Guest: Dr Chowdhury
Reading Notes:
Violence Against Women
 To move to a more constructive place, we need to foster a transnational analytic of care: one
that is not defensive, reactionary, or silencing
 Crudely speaking, many feminists in the West were either called out for not being critical
enough of patriarchal social structures in India that contribute to violence against women or blamed
for casting Indian men and culture within a colonial mindset that sees misogyny as an inherently
Eastern phenomenon
 Indian media were powerful in pointing out apathy and misogyny in India’s state machinery and
public attitudes toward women’s roles in society
 These responses fell short of shining light on globalization and the structural inequalities that
play a role in producing both victims and perpetrators of violence
 This kind of skewed narrative supports the continuation of an imperialist feminism; it can
obscure the fact that violence is not confined to any particular group in society
 Such patronizing US attempts to offer guidance to women in India appear hollow when there is
a reported rape in the US every 6.2 minutes, and one in five US women will be raped in her lifetime
 Ultimately, such posturing over moral ground also overlooks how first world neoliberal policies
contribute to a climate of insecurity and vulnerability for women (and men) in the Global South
 Rape is not exceptional but routine in most parts of India, and protests have not been sparked
by routine, everyday violence against minorities in India
 Western feminists often move from describing women’s suffering in the Global South as a
consequence of patriarchal oppression to suggesting that women in the Global South can be
empowered through neoliberal economic ventures that create opportunities for self-reliance
 Despite being the “golden goose” of the economy, the workers in [the garment] sector face
dismal working conditions and compensation
 The flagrant disregard for the worth of workers’ lives was further apparent in the government’s
decision not to accept external assistance in the recovery efforts, in order to project to the global
community an image of “self-reliance.”
 The image defies a number of social and cultural norms in depicting physical contact between a
young man and a woman in an ostensibly “public” embrace
 While not minimizing the reality of male violence against women, I’d like to propose that this
photo poses a visual challenge to Western feminist narratives of the “downtrodden third world
female” and her “violent and oppressive” male counterpart. It expands our understanding of
women’s oppression beyond the lens of “male violence” to one of structural violence and
encourages an analytic of connectivity as the root of deep solidarity
 Death of Thousand Dreams also draws our attention to the structural inequality of
globalization, colonial relations between supplier and buyer nations, corporate greed, corrupt state
machinery, and disregard for the poor workers – male and female – in each tier
Rethinking Patriarchy, Culture and Masculinity
 To truly understand the complexity and “high prevalence” of acid violence against women in
Bangladesh, we must pay attention to the confluence of political, economic and historical forces
that make certain social groups more vulnerable to such extreme violence and suffering; acid
violence has to be understood within a broader “structural inequality” framework
 Recognize the importance of stories and testimonials in human rights campaigns, the ability of
narratives in presenting experiential truths as well as in strategic mobilize, and the ways in which
human rights narratives contribute to both assisting and impeding transitional movement building
 Marriage and kinship systems form the core of societal organization in Bangladesh; these
systems are derivative of feudal patriarchal arrangements, which when threatened, lead to
expressions of hegemonic masculinities manifested through domination and control
 Domestic violence against women in Bangladesh transcends class, religion, and the rural-urban
divide
 Because of the population of the men in question – undereducated, under or unemployed – the
aggression is understood to be a pathology of men who want to assert power and domination to
compensate their experiences of insufficient masculinity
 The risk of violence increases when women move beyond existing gender norms
 Violence coincides with significant transformations in gender relations
 Violence may signal societal transformations occurring in the economic and cultural realms and
the resistance to these shifts that encompass the larger publics
 The violence is not a singular act motivated by blinding rage rather a calculated and planned
course of action
 Trauma narratives located at the intersection of local and global spaces might rely on “common
sense” scripts but also throw into crisis existing paradigms of cross-border communications
 Gender violence is inextricably linked to structural violence
 Power of the “spectacular violence against women” narrative in human rights advocacy that
elicits humanitarian action on behalf of the third world victim subject
 Focusing on the adolescent third world victim subject can elicit more speedy and concerted
humanitarian intervention, yet at the same time it can underemphasize broader structural
questions
 This cultural script underemphasizes the role of political conflict in exacerbating gender
discriminatory practices
 Gender and class biases are institutionalized in the social and legal structures, which mere
enactment of law cannot transform
 It is important to emphasize both the centrality of human rights to development initiatives and
the critical relationship between human rights and national development
Personal Thoughts on readings and Lecture:
 Important Note – please be aware that I generally have a difficult time discussing gender issues. I fully believe
in social equality and praise women for standing up for their rights. However, in the cases where I may
disagree on a certain claim or issue, I’m unsure if I have a genuine disagreement or if I’m simply an ignorant
male who doesn’t understand. If the disagreement is due to ignorance, then I just hope that someone can
point out my faults so that they may be repaired. So that’s that.
 Dr Chowdhury writes that “responses fell short of shining light on globalization and the structural inequalities
that play a role in producing both victims and perpetrators of violence,” and continued to say that “this kind
of skewed narrative supports the continuation of an imperialist feminism; it can obscure the fact that
violence is not confined to any particular group in society.”
o This is an enlightening example of Dr Pantalone’s warning regarding HIV – do not confuse behavior
with identity
 I liked hearing Dr Chowdhury’s interpretation on narrative, particularly the way local and global narratives
interact. Earlier, we examined how narrative can help as in the case of Defoe. Now, we can see more
examples of the way narrative helps, but also how it hurts. While narrative can unmask a story that needs to
be known, it can force the story into a frame that is difficult to break out of. Local and global narratives can
also have drastically different agendas, as determined by the interests of the key players in each narrative.




