeshi children (more specifically young women). He believed it would shut down such factories and create new opportunities for women in the area. However, Senator Harkin didn't realize that the only other option for these young girls was prostitution. This is an honest mistake, but I believe that Harkin should push for grants to be given to Bangladesh in an effort to establish respectable schools so that these children can receive an education.
When it comes to the statement about the sweatshops, I agree that women aren't toiling in the fields anymore, but i do not agree with the fact that the sweatshops are degrading the women. In the fields, yes, the women worked very hard, but it is almost better to spend a day working hard labor on a field than working hard labor in a sweatshop (where a woman is more likely to be sexually harassed and be forced into overtime).
KC9132
Both instances presented could be deemed as problematic. The situation involving Senator Harkin involves a good intention resulting in an undesired goal and in the sweatshop situation the author just has it backwards.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Senator Harkin, it was good that he was putting an end to forcing young girls to work but the end result was definitely not desired. An alternative to banning all products made by young girls could be limiting the amount of products made by young girls and also limiting the amount of hours those girls worked. Although this would still involve child labor, it would keep the company alive and protect those girls from ending up in a brothel.
The second situation involving the Chinese sweatshop workers is problematic because the author has it backwards. Is it really better to be working just as hard in a factory where you will be susceptible to sexual harassment as well? I do not think so. Working hard is something that most people have to do in their life. I think that it is better to be working at a job that is physically demanding rather than one that is mentally degrading.
KC2858
ReplyDeleteSenator Harkin did have a good intention when he banned products made by young girls, but he didn't acknowledge the fact that the girls are lower class and are more likely to be trafficked for sex. Instead of shutting down factories, I think it would have been better to shut down the brothels. Working over time is not as bad as forced prostitution. But either way it is not acceptable to let young children do such labor. The best thing to do would be build more schools.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with the second statement because I don't see that as a boost for women. The right boost is giving them an education. Although it provides them with jobs, the oppression will still exist and they will continue to suffer from it.
KC 9833
Senator Harkin’s intention on banning products made by young girls in Bangladeshi was, in my opinion, a good idea as he placed this ban with the intentions of helping out the young Bangladeshi girls’ form being overworked and paid with very low wages. The problem with this though was that he didn’t think of a backup planning. Harkin didn’t really think about what would happen to these girls after being jobless, which as a result led many of them to work in worse conditions than before, brothels. With this problem, it is really hard to think of something that should be done. For girls, it is very easy for them to get into the brothel business, but getting out is harder said than done. For this reason, things such as schools or groups/organizations should be created, focusing towards younger girls, as a way to prevent them from working in brothels, and having them focus on things such as an education.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. Many of these women felt unimportant when working in the fields, feeling as if they had no purpose. By working in the shops, these women feel that they are contributing and part of society as they are able to hold an actual job and not a field job that is more of a chore and of importance to only the family.
KC6711
In the case of Senator Harkin, it is important to notice that steps were being taken to try and improve the situation of these Bangladesh girls. Banning products made from young Bangladesh girls allowed them to leave the factories where they faced harsh conditions. Unfortunately, even with this banning, the girls were left jobless and forced to brothels. This situation could of been avoided if instead of only shutting down the factories, alternative jobs or education was also presented to these girls. If better job opportunities were also made available to these young girls, they would have not been forced to turn to working in brothels. Education would have also been a good alternative to working in the brothels. If education was made easily available to them, they could pursue a better life with better opportunities. Senator Harkin did a good deed in shutting down the factories but he did not complete the job in offering alternative opportunities to these girls.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the author that working in Chinese sweatshops allowed women to avoid the trials and tribulations of working in the fields but they are also now faced with new dangerous. This means that people should not be satisfied in that these women escape some troubles only to be faced with new ones. This case may be related to the one of Senator Harkin in that better job opportunities and education would greatly improve the lives of these women. This situation comes down to lack of opportunity and for that the solution is to allow for better opportunity for these women.
KC0180
It is essential to understand that women have been subjected to the worst forms of manual labor to ever exist. When slavery as abolished women were still undermined and not recognized for their abilities despite those that revolved around the household and clothing. When a person intends to enhance an awful situation, the original should become something comparatively better rather than something that is equally as atrocious. To assuage the situation in which young girls were making goods, a prohibition was imposed. Instead of relieving women from the harsh work they were forced into brothels. The imposition defeated the purpose.
ReplyDeleteI cannot adhere with the idea that when women are given the opportunity to leave the fields but enter a dangerous factory is a boon. Something that is beneficial is an enhancement and not a detriment.
KC9445
I think although Senator Harkin's legislation may have caused some problems it is necessary. Our country can't contribute to the abuse of women in the workplace. Although some of backlash from the legislation was negative it was morally the right thing to do. By standing idle and allowing the abuse to continue without being protested would be irresponsible and immoral.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the author that putting women in sweatshops versus the toiling in the fields is positive. The negative things that occur in these shops outweigh any positives that come with it. Sexual harassment, dangerous working conditions, and forced overtime is not OK. These are serious problems.
