Destroying the Ultimate Dichotomy

The Multeity Manifesto, pt.1

Under the influence of heteronormative and sex/gender binary-normative (largely Patriarchal) culture, the world’s progression towards a deeper understanding of gender has inched forward slowly, out of the assumptions of “natural gender roles” and related gender mythology and into a more complex analysis of gender that acknowledges the influence of social construction. While perhaps the majority of people still hold the view that gender traits and roles are inherent and immutable facts of Nature (e.g. “girls are naturally more talkative than boys”, “boys are naturally more gifted at math”, “girls are natural nurturers”, “women are nurturers”, “men have a higher proclivity to violence than women as dictated by their nature”, etc.), there is growing acceptance of the theory of gender as a social construction– in other words, as not natural.

But while we can tolerate theories of gender norms and roles as rooted in sociocultural construction, there is very little tolerance of theories that question the absolute validity of dividing all human beings into two categories of biological sex. The notion of biological sex seems infallible: at birth, a child is clearly determined to be either male or female, typically based on their genitalia (when possible). Broader definitions of biological sex consider hormonal and chromosomal makeup in addition to anatomy– which is where problems begin to arise, but doubts are quelled by labeling any individual body which resists sex binary classification as “deviant.” Indeed, “biological sex deviation” is seen as “abnormal” and, perhaps ironically, “unnatural”; this is reinforced by highlighting the adverse health affects of chromosomal or hormonal “syndromes“, depicting these “deviations” as clearly problematic.

Some biologists and scientists of the human body resolve such difficulties by redefining biological sex as a two-point spectrum, rather than an absolute binary. Such a spectrum, with “male” at one end and “female” at the other, allows us to consider variations of biological sex which fall “somewhere in between” these two absolutes. The problem with this spectrum is that it positions “male” and “female” as opposite, and further assumes that any deviations from “properly male” and “properly female” still land between them somewhere, thus being either “more male” or “more female”. The idea of “properly male” or “properly female” implies an unquestionable truth, thereby maintaining the correctness of binary categorization where possible.

This construction of biological sex as dichotomous or oppositional is extremely limited and inadequate. The diversity of human biological sex simply cannot be described or conceptualized by attempting to position “deviations” between two “true” or “real” points. It certainly can’t be done so without marginalizing those persons who defy the “reality” of sex binary or two-sex spectrum.

This reveals a very deep-seated problem, which is the fundamental assertion that there are correct sexes (namely, xx with socially-defined “female” anatomy and hormones, and xy with socially-defined “male” anatomy and hormones), and any sex (or a-sex) which cannot be described in these terms is deviant, abnormal, wrong.

Human investment in this conception is so deep that we go to great lengths to reinforce and protect it, even so far as “correcting” individuals who pose a threat to its stability and infallibility: there are standards by which we determine the correctness of the sizes of penises and clitorises, standards against which we measure the correctness of male and female hormones, standards which dictate the correctness of one’s chromosomes, standards which dictate the correctness of one’s reproductive tissues, et cetera.

At birth, doctors and medical staff examine the infant’s genitalia to determine its sex. Sometimes this is very difficult to do, as many infants are not born with what is obviously a penis or obviously a clitoris. Sometimes a penis is “too small” (less than an inch long) and needs correction. A common way to “correct” an “abnormal” penis is to cut it off and remake the infant as female. Similarly, infants may present with a clitoris that is “too large”. An “abnormally large clitoris” is usually shortened (sometimes called female circumcision or female cutting). Normality and abnormality defined by what Martha Coventry calls “the tyranny of the esthetic”, or more broadly what I will term the Sex Binary Construct.

The Sex Binary Construct identifies only two “real” or “true” categories of sexual distinction. To account for all individuals who do not fit neatly into this paradigm, the SBC labels them “deviant”.

The idea of “remaking” or “assigning” an infant into one sex or another is evidence of the elastic and abstract nature of sex. Indeed, the very notion of “reassigning”, “remaking”, or “defining” a newly born human as either male or female seems to discredit the SBC, even as these are the methods used to uphold its infallibility.

