Yesterday afternoon, Jake Tapper of ABC News put White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the spot about what it means to discuss women's rights as well as human rights:

TAPPER: And if I may, just one more. In his March — in his March speech President Obama mentioned that if the Taliban returns to controlling Afghanistan it would be bad for human rights. And he specifically singled out women and girls. He did not mention human rights in Afghanistan. He talked about human rights more broadly, but last night he didn't mentioned human rights in Afghanistan and he definitely didn't mention specifically women and girls.

GIBBS: Well, I believe in — I believe in the context of the three pillars that he saw, mentioning the basic recognition of human rights in Afghanistan is obviously important to what is happening there.

TAPPER: But he didn't mention women and girls, and is that...

GIBBS: Again, I think the umbrella of basic human rights was — was the same thing.

TAPPER: So even though he mentioned it in March and he didn't mention it last night, we're not supposed to read anything into that at all?

GIBBS: I wouldn't. I mean, I have not looked exactly at the word phrasing of each speech, but the umbrella of basic — recognizing the basic human rights of everybody in Afghanistan would include that, yes.

Gibbs' argument that women's rights are human rights is a good one, and one often used by feminists. However, its been shown before that if the rights of women are not specifically addressed,they can easily fall to the wayside. As Gayle Tzemach Lemmon explains in the Daily Beast, while war is hell for all involved, everyone in Afghanistan is not suffering equally:

A recent U.N. report said the country suffers from "a deeply entrenched culture of impunity" in which perpetrators of violence seldom face punishment and victims "risk further violence in the course of seeking justice."

But some women's rights groups, including Women for Afghan Women, the organization that oversees the shelter where Naseema lives, greeted President Obama's speech Tuesday night-and his vow to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan-with a modicum of hope, and a call for a long-term American commitment to the country.

"Without security, the Taliban will engulf the country and return women to the hell of rape, domestic captivity, denial of education and health care-to the erasure of their very humanity," the group's leaders said in a statement. [...]

Wenny Kusuma, who heads the United Nations Development Fund for Women in Afghanistan, calls violence against women the most urgent and immediate issue facing the nation's females-and one that has yet to be taken seriously by the Afghan government or its international backers. "Until politicians and the international community stop offering lip service to the rights of women and begin backing their words with some seriousness, [the violence] will continue to get worse," Kusuma says.

Over at Politico, Ben Smith talks to Ellie Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who could not believe such a critical security issue was left out:

"It is so naïve just to think [the Taliban] are just going to stay [in Afghanistan]," she said. "They have international backing, they have international funding, and they intend to take on all modern values and ways of life," she said. "They're establishing a totalitarian dictatorship that they want to spread."

Smeal also argued that Obama's policy would be an easier sell if he focused on Taliban human rights abuses.

"People don't like what they did to women," she said of the Taliban. "If the whole picture was revealed the American public would be more supportive."

Admirers of the White House approach, however, argue that America's Afghan allies also have horrendous human rights records, and that President Obama doesn't actually want to drum up support for engagement in a country he intends to leave.

Glenn Greenwald also thinks that Obama made the right choice in not emphasizing the rights of women:

While Obama's speech last night largely comported to what his aides spent days anonymously previewing, there was one (pleasantly) unexpected aspect: he commendably dispensed with the propagandistic pretext that we are fighting in Afghanistan in order to deliver freedom and democracy to that country and to improve the plight of Afghan women. Many Democrats (the self-proclaimed "liberal hawks") love to support American wars on the self-righteous ground that we're going to drop enough Freedom Bombs to liberate millions and invade other countries in order to re-make other peoples' cultures for their own good. In order to maximize support for his escalation, Obama — like Bush so often did — could easily have relied on that appeal to our national narcissism and exploited justifiable disgust for the Taliban in order to manipulate "liberal hawks" into supporting this war on human rights grounds. During the build-up to the speech, it was predicted by several influential Obama advisers that he would do exactly that. Indeed, when announcing his prior Afghanistan escalation in March, Obama played up the humanitarian rationale for this war.

But there was almost none of that in last night's speech. As Ben Smith correctly notes, Obama did not even mention — let alone hype — the issue of women's rights in Afghanistan. There were no grandiose claims that the justness of the war derives from our desire to defeat evil, tyrannical extremists and replace them with more humane and democratic leaders. To the contrary, he was commendably blunt that our true goal is not to improve the lives of Afghan citizens but rather: "Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda." There were no promises to guarantee freedom and human rights to the Afghan people. To the contrary, he explicitly rejected a mission of broad nation-building "because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests"; he said he "refuse[d] to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests"; and even vowed to incorporate the convertible factions of the Taliban into the government.

