quote:

---

The authorities in Uzbekistan have a robust policy on birth control, but evidence is emerging that in pursuit of a smaller population they are abusing women’s rights by conducting hysterectomies and implanting contraceptive devices against their will.

---

I am trying to locate the politics of these outrages. Obviously, there is old-time Stalinist reductionism dictating the behaviour of the medical and public-health authorities, as well as of the government economic thinkers and planners.

But Uzbekistan is now run by a bizarre tyrant, Islam Karimov, and worse, Karimov is now considered a valuable ally by the U.S. (Gee: how could that be?)

So I think there are two separate problems to think about: How does the world help people, any and all people, tyrannized to this extent by a regime like this? But also: How do we make contact with the women of developing nations like this, who need to be supported, not raped by their doctors, but given greater choices and more hope than resides merely in the stark choice between sterilization or endless child-bearing?

The one thing about this report that made me hopeful was the report itself. It is inspiring to me that those three activists and researchers are there, on the ground in Uzbekistan, and producing work of this detail and value. I should think that they are in some danger, and I salute them.

[ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

Christian fundamentalists don't qualify on that score, so nobody is telling the USian fundies about Uzbekistan.

It is that simple, Mr M.

This is a hard topic for feminists because most of us have noticed the raw stats: teach women to read = women have fewer babies = rising standard of living generally.

Now, that is very raw. Stalinist, almost. But women's fecundity is definitely a political issue.

Women's intelligence, women's agency, women's freedom -- those are political issues too, and like most feminists, I hope and believe, I want to see all those issues in play if and as we try to reach out to traumatized populations like the people of Uzbekistan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Doesn't China strictly enforce a one-child-per-family policy? Or, they did, in the past?

---

I was physically ill when I heard Pat Robertson, an evangelist, speak out in favour of all that they were doing. I remember Kate Michaelman being told live about that information. As much as I disagree with her she is articulate. She STUMBLED over her words. I think she thought that the commentator was inaccurate. He's an unspeakable man. I was very pleased by what Ms. Michaelman said that day. Molly Yard supported the one-child policy but I understand that she was the exception.

I wasn't aware that this was taking place in Uzbekistan.

What we are seeing, I believe, is the opposite of the same coin as what we saw in Romania when lots of children were demanded. Or what we saw in the former Yugoslavia when rape was used as a war crime in order to dilute the enemy nation. Whether the goal is to increase births or decrease them, what we are seeing is political coercion written collectively on the bodies of women. It is a willful attempt to mould female bodies to serve the state. Such types of inscription can only be successful if violent. It is absurd that all women will make the same choices without being forced to.