Many other challenges have been posed to the concreteness of SBC. Apart from “intersex” persons (individuals whose sex cannot be established as “typical”), persons self-identifying as transgender, Third Gender, asexual, or otherwise genderqueer contradict the fundamental tenets of the supposedly infallible SBC.

The power and authority of the Sex Binary Construct appear to be absolute. Its tenets are supported by reputable and highly-respected scientific institutions such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, which call the intersex birth a “social emergency”. As a social emergency, the concerns of society are placed above the welfare and human rights of the individual. These institutions have control over decision-making processes about intersex bodies. Some have tried to argue that when children and infants fall prey to such decision-making processes, it is in violation of their human rights. This argument could also be made on behalf of queer persons who are declared mentally ill when their behavior and/or attitudes fails to conform to the SBC.

There are countless examples of the harm done to individuals and overall human rights by the Sex Binary Construct, which are not even remotely limited to intersex, transgender, or genderqueer persons. But what is the solution? Simply banishing “gender” and “sex” to the dustbins of history would not truly resolves these problems– not to mention the notion is unrealistic.

I cannot purport to have a definitive solution; I do wish to join my voice to those seeking alternatives to the current reality. If in seeking to dismantle the SBC we have no adequate (and accurate) conceptualization to take its place, the old tenets will continue to shape sociocultural consciousness. Thus the first thing to go should be our cognition of gender as a dichotomy, and even as a two-point spectrum. In place of it I suggest a radial spectrum, upon which any “point” is not more or less “true” than any other, and which can describe an infinite number of sex possibilities. A radial spectrum would also solve the problem of oppositional categories, for “points” may be unfixed and mobile. The symbolism of the circle also invokes images of fluidity and changingness, which more accurately embody the lived human experience of gender/sex and sexuality. Does this disrupt the “scientific ideal”? Is it imperfect? Probably so. But our current science is hardly ideal, and very much imperfect. All communities with an interest in seeing the SBC on its way out should be coming together for dialogue, idea exchange, and redefinition of gender/sex. In that vein, I welcome comments and criticisms on these subjects.

This Week in News

News from throughout the week in the Kingdom of Wonder, Cambodia Daily-style.

“Man Charged with Raping 14-Year-Old Daughter”

The Banteay Meanchey Provincial Court yesterday charged a 41-year-old man for raping is 14-year-old daughter… [Said Commune Police Chief So Sophal,] “We arrested the suspect…when the suspect came to find his daughter in Banteay Meanchey province on Saturday…The suspect confessed he had raped his daughter many times when his wife went to work in Thailand. He also warned his daughter not to tell anyone about the rapes.” The victim was sent to rights group Adhoc on Saturday in order to receive treatment, he added (Nhem Sreyroth)

“On-The-Spot Fines for Car, Truck Drivers to End”

 Starting May 1, traffic police across the country will stop fining car and truck drivers on the spot, and instead issue them tickets to be paid later, officials said yesterday… “We want all cars and trucks to carry out the fines like in other developed countries, and it is easy for traffic police to carry out,” said [National Police Commissioner Neth Savoeun]. It remained unclear whether the new rules would eventually be extended to motorbikes, which as a result of their sheer volume generate the most under-the-table income for traffic police. (Khy Sovuthy)

“Man Killed as His Tractor Detonates Anti-Tank Mine”

A 24-year-old man was killed in Banteay Meanchey province on Tuesday when his tractor detonated an anti-tank mine, officials said. Ol Phann was plowing a filed in Malai District…which he had ploughed on at least three previous occasions, when the mine blew him up. …the anti-tank mine was left over from fighting between government forces and the Khmer Rouge, which continued in the area until the late 1990s. (Hai Sina)

“Filling of Boeng Kak Lake Finished After 3 1/2 Years”

The private firm behind the controversial $2.17 billion development of Phnom Penh’s Boeng Kak lake finished pumping sand into the area last week, officials said yesterday, some three-and-a-half years after starting. The filling of the lake as displace more than 3,000 mostly poor families– in violation of the country’s 2001 Land Law– to make way for the high-end residential and commercial property development of Cambodian People’s Party Senator Lao Meng Khin’s Shukaku Inc. As the lake’s water level rose, surrounding communities also endured years of flooding, though government officials refused to acknowledge any link between their flooded homes and the filling-in of the lake. (Khoun Narim) 