Not only did he refrain from those manipulative appeals, he made explicitly clear that we are in Afghanistan to serve our own interests (as he perceives them), not to build a better nation for Afghans. Nation-building, he said, goes "beyond ... what we need to achieve to secure our interests" and "go beyond our responsibility." We're there to serve our interests and do nothing else. That should throw cold water on all on the preening fantasies of all but the blindest and most naive "liberal war supporters" that we're there to help the Afghan people.

Matt Yglesias cautiously agrees with the sentiments expressed by Greenwald but points out that the situation isn't clear cut, and while the Administration may have impure motives, it would be best to listen to women on the ground :

Well, look, it's hard to see how supporting a government with Karzai's record could support a substantial gain for women's rights until you consider that the most plausible alternative is . . . the Taliban. It's like how Ben Nelson is more progressive than Mike Johanns. "Better than the Taliban" is a low bar to cross and, consequently, the coalition we're backing in Afghanistan crosses it*. If you read what groups like the Feminist Majority Foundation or the Funders Network for Afghan Women or Human Rights Watch are saying, none of them are cheerleading for Obama's policies, but none of them are calling for the withdrawal of international military forces either. Instead, they're generally calling for a more ambitious approach.

Can Obama balance our national security initiatives with the realities of fighting an unpopular war? Perhaps. But there will be no easy answers.

Today's Qs for O's WH – 12/2/2009 [ABC News]
What the Surge Means for Women [The Daily Beast]
Feminists 'disappointed' by Afghanistan speech [Politico]
The commendably missing element from Obama's speech [Salon]
The Surge and Afghan Women [Think Progress]

But before I dive into Clinton, here is a rundown of what's been happening to women around the globe.

The Guardian reports that young women in the rural areas of Uganda are completely removed from financial matters, as their families immediately take their earnings and they are prohibited from forming any sort of relationship with money. In addition to the obvious issues of not being able to form money management skills, the girls are forced to fight for even the most basic necessities - even maxi pads. A lack of proper sanitary tools causes girls to miss up to five days of school a month, and has even farther reaching effects than absenteeism:

Girls at Katine primary school say their lack of money is a constant source of worry for them.

"Sanitary towels cost more than UShs 5,000 ($2.50) per pack and every year you need new books and new uniforms to come to school. I also want new underwear," says Helen Ekoth, a 14-year-old primary school student.

Ekoth says she asks her mother for money, but the family doesn't have enough to spare.

"There are some girls who go to boys for small things like soap or sanitary towels, but my mother tells me never to do this. Some girls get pregnant because the boys have given them things and then they can't sit their exams."

In Uganda 31% of girls get pregnant in their teens, the highest rate in sub-Saharan Africa. According to Plan International nearly 40% of these pregnancies are unwanted or unplanned.

The girls are trading sex for soap.

In Pakistan's Swat Valley, young girls are also fighting for their right to go to school, but have a different enemy they are warring against. In an exclusive for the Women's Media Center, Shazia Z. Rafi compares the girls to the Little Rock 9, noting that both are epic battles for equality in education:

In January this year feminists around the world sounded alarms as the Taliban overran the Swat valley, a middle class tourist haven, blew up 200 girls schools, threatened any teachers or girls who dared attend schools, beheaded detractors, and enforced their version of Islamic law on men and women. "The Taliban have been growing for a decade, with either neglect or encouragement by various governments, ending with this shameful Nizam-e-Adl in 2009," accuses Afzal Khan Lala, referring to the law's enactment. Khan Lala, who lost two grandsons to fighting the Taliban, was the sole holdout among senior politicians from Swat. [...]

The war in Swat is still smoldering; only 10 percent of the students have attended the first week of school; majority of schools are still closed or to be rebuilt. Much of the Taliban leadership remains at large, although clearly identifiable as they are giving media interviews by mobile phone. The Pakistan government must use superior force and technology to find them, jam their websites and their terrorizing FM radios and then sustain the political will to arrest and prosecute the Taliban under the Pakistan penal code. The United States must help Pakistan financially and technologically in this operation.

As the Obama Administration and the donor Friends of Pakistan group meet on August 25, 2009 in Turkey to review Pakistan's aid package-including support for the Malakand/Swat division-the key benchmarks of progress are not the numbers of Taliban dead but the numbers of girls, and boys, returning to schools. The Pakistan state must provide visible and sustained security to Swat's school children-they are Pakistan's Little Rock Nine.

Over in Afghanistan, women are finding that the strong rallying cry of women's rights used as one of the reasons to go to war post-9/11 was actually just a piece of rhetoric used by the Bush Administration to drum up support. It has been seven years, and Rachel Reid of the Human Rights Watch notes that women are once again being legislated into second-class status:

[E]ducational gains plummet when girls hit secondary school, with just 4 percent of female students reaching 10th grade. Violence against women is endemic; women in public life are regularly threatened, and several have been assassinated.