This is important to note when prior to creating and implementing a narrative. The “language of universal
feminism and human rights” as mentioned by Dr Chowdhury perpetuates awareness of global gender issues,
but at the cost of assigning character roles, which may not necessarily aid in addressing the conflict in the
story. For the future, I’d be interested in examining possible new frameworks for the universal human rights
narrative.
In her article Violence Against Women, Dr Chowdhury mentions two occasions where India’s human rights
issues were brought to the attention of foreign countries. The first was in the attempt by the Harvard School
of Public Health to offer suggestions/recommendations to India regarding their current gender issues. Dr
Chowdhury’s took a clear stance in saying these attempts were “patronizing” and “hollow” when considering
the gender issues apparent in the US, and she ultimately concluded that this was an imperialistic flex of
power that serves only to perpetuate the character roles found in the universal language. She then went on
to criticize India for their actions during the warehouse collapse – “The flagrant disregard for the worth of
workers’ lives was further apparent in the government’s decision not to accept external assistance in the
recovery efforts, in order to project to the global community an image of “self-reliance.”
o This seems very contradictory to me – to criticize attempts to aid in social issues while criticizing a
country for not taking aid all in the same article. Perhaps the US offered the wrong hand, but to
maintain a tone that makes any and all help seem unwarranted doesn’t cross me as great foreign
policy. In fact, it seems like a great way to end a conversation.
As upsetting as the outcome was, I thought it was great that Dr Chowdhury spoke of the consequences of
Bina’s decision to remain in America as a gender refugee. As we’ve been discussing the implementation of
change, Bina’s story offered a unique view at the principle of “all or nothing.” She was an individual in the
fight for change, but when her actions fell out of sync with the rest of the implementers, the whole agenda
fell with it. “All or nothing” doesn’t just mean that everyone needs to embrace the change, but that everyone
needs to embrace the change together. I appreciate learning from other’s mistakes.
Dr Chowdhury mentioned, “Gender and class biases are institutionalized in the social and legal structures,
which mere enactment of law cannot transform.”
o I think it’s important to talk about this, because the whole solution won’t be found in the legal
system. Consider the human rights movement in the US during the 60s – just because all races were
made equal under the legal system, didn’t mean racism was over. In fact, there are still very apparent
divides to this day. The legal system plays a very critical role, but it cannot be the sole mover.
Dr Chowdhury maintains that “by equating more severe punishments with the degree of injury, and
considering sexual organs as more important than other body parts, the law fails to ascertain the integrity
and quality of human life as a whole.” She continues to say, “In this way, the assumption that women’s
primary roles in society are those of mother and wife are validated.”
o I believe Dr Chowdhury is taking this too far. First, this gradation of punishment does not just apply
to women; it also applies to injuries of male reproductive organs. With this in mind, I wonder if Dr
Chowdhury would claim that this validates men’s primary roles as father and husband.
o Further, I believe the claim that a gradation policy fails to view “human life as a whole” is also taken
to an extreme. When examining the costs and benefits of any medical treatment, one of the greatest
factors to consider is quality of life. I believe the gradation policy is attempting to consider the same
perspective. Let’s look at a hypothetical –
 Two separate but identical individuals are acid attacked. Person A gains flesh wounds on
his/her arm which will be scared but otherwise functional. Person B is wounded on his/her
genitalia, effectively destroying any chances of future reproduction. Which of these two
individuals has the greatest loss in quality of life?
 It’s could be hard to say – perhaps Person A was an arm model and Person B was never
interested in having a family in the first place; perhaps Person A wear long sleeves all day and
o
o
Person B had hopes of having many children. The point is this – different attacks have
different consequences on the victim based on their life as a whole, and it is most just to
punish the perpetrator based on this. The gradation policy does this.
 Another consideration I believe the gradation policy attempts to address is that of the
perpetrator’s intent – perhaps damage to Person B’s reproduction was purposeful; perhaps
the perpetrator actually did intend to damage Person A’s chances of have children but failed.
Intent implies the level of criminality – was the perpetrator just mad in the heat of the
moment or did the perpetrator consider his/her actions.
I also believe there is a little bit of hypocrisy in disagreeing with the gradation policy when the entire
ACCA is already a law of gradation based on the type of assault; that is, acid attacks themselves have
higher punishments than other assaults. But I doubt this does not mean that legislation believes
other assaults are less important, or that the law is placing more value on physical appearance.
Instead, I think the law is doing what it’s supposed to do – addressing a current issue, that of
increasing acid attacks. And Dr Chowdhury has referenced multiple times that a common intent of
acid attacks is to destroy beauty and suitability for marriage. With this in mind, I wonder how she
may fail to see that the gradation is attempting to curb that particular intent.
However, I will agree that the current gradation policy tries unsuccessfully to generalize each case,
and because of how variable each case may be, and the dramatic difference between maximum
penalties (14 years vs death), I do believe there should be changes to the law. I would propose a
range of punishments should be established, and it is ultimately the judge of the case who shall
determine the degree of punishment based on the legal range as described by the circumstances of
the attack.