“Forestry Activist Chut Wutty Shot Dead”

Forestry activist Chut Wutty, 46, was fatally shot by military police during an altercation in Koh Kong yesterday. A military police officer, In Rattana, 32, was also shot to death in the scuffle. (Saing Soenthrith, Abby Seiff) 

It has since come to light that Wutty was shot after using “bad words” with the police. In Rattana in fact took his own life. Cambodia Daily reporters were present, which probably exacerbated the situation as they refused to give up their cameras upon request by the police.

Professional Girlfriends: a letter

Dr. Hoefinger:

The results of your seven years of research as summed in your article “A Woman’s Work” left me rather disappointed. I recently read said article in Southeast Asia Globe Magazine, and what disturbed me was how thoroughly saturated it is in Patriarchy.

I am not necessarily pro or anti-prostitution or systems related to it (transactional sex and so on), but I do question any cultural system which homogenizes an individual’s identity based on “lump categories” like ethnicity, gender, age, etc., which is exactly what prostitution, bar work, and karaoke-singing in Cambodia do. It also functions within and perpetuates Patriarchy. I am compelled to question a situation (be it career, school, family-related, etc.) wherein a group of people is conspicuously absent or present. I find bar work in Phnom Penh troubling precisely because it is all young, economically disadvantaged Cambodian girls and women.

Your article highlights several young women who chose to go to the city for bar work. Opening with a discussion with one professional girlfriend about the benefits of her work, I was immediately overwhelmed by a sense that her identity and values were shaped around high-profile consumption, that she is fixated on consumerism and the associated prestige. As you introduce and quote a few more women, a world of hyperconsumption emerges: individual women are themselves being consumed, even as they struggle for means to further their own consumption. (On a brief tangent, does any person “subscribe” to capitalism, as you say, or aren’t we all just born into it?) On the one hand, a very shallow picture is painted of greedy women preoccupied with make-up, clothing, gold jewelry. On the other, we’re told they are “virtuous” as they provide for their families back home and take care of themselves. Either way they are fulfilling the opposite but equally stereotypical expectations of the Patriarchy.

This representation of ‘virtue’ further irritates my feminist sensibilities, particularly as how it connects to the family. Within the traditional (some would say ‘ideal’) Patriarchal Khmer family, women are constantly relegated to lower positions than their male counterparts. The expectation exists that females will provide for the family in ways which compliment male contributions, but which often become exploitative. The ‘freedom’ and ‘adventure’ bar workers experience perhaps offsets this exploitation to a degree, but still at the risk of harmful stigmatization. The burden of family honor placed on young (particularly marriageable) women is as much an item of Patriarchy as is the consumption of female sexuality. This is the shortcoming I see in affirmatory studies and articles on sex workers, bar workers, and karaoke workers again and again: simply approving of the ‘chosen careers’ of such women does little to ground their ‘choices’ in reality.

One might ask how real a ‘choice’ it is to opt for the ‘freedom’ of bar work over work in the provinces. Thus is it necessarily a gendered choice; we see no boys pimping or sexually commodifying themselves in order to attain material security, prestige, or just to get by (indeed they exist, but the point is we don’t see them). Yet women who commodify their own sexuality to fulfill male sexual pleasure, stigmatized as they are, are highly visible and are in high demand. Here is the aspect of bar work that I felt your article failed to address: how is sexual commodification (here in the form of bar work, professional girlfriendry, and transactional sex) a gendered phenomenon, and how does it affect the overall sociocultural status of Cambodian women? Indeed, of all women?

Part of me thinks your article was merely written to appeal to the masses– with sex appeal, quite obviously. Even the title of your article degrades the potential seriousness of the subject, while simultaneously upholding the Patriarchal standard: “A Woman’s Work”, really? It seems to be a most disappointing subscription to Patriarchal norms.