Things got much worse recently when President Hamid Karzai officially promulgated legislation that would make the Taliban proud. Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern: As Karzai's government has grown weaker he has increasingly turned to some of society's most conservative elements for support.

The Shia Personal Status Law, the most egregious of a series of deals to appease fundamentalist religious leaders and former warlords, contains many provisions that are offensive to women. Custody rights are granted exclusively to fathers and grandfathers. A woman can leave the house without her husband's permission only if she has "reasonable legal reasons," which are unspecified. Yet the law does stipulate financial compensation to be paid by a man who rapes a child or a mentally ill woman, for her loss of virginity, while omitting any reference to a criminal punishment.

In Thailand, women are suffering at the brutal intersection of international capitalism, labor rights, and feminism. Tippimol Kiatwateerattana's innocently named article "Bra Story" actually paints a tale of horror and sacrifice for the women laboring in garment shops in Thailand:

"Too tight will not be beautiful, too loose is also not good. [The bra] must be well-balanced," Yeung told us briefly as she does not normally talk much. Her friend had to interrupt. "Difficult or not you can see from her fingers that are now in such a crooked shape. It took her a long time before she went to see the doctor".

The one who has just been teased confessed that she was scared that she might have to undergo surgery on her fingers. She was not scared because of pain but that somebody might steal her position while she recovered.

[...]

In a year, these three senior women hardly took any days off. Surin used the words "even when you are sick, you must drag yourself to work". For the best employee award, Thanyanun said that there was one time she woke up late and missed the bus from where she lived in faraway Rangsit. She had to take a taxi to Bangphli. "It cost more than my wages but I still had to come", she said.

Do you still wonder why these three women are so diligent? Why do they love their jobs this much? If a worker has taken no sick leave or any other kind of leave and never reported late for work, they can earn 1,200 baht or receive a yearly pension of around 450 baht. The amount is not actually worthwhile but it is a result of the time coupon system of work that the factory practices. [...]

The time coupon system basically means the worker's wage is paid according to the wholesale price of a finished product. Each assigned task will come with fixed amount of time its completion. "For example, if we are tasked to stick on 20 bows with a 20 minute coupon, that means we have to get it done within 20 minutes. Each day, we have to do the task at this rate for up to the 480 minutes they assign. If we cannot match the given amount of time, we will only get the minimum rate (355 baht per day). But if we can, they will count the excess time at 1.03 baht per minute," explained Boonrod Saiwong, Secretary-General of Triumph International Labour Union.

Workers who cannot finish the tasks within the fixed time get told off by the supervisor. At the same time, colleagues who are involved in the process will automatically put pressure on them too as the output of each worker also affect their work.

"So there is no surprise if you see some employees cry while sewing," said Thanyanun.

And in the Congo, one of the most widespread crimes of war is still occurring on a regular basis:

The conflict in eastern Congo is a toxic mix of jostling militias, ethnic tensions, greed for resource wealth, a tragic colonial history, a predatory army and opportunistic neighbors. Rape is commonly used as a weapon in this war. Although reliable statistics are difficult to come by, it's estimated that close to 200,000 women have been raped since the conflict began 13 years ago.

In a recent surge in violence, an estimated 3,500 women and girls have been raped since the beginning of the year. Men and boys also are increasingly victims of sexual assault.

In the mix of this outward misogyny, Hillary Clinton has decided to make a stand for the rights of women around the globe. News reports note with some surprise:

When Clinton ignored security advice and flew to Goma, in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, her focus on the region's rape crisis resonated with some of the continent's most powerless people: women.

It wasn't just that she was the first top-level American official to go to the epicenter of one of the world's deadliest wars, nor even the U.S. aid money she promised. It was her reaction to victims' stories of rape — and the hope that she might do something about it.

Today's Washington Post article on her journey further elaborates, saying:

It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women's events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention. In South Africa, a clearly delighted Clinton spent 90 minutes at the housing project, twice as long as she met with South Africa's president. "It feeds my heart," she explained. "Which is really critical to me personally since a lot of what I do as secretary of state is very formalistic. It's meetings with other officials."

However, the tone of quite a few of these articles puts me off. As I read about Clinton's achievements overseas - her frequent mentioning of women's issues in her speeches, the increased application of aid to women in war-torn countries, her lobbying powerful friends to lend their clout to these causes, the rearranging of diplomatic priorities - I also note quite a few digs being published about Clinton's capacity to affect change.

Quotes from conservatives in the Post article help to cast doubts about what can actually be accomplished - and if the US should be focusing on the rights of women:

"It's great she's mentioning the issue," said Brett Schaefer, an Africa scholar at the Heritage Foundation. "As to whether her bringing it up will substantially improve the situation or treatment of women in Africa, frankly I doubt it."