KC3383
I think that Senator Harkin's legislation had the right intentions, which was trying to help women stuck in sweatshops, but ultimatly did not not have a positive outcome. Senator Harkin did not research the problem deep enough and therefore actually made life worse for people rather than helping them. I think if a Senator is to change foreign policy and change the lives of those abroad, he should at least have enough planning behind his legislation so that it helps the people that it is intending to help rather than hurt them. Shutting down the sweatshops obviously was not good enough and I believe senator Harkin should be left responsible to try to fix the problem that he felt was appropriate to intervene with.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement. Although the factory jobs may have helped the women by getting them out of the fields, they are still largely oppressed. The sweatshops just transform the toils of the field into the toils of the factory, and ultimately leave the women being treated unfairly. Sweatshops are still not positive and still not a step in the right direction.
KC9828
The government should’ve made and enforced regulations that improve working conditions for young girls in factories. Girls also need better incentives to work in factories; otherwise, they’ll go to brothels, thinking that it’s their only source of a sustainable income. Since some girls who end up in brothels don’t have families, programs should be created to provide girls with some kind of family support system. All these suggestions require a large amount of funds, which are hard to come by.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with the statement that Chinese sweatshops have given women a boost. Women are still being mistreated by their employer and are deprived of adequate wages. The only differences between a factory and a brothel, unfortunately, are the locations and type of work.
Legislation is a good idea, but it often makes things worse. I don't think causing the factories to shut down was the right thing to do. I think what they should have done was put pressure on the factories instead. I believe that Chinese sweatshops have give women a boost, only because they allow women to earn money that they may not have earned otherwise.
ReplyDeleteKC6230
Senator Harkin's legislation had very good intentions but he did not have the foresight to see what would happen to these girls. He should have intervened more and offered the girls some other thing to do instead of stopping after shutting the factories down. If we just stood by and did nothing it would be immoral.
ReplyDeleteThe sweatshops are just as bad as working in the fields. It depends on the person working. Either way they have to work very hard in extremely poor conditions. One is just physically demanding while the other is mentally demanding.
KC4448
I'm sure that for the most part the people in charge of moving women out of the fields and into factories and such did not have their best interests at heart. They just want to make money, as per usual. The fact that women who are put out of a job and forced to work in a brothel instead says less about the plight of women and more about the evils man is capable of. It's not the woman's fault that she has to sell herself to stay alive, it is the men in charge who allow this to happen. It makes me ashamed to be a male sometimes and think about this sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteThe legislation was a good idea but he did not properly evaluate the potential effects of banning the product. He should have created jobs for the workers who lost their jobs or try to enroll them in school by providing financial aid.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do agree with the author's statement. Many sweatshops will often have bad working conditions and maltreatment. However, it does keep the workers occupy and something to do. There is a reward and punishment by working in the sweatshops. The reward is money and activity. However, the punishment is bad working conditions and probable harassment.
Senator Harkin had the right idea but he just didnt think out the consequences thoroughly enough. He should have also put up some type of support program as ortry stated above where education and nourishment of the child would be provided based on academic performance. That would have been the best if not most realistic alternative that Senator Harkin provided. I disagree with the authors on that working in the factories is a boost from working in the fields. The women are sacrificing a more harassment free work zone for slightly higher pay with harassment, bias, and unsafe working environment. I'd say that the pros and cons even out so that there isn't necessarily a 'boost' for women but rather a change of scenery with different variables.
ReplyDeleteKC8718
KC 5896
ReplyDeleteMI 4084
ReplyDeletePolitical persons need to look at the big picture and consider all possible consequences before making a decision. It is fairly easy to foresee that if you ban a certain job, those people must find other work. If work is extremely scarce this needs to be taken into consideration. The last thing women would like to do is join a brothel. However, if it seems like the only option for survival, many are going to join anyway. What should be done in this case is to create jobs for women that are respectable. Or, the government could enforce equal distribution of men and women in the workforce. This would allow women to have higher ranked jobs and as a result, be more respected in society. Another idea would be to have stricter penalties on sexual harassment in the workplace. Women are constantly being degraded and abused at work, leaving them with very few options. It should also be enforced that women receive equal pay as men. The problem of sexism cannot be solved with a few small attempts. A policy such as banning products made by young girls is far too miniscule to solve the enormous problems of today’s society. Larger steps need to be made and the problem needs to be solved from the bottom up.
ReplyDeleteKC9846
KC 4084
ReplyDeleteSenator Harkin had the right idea but he just didnt contimplate on consequences enough. I agree with ortry and xantus6 he certainly should have "put up some type of support program as ortry stated above where education and nourishment of the child would be provided based on academic performance." That would have been the best decission that Senator Harkin could have made. I disagree with the authors on that working in the factories is a boost from working in the fields. The women are sacrificing a more free work zone for higher pay with a lot more harassment, bias, and unsafe working environment. I'd say that they downgraded because of all they had to endure in the sweat shops.
ReplyDeleteKC7993
The Senator had a great plan in theory. However you truly cannot understand a person situation until you've stepped into their shoes. I would love to say that i knew exactly how it was growing up for my parents in a lesser developed nation but i will never truly know. Same with the Senator, he believed that these jobs would allow these young girls a way to escape and earn some money. However, he was clearly wrong. These girls had only two options, work in a factory or enter a prostitution ring. If he honestly wanted to help these girls he would have opened a school for them.
ReplyDeleteKC6336