I appreciate your intimate use of participant observation. But the problem with this research method is that it can become too personal; I wonder if it didn’t for you? Being too close to a situation or subject can blind us to a broader, deeper context. Perhaps in your effort to portray such women as self-reliant, capable, and career-oriented, you allowed yourself to overlook the more desperate aspects both of their individual situations and the situation of women in Cambodia in general.

This you did not do in your article, “In This Place, We Are Kin” (which really only reaffirms my thoughts about mass appeal); in “A Woman’s Work”, you make no mention of the potential long term outcomes of transactional sex and bar work. You give a very detailed account of one such worker in “In This Place”, however, and I think it would have edified SEAGlobe readers to have read about her. Whereas bar work once allotted her personal freedom and stability, it ultimately does not provide realistic long-term support, and after encountering economic hardship she feels obligated to marry someone she does not love in order to survive. Her chosen career path may seem like a far cry from the textile workers and farmers in the provinces, but the end result is very much the same: unable to support themselves and their families (through no fault of their own), they are forced into relationships which are, verily, exchanges of sex for security– transactional sex, as someone would say.

I do intend to read your book when it comes out next year. You must still be writing it; if it is more of “A Woman’s Work”, expect more pejorative letters. If you decide to give a less single-minded account of the experience Cambodian bar workers, I might even buy it.

Best,

Lee Solomon

p.s. One could really go on, too, about the abysmal absence of aspects of sexual violence, but we can save that for another time.

The Means of Reproduction (a review)

This is a review of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World by Michelle Goldberg (2009).

Reading The Means was a lesson in self-discipline. At times, I was filled with elation and I wanted to run around and jump up and down for the energy it gave me. At other times, I was so frustrated or angry that it was all I could do not to launch the book (which I’d borrowed) across the room at the far wall; “Just take a breath and set the book down…” I would tell this part of myself, and give myself a minute to do something detached. For as sharp and lucid as Goldberg’s writing was a certain parts that could induce such feelings, the overall message of her book put those parts into a deeper, broader, more meaningful context. To that end, she’s a great, readable writer and even if you’re not deeply invested in the “big ideas” of the book, I’d still recommend it if you’re into well-crafted non-fiction prose.

What are the big ideas of this book, anyhow? (From this point on, there will probably be some “plot spoilers”, just to warn you.) That somewhat anthropocentric part of the subtitle, “the Future of the World”, nicely sums one recurring theme: human population on Earth. Perhaps it would be better to say “the Future of the World as We Know It”, but the discussion of population and demography is one which Goldberg examines and dismantles from every angle, from the ironically “anti-imperialist” far right of religious and political America and their far left counterparts, to the Cold War-era voices of Malthusian pushers of the “population bomb” theory.

Another major focus of Goldberg’s admirably well-researched work is the history and development of women’s rights and feminism in the global scheme. I admit to being woefully ignorant of women’s movements in places outside of my immediate experience (i.e. “the West”); Goldberg’s deep research and firsthand accounts of conversations with the major players in the international women’s movement is a crash course in the evolution of perspectives and strategies within that movement.

Another crucial motif is Goldberg’s analysis of “culture versus human rights”. This is an issue with which I have struggled for some time, especially coming out of school with a degree in anthropology (cultural relativism lalala). How can one objectively view the contentious, often incompatible relationship between the relativity of cultural views/values and the fundamental rights of the individual? I felt betrayed when it at first appeared that Goldberg was lending credit to the notion of culture trumping human rights– but that is why one must read this book from beginning to end. The careful examination Goldberg gives to all sides of this argument is edifying and elucidating.

Perhaps the most important theme is that which sums the elements of the subtitle; many, many aspects of this book come down to control, particularly control of female bodies. When put that way, it may sound horrific (what are women– cattle for breeding? Indeed, perhaps…), but the implications go far beyond an individual’s choice to have children, to control of our own persons. The author slowly but clearly builds on this picture, awakening us to the very real and imminent connections between our persons and our collective sustainability within our environments. She manifests some realizations that are impossible to ignore, my favourite of which is this: empowering women (i.e. recognizing women’s rights as human rights) is good for everybody– is good for Earth. (I’m tempted to plot-spoil on this, because it’s such a fantastic point, but because the entirety of Goldberg’s research gradually unfolds this point, I won’t ruin the pleasure of discovering her profound conclusion– you will just have to read it for yourself!)