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said that Clinton has to tread carefully in socially conservative regions, particularly those where the U.S. military is at war. "You might be right, in the narrow sense of women in that country or region need to be empowered, but you're saying something inimical to other U.S. interests," he said.

Right, because we can talk about women's rights when it's convenient to promote a war, but need to abandon it as an actual strategy.

It is also implied that adopting the fight for gender equality was really Hillary's way to get back at Washington:

Clinton's interest in global women's issues is deeply personal, a mission she adopted as first lady after the stinging defeat of her health-care reform effort in 1994. For months, she kept a low profile. Then, in September 1995, she addressed the U.N. women's conference in Beijing, strongly denouncing abuses of women's rights. Delegates jumped to their feet in applause.

And seemingly every article about her visit to the African continent has to include a paragraph like this:

Despite Clinton's efforts to spotlight women's issues, it was her own angry response to what she perceived as a sexist question at a town hall meeting in Congo that dominated American television coverage of her Africa trip. A student had asked for former president Bill Clinton's opinion on a local political issue — "through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton." Snapped Hillary Clinton: "My husband is not the secretary of state. I am."

Honestly, it feels like they are trying to undermine her efforts.

And it isn't just conservatives trivializing Clinton's efforts and accomplishments. As we wrote earlier, Tina Brown and Joe Scarborough seem to think Hillary should bow to their edicts on how to dress and behave before they will consider taking a serious look at what she is working on. And incessant focus on her physical appearance to the detriment of her message is a dilemma that Clinton knows all too well.

Sadly, it appears that to many that the idea of a politician caring about women's rights for more than political points is a joke, that a woman in a position of power cannot create change unless she is perfectly coiffed, and that some things (like military might) are worth more of a focus than others (ending a war through the populace).

To co-opt an old saying, women around the globe should be seen, but their issues should not be heard.

Why Girls Are Economically Challenged [Guardian]
Pakistan's Little Rock Nine [WMC]
For Afghan Women, Rights Again At Risk [Washington Post]
Bra Story [Prachatai]
Hillary Clinton's Stop In Congo Strikes A Chord In Africa [LA Times]
Clinton Puts Spotlight On Women's Issues [Washington Post]

Earlier: Tina Brown-Style "Tide Of Trivialization" Threatens To Swamp Clinton Trip
What's More Important: Rape In Congo Or Hillary's Bad Hair Day?

Suu Kyi, 64, has been held under house arrest by the Myanmar government for 14 of the past 20 years. She was first detained following the last democratic elections held in Myanmar in 1990, which Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won by a landslide. Suu Kyi has been told she is free to leave the country, which would end her imprisonment, yet if she does so, she will not be allowed reentry. She has chosen to stay in Myanmar, confined to her house in Rangoon, and retain her status as the leader of the National League for Democracy.

Suu Kyi went on trial in May with two of her companions for offering shelter to an uninvited visitor. John Yettaw, a 53-year-old American from Missouri, swam across a Yangon lake to reach Suu Kyi's residence on May 4th, supposedly to warn her of a dream he had, which showed Suu Kyi's assassination. Although she asked him to leave upon his arrival, Suu Kyi decided to allow Yettaw to stay at overnight her house while he recuperated from exhaustion. Suu Kyi was initially sentenced to three years in prison for harboring Yettaw, but the court immediately converted her sentence to eighteen months to be served inside the walls of her own home.

Her lawyers said Suu Kyi had anticipated the guilty verdict, and had been collecting a library of books to see her through a long prison sentence. Her low expectations were shared by other members of the Burmese legal system. "The court proceedings were just a sham," said one lawyer who works in Yangon. "From the beginning, she was predestined" to lose, he said. Yettaw, also on trial for immigration violations and swimming in a restricted area, was given a prison term of up to seven years, including four years of hard labor.

The sentencing of Suu Kyi has been condemned as an overt attempt by Myanmar's military junta to keep her out of the controversial elections planned for next year. Advocacy groups have been quick to voice their displeasure with the ruling. The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, has called the decision "yet another travesty of justice," and the Human Rights Watch has deemed it "a reprehensible abuse of power." The Wall Street Journal reports,

The U.S. Campaign for Burma, a Washington, D.C. advocacy group, blasted "the military regime's kangaroo court system" and called for a global arms embargo, an investigation into crimes against humanity in the country, and further steps to tighten bank transactions involving members of the military regime.

The verdict "should really make it clear that it's game over – (the junta leaders) have no intention of bringing changes about in their country," said Jeremy Woodrum, a spokesman for the U.S. Campaign for Burma. "We think we need to take some concrete action, now."

The European Union has also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of Suu Kyi, UPI reports. Sweden, current president of the EU, said they are ready for "targeted measures against those responsible for the verdict," and plan to stiffen earlier measures against Myanmar, including an arms export ban, visa restrictions and financial sanctions. According to the New York Times, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has called the treatment of Suu Kyi "brutal and unjust," and suggests that European sanctions should target profitable industries like timber and ruby mining.

The Guardian reports that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he is "saddened and angry" at the conviction. He continued,

"[The sentence is] further proof that the military regime in Burma was determined to act with total disregard for accepted standards of the rule of law and in defiance of international opinion. This is a purely political sentence designed to prevent her from taking part in the regime's planned elections next year."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken out about the sentencing of Suu Kyi, as well as the other 2,000-plus political prisoners being held in Myanmar. "She should not have been tried, and she should not have been convicted. We continue to call for her release," she told reporters in Goma, Congo. Clinton has also asked for the release of Yettew, who suffers from epilepsy and diabetes: "We are concerned about the harsh sentence imposed on him especially in light of his medical condition." She said that if the Myanmar government must begin to address their human rights violations, "otherwise the elections they have scheduled for next year will have absolutely no legitimacy."

Suu Kyi Sentenced To 18 Months House Arrest [WSJ]
Suu Kyi Verdict Widely Condemned [UPI]
Clinton Demands Release Of Aung San Suu Kyi [New York Times]
Aung San Suu Kyi Found Guilty [Times]
Aung San Suu Kyi Found Guilty Of Breaking House Arrest [Guardian]
Clinton: Convicted Of Myanmar's Suu Kyi Wrong [AP]

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" the Secretary of State apparently repeated. "My husband is not secretary of state, I am...If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband."

Clinton's visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo, part of an 11-day tour of Africa, is intended, according to a spokesman quoted on NPR, to press the government for democratic reform, fight rampant corruption, and to address the virulent rape epidemic that's hit the eastern part of the country in the wake of years of conflict. According to the New York Times, Clinton took aim at illegal mining, saying she was "particularly concerned about the exploitation of natural resources." In the coming days, Clinton will meet with the country's president, visit a hospital in the capital city of Kinshasa founded by NBA player Dikembe Mutumbo, and speak with several rape victims. Her visit is significant, not least because the U.S., after its involvement in Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba's assassination, is regarded with suspicion. She addressed this in the meeting, telling one student, "I can't excuse this past and I won't try," telling the young people to ask, "will I be dragged down by the past or will I decide to do something to have a better future?"

While it's a great sentiment, it may be harder for the Congolese people to take at face value than we might wish: a devastating piece in today's Washington Post reaffirms that the heavily U.S.-backed U.N. peacekeeping efforts have exacerbated the rape problem. Says the piece, "An already staggering epidemic of rape has become markedly worse since the January deployment of tens of thousands of poorly trained, poorly paid Congolese soldiers, with people in front-line villages such as this one saying the soldiers are not so much hunting rebels as hunting women." The phenomenon, which we've addressed before - and which increasingly targets men as well as women - has forced women to self-impose a curfew to protect themselves from the 60,000 soldiers in the area. Although President Joseph Kabila has declared rhetorical war on the epidemic, the article makes it clear that the vast majority of these crimes will go unpunished by a system that looks the other way - no senior officials have been prosecuted - and that is deeply patriarchal at the best of times.

Clinton is, of course, widely regarded as a female role model - and that even she should be publicly marginalized is a worrisome indication that changing the culture's going to be a very long road. One hopes that her call to young people to "speak out to end the corruption, the violence, the conflict that for too long have eroded the opportunities across this country... Together, you can write a new chapter in Congolese history," will be heeded. According to a report on NPR, Clinton called the rape culture "truly one of mankind's greatest atrocities," something that "the entire society needs to be speaking out against this. It should be a mark of shame anywhere, in any country."

Clinton: I'm Secretary Of State, Not Bill [MSNBC]
Clinton Assails Rampant Sexual Violence In Congo [NPR]
Clinton Heads To A Congo Torn By Violence [NPR]
Clinton to Target Sexual Violence in Congo [Time]
Clinton Presses Congo On Illicit Minerals [NY Times]
Congo's Rape Epidemic Worsens During U.S.-Backed Military Operation [Washington Post]

Earlier: The Faces Of Congo's Women
War Crimes Against Women, Men, Continue Unabated Abroad

"Herbivore Men" — as explained in this CNN piece — is a Japanese phrase. Writer Maki Fukasawa uses it to describe a younger generation changing the country's ideas about just what is — and isn't — masculine.

"In Japan, sex is translated as 'relationship in flesh,'" she said, "so I named those boys 'herbivorous boys' since they are not interested in flesh."

These guys are "not eager to find girlfriends" and "tend to be clumsy in love."

In other words, this has nothing to do with food, but attitude: Instead of being aggro, paycheck-grubbing, lusty "carnivorous" types, these guys aren't interested in money or sex.

Junichiro Hori, a self-described herbivore, says:

"Some guys still try to be manly and try to be like strong and stuff, but you know personally I'm not afraid to show my vulnerability because being vulnerable or being sensitive is not a weakness… A lot of my friends were trying to work for a big company that pays well and I wasn't interested in that. I am kind of struggling financially

At a time when Japan's economy is troubled, some worry that this new, emo, sensitive man is bad for the future of the country. An unnamed businessman tells CNN:

"You need to be carnivorous when you make decisions in your life. You should be proactive, not passive."

But aren't we constantly tearing down ideas — weak, pink-loving, demure, submissive — of what it means to be feminine? Why do some people still believe there's one way to be "manly"?

Japan's "Herbivore Men" [BoingBoing]
Japan's 'herbivore men' — less interested in sex, money [CNN]

Over the weekend, photos of the theme park being constructed in Chongqing circulated on websites around the world, prompting an emergency inspection by local officials, according to the Daily Mail. The park featured a photo exhibition on the history of sex, and statues of giant penises and the lower half of a woman wearing a thong. Last week the park's manager, Lu Xiaoqing, said when the park opened in October it would offer workshops to help visitors improve their sexual technique and information on safe sex.

"Sex is a taboo subject in China but people really need to have more access to information about it," said Xiaoqing, "We are building the park for the good of the public. I have found that the majority of people support my idea, but I have to pay attention and not make the park look vulgar and nasty."

But after touring the park this weekend, municipal officials released a statement saying it was, "vulgar and that it was neither healthy nor educational. It had had an evil influence on society and had to be torn down immediately." Officials added that the owners of Love Land were "interested only in profiting from sensationalism,"The Guardian reports.

A demolition team quickly took a wrecking ball to the park, toppling a revolving statue of a woman's legs that stood in front of the park. The swift destruction of the site highlights conflicted view of sex in China (and pretty much everywhere else!), which Daily Mail describes as "a prudish attitude toward the discussion of sexuality paired with an almost clinical approach to its physical aspects." While pornography is banned and there is little sex education, many shops openly sell sex toys and sex outside of marriage is tolerated. Prostitution is illegal, but it's common for businessmen to keep mistresses.

There also isn't much awareness of sexual harassment and laws on sexual abuse are weaker in China than in many other parts of the world. Aside from Love Land, the second most widely reported sex-related story out of China last week was about a government official who paid to have sex with a 13-year-old girl, but was let off with a conviction for visiting a prostitute and a fine because he claimed he didn't know how old the girl was.

China's First Sex Theme Park Closes Before It Opens [Daily Mail]
China's First Sex Theme Park Closes Before It Opens [The Guardian]

Earlier: Sex Theme Park Has Chinese Hot And Bothered

"These things are too exposed. I will feel uncomfortable looking at them when other people are around," says Liu Daiwei, a female police officer. She's most likely talking about the "giant revolving model of a woman's legs and lower torso, clad only in an unflattering crimson thong," which marks the sign, Love Land. According to the Guardian, a commenter on the popular Sina website said Chinese people did not treat sex as boldly as foreigners, adding: "These vulgar sex installations will only make people sick."


The park's manager, Lu Xiaoqing, tells Reuters that Love Land will help people "enjoy a harmonious sex life." He's happy that people are talking about the park, because that means they're talking about sex:

"It is quite normal to see so much discussion about it," he said. "I have found that the majority of people support my idea but I have to pay attention and not make the park look vulgar and nasty."

And he's not the only one who thinks that the Chinese could truly benefit from being more informed about sex. Li Yinhe, an expert on sexual attitudes, tells the Guardian: "I read a report saying in the west about 90% of women have experienced orgasm, but in China the number is only 28%."

But is a theme park the best way to insure women are being satisfied? Having seen pictures from the original Love Land, in South Korea — basically, sculptures of people engaging in intercourse — the idea seems a little… limp.

China To Open First Sex Theme Park [Guardian]
Adult Theme Park Gets Chinese Talking About Sex [Reuters]
Related: The 9 Most Baffling Theme Parks From Around the World [Fine Lifestyles]

Suu Kyi is the daughter of Aung San, a revolutionary who helped Burma win its independence from Britain ("Burma" is the name used by opposition groups to refer to the country now officially known as Myanmar). She has spent 13 of the last 19 years in some form of custody, due to her pro-democracy activism and helped found the National League for Democracy, which won in a landslide in Burma's 1990 general election (the ruling military junta nullified the results). Suu Kyi, who was voted Prime Minister, was already under house arrest at the time, for giving speeches and campaigning for democracy after a ban on political gatherings. Her continued nonviolent campaigning won her the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

The latest change in Suu Kyi's status comes as a result of the American John William Yettaw, who reportedly swam across a lake, snuck into Suu Kyi's home, and stayed there for two days. He had tried to visit her once before, in 2008; both times, she told him to leave, but this time he refused. Yettaw's stepson says he "is harmless and not politically motivated in any way." No one knows what does motivate him, but Suu Kyi's lawyer Kyi Win doesn't much care. "Everyone is very angry with this wretched American. He is the cause of all these problems," he said. "He's a fool."

Burma's junta, which took power in 1988 after a bloody uprising, says that by allowing Yettaw's visit Suu Kyi violated Article 22 of the Law Safeguarding the State from the Danger of Subversionists (aka Scary Totalitarian Rule No. 1). The National League for Democracy, however, says she has violated no law. Many speculate that Yettaw's intrusion is merely an excuse for the junta to extend this particular round of detention for Suu Kyi, which began in 2003. Sein Win, Prime Minister of Burma's opposition government-in-exile, said, "It is nothing more than a political ploy to hoodwink the international community so that it can keep (Suu Kyi) under lock and key while the military maneuvers its way to election victory on 2010."

Aung San Suu Kyi To Be Put On Trial [Guardian]
3RD: Myanmar's Suu Kyi Charged Over Detained American's Visit [Breitbart]
Suu Kyi To Stand Trial Again Over US Visitor [Independent]
Suu Kyi Charged With Violating House Arrest [Independent]

Six years later, a lot has changed. While beating, torture, and trafficking of women is still horrifically common and broadly accepted, women's rights groups have made significant headway, today's New York Times reports.

Mary Akrami, director of the Afghan Women Skills Development Center, founded the first women's shelter in Afghanistan in 2003. Now there are four different organizations running shelters in Afghanistan. While they have helped many women escape abuse, and even death, they are not welcomed by everyone:

Women's shelters have been criticized as a foreign intrusion in Afghan society, where familial and community problems have traditionally been resolved through the mediation of tribal leaders and councils. But women's advocates insist that those outcomes almost always favor the men.

Until the advent of the shelters, a woman in an abusive marriage usually had nowhere to turn. If she tried to seek refuge with her own family, her brothers or father might return her to her husband, to protect the family's honor. Women who eloped might be cast out of the family altogether.

In response to the criticism, women's rights advocates insist that they are trying to preserve the structure of the family by mediation and counseling, not break up marriages. However, they have been known to help clients find new husbands, a fact that surely can't win them any points with the opposition.

But the women who arrive at the shelters are typically in serious need. Having nowhere else to turn, the women's shelter gives them a rare safe haven. And the shelters are full of girls like Mariam, 17, who was sold into marriage at age 11 to a man thirty years her senior to pay for her father's drug debts. After suffering years of abuse, Mariam went to the police, who placed her in a women's shelter. When asked what comes next, she said: "I want my divorce, and then I want to study."

Afghan Women Slowly Gaining Protection [New York Times]

According to the Times of London, being a Carnival queen is a coveted position. "For months beforehand the battle of the queens is followed in every magazine, newspaper and news bulletin." Model, actress and former Playboy cover girl Luma de Oliveira, 44, is one of the lucky ones, as is Luiza Brunet, 46. Joyce Pascowitz, "Brazil’s elder stateswoman," who runs a fashion magazine and website, says: "It’s interesting that women over 40 are serving as examples of beauty. This puts a value on Brazilian women over the age considered the maximum. It shows that, yes, there is life after 40. And not just intelligent life."

Of course, Ms. de Oliveira and Ms. Brunet are not "ordinary" 40-year-old ladies. The Times notes:

The role of Queen of the Drums, which involves dancing pneumatically in a bikini, heels and giant headdress, in front of 400 or so drummers is not for the fainthearted. “The queen is a model of beauty, charm and swing,” said Ms. Pascowitz. Ms. de Oliveira celebrated her appointment in front of the cameras at a Portela rehearsal, wearing a transparent mini-dress covered in thousands of Swarovski crystals.

Question: Is a woman being objectified regardless of her age really a victory?

Maturity Trumps Youth In Brazil's Battle Of The Carnival Queens [Times of London]

She and her family fled the building, only to be turned away from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters. They finally found out that the explosion they heard came from an off-target rocket, and even though a small boy was injured, they felt relieved. Joudeh writes:

We are now unable to distinguish joy from fear. My 11-year old sister laughs as she imagines how people all over the world watch the horrific events taking place in the Gaza Strip. "Its like we are a scary movie. I'm sure people eat popcorn as they watch," she says. My 12- and 14-year old brothers act out scenes from our reality while quoting Metal Gear Solid 4 and Guns of Patriots, their favorite video game, and we laugh hysterically at their performance. Moments later we tense up at the sound of a violent, close by earthquake-like explosion, and resume our laughter when the building stops shaking.

First Person: Living in Gaza, Under Starlight and Bomb Blasts [Time]

It's hard to understand and describe the situation in the country; the Tutsis — the tribe slaughtered in Rwanda during the genocide of 1994 — are leading an army against the government. 5.4 million people have died from war-related causes in the Congo since 1998, which one organization calls "the world’s deadliest documented conflict since WW II." And the majority of deaths were from "secondary" causes: malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition. Preventable, and treatable, under different circumstances. But Ashley Judd says that women and children "tend to be the most vulnerable and the most exploited and the most underserved and so there is probably a gender inequality factor that contributes to the lack of attention that's being given."

Judd's experiences in the Congo — especially when she met with the many, many women who had been brutally raped — had a real impact on her. "I was flat on my back for three weeks after," she says. (She went to a doctor and then a psychologist, who diagnosed her with "plain old straight-up grief.")

Judd is extremely articulate about the horrors she witnessed:

"[I sat with] a woman, who, through word of mouth, heard there was a clinic which could help a woman who had been raped. She had to figure out—in the midst of being stigmatized, in the midst of her physical agony, in the midst of incontinence and starvation—how to get herself walking, crawling to this clinic, only to find that it's overcrowded, because there are so many women, hundreds, if not thousands, just like her. And just imagine, this is a clinic that does nothing but genital reconstruction; […] The vagina will tear when being forced to accommodate either a rapist's anatomy or objects that are introduced: wood, rock, sticks, guns, bayonets. There will be perforation of the vaginal walls, perforation and ripping of the cervix, potentially, based on the extent of the penetration into the uterus. The wall between the rectum and vagina is ripped apart. The urethra, which goes to the bladder, is damaged. There is incontinence. The urine is constantly seeping out, because the muscles and mechanisms that hold the bladder intact are ruined; there is faecal incontinency, which of course can introduce faecal matter into the gut, which results in horrific infections."

Christopher Dickey says: "Inevitably, there are people who say that you are a voyeur." Responds Judd: "Let them come with me—Come 'voyeur' with me."

Ashley Judd’s Heart Of Darkness [Newsweek]
Ashley Judd's Congo Diary [TheCommunity]
Population Services International [Official Site]

The foundation was set up by Masarrat Misbah, the successful owner of the Depilex salon in Pakistan, whose work not only helped Liaqat and Akbar get training and find work in her salon (despite the complaints of some of her clients, who feel strange looking at disfigured women) but has helped them and more than 83 other women get the reconstructive surgery they need. Misbah was inspired to help disfigured women by a beggar outside of her salon, who was attacked by her acid-wielding husband.

Liaqat knows a little about that — married to a stranger by her family at age 15, the arrangement stated that she would live with her parents until she finished school. He didn't like that idea, so he stopped by the house one afternoon 5 years ago and threw acid on her. He's currently in prison facing attempted murder charges, but they're still married. She's slightly luckier than Akbar, who was married by the age of 22 to an abusive stranger. After they had a daughter, he doused her in kerosene while she slept and lit her ablaze. Unlike Liaqat, she lacked the support of her family, so she never filed charges in her attack and her now-ex husband has sole custody of their daughter. Both women hope that their jobs in Misbah's salon will help them achieve self-sufficiency in a society that relies on husbands to provide for their wives.

Lest anyone start in about this being cultural, or limited to Pakistan, we encourage you all to recall the story of Yvette Cade, a Maryland woman set ablaze by her husband while at work after she attempted to get a restraining order against him. Sadly for all of us, this kind of jealousy, possessiveness and abuse isn't limited to a country, a region or a religion.

Pakistani Women Burned By Acid Or Fire Rely On Beauty Of Others [LA Times]
Portraits Of Brutality [MSNBC]
Hargrave Sentences To Life In Prison For Murder Attempt [Washington Examiner]

On her way to the market, Lingani explained the ugly math: A year ago, she could feed her entire family a nutritious meal of meat and vegetables and peanut sauce for about 75 cents. But now the family gets much lower-quality food for twice the price … "When the children ask for food, we have to give it to them," she said. "We're mothers."

It's not just an economic problem; it's also cultural. Shopping and cooking, aka making sure the family has food, is "the job of women," Lingani's husband, a retired police officer, says. He has three wives. One, who is nearly blind, can't do chores. Lingani and the other working wife each give part of their salary to their husband, and he gets a bowl of food that is roughly the same size as one that the two wives and eight small grandchildren share. (The food is dried fish and baobab leaves flavored with potash, a paste made by boiling down water strained through ashes.)

A recent study has shown that people in Burkina Faso spend 75% of their income on food. Pregnant women and young mothers sacrifice medical care; some turn to prostitution to pay for food. Families who can't pay for school and school clothes take girls out of school. There's no upside here people, just something to think about when we're complaining about the price of Starbucks or gas.

Africa's Last and Least [Washington Post]
Report: Women Suffer Most In Food Crisis [UPI]