The struggle between the religious right and more secular liberals is one that overwhelms much of this book (indeed, I think at the loss of including other perspectives on women’s rights, including environmentalists’ thoughts on the matter). As they are the major shapers of rights and policies which directly impact people’s lives, it makes sense that she makes this conflict a central focus. In that sense, we get to see the very irritating, very hypocritical ideology of the religious right at work in international politics: their arguments against women’s reproductive rights often assert that the liberalists’ agenda is merely neocolonialism in disguise, motivated purely by the desire to control the “under-developed” world. They frequently voice their concerns that liberal international (human rights) policies disrespect and undermine a culture’s autonomy– which certainly looks like imperialism. What those same religious bodies never admit is that their colonialism has been attempting to alter and “purify” cultures for millennia (Christian missionaries, Islamic jihad, say what?). Is their denial of the neocolonialism within their own agenda willful ignorance, or do they simply define “culture” and “colonialism” in ways that best suit their own (patriarchal) interests?

Going all with this, something that makes The Means very difficult to digest is that Goldberg pulls no punches when analyzing all sides of an argument. That means we have to hear some hurtful, angering, at times shocking “logic” from some truly misogynist, racist, or nationalistic individuals and organizations. Whether you believe in hearing all sides of a debate because you believe in critical thinking or simply because you want to “know thy enemy”, this aspect of the book often clouds impartiality as it strikes powerful emotional nerves (not Goldberg’s fault, but the partiality of the reader). Take, for instance, the Uganda parliamentary representative who wanted to deny a spouse’s right to not have sex: “Refusing to have sex is the most violent thing a spouse can do” (p. 10). I still haven’t wrapped my head around that one. Or the fact that the world still takes seriously people like Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who supports spousal abuse and execution of sodomites, though as to the former, “men should beat their wives lightly, and only as a last resort” (p.164). Or take the blatant 1970s sexism of American employers: “You’ll just work with us for a year or two and then you’ll go and have babies” (p. 69)– for, as we all know, maternity and careers are mutually exclusive. Or, in examination of women’s rights in northern India, “To be frank, [a woman] is never consulted whether she will go to bed with [a] man. So there is no freedom of decision” (p. 191). The Means is full of perspectives that are difficult to digest, but they also give a pluralistic view of how humanity sees women– the “point” of women, especially.

That “purpose”, actually, does lend hope in the end. This aspect of Goldberg’s work is neatly summed in this, one of my favourite quotes: “Such religious rivalries, however, masked an equally important polarization, both inside of countries and among them, between secular, liberalizing cultures and traditional, patriarchal ones. One saw women as ends in themselves, human beings with dignity and autonomy. The other treated them as the means of group cohesion and identity whose primary value lay in their relation to men” (p. 169).

A hard-to-swallow issue that, unsurprisingly, surfaces constantly in this book is female participation in and acceptance and perpetuation of hierarchy in general and Patriarchy in specific. Whether it manifests as promotion of female genital cutting (or, as some prefer to call it, female genital mutilation) as initiation into matriarchy (which is only endowed with authority through its position in the larger system of Patriarchy), or the devaluation of female life as seen in many Hindu women’s choices to terminate female pregnancy (sex selective abortion). Why is it necessary to cut off one’s clitoris (or more) in order to gain respect and a measure of autonomy? Why should one accept condemnation because one cannot “produce” a son (which, it is the sperm, by the way, that determines “sex”)? But more generally, why do we acknowledge and abide by the authority of these automatons when they directly violate our rights as individuals? As individuals we function inside of a larger collective, that which most people label as “our culture”, but why does that equate to the forfeit of personal agency? Why should we not actively, consciously seek to transform culture in ways that reflect on, examine, recognize, promote, and celebrate human rights– holistically and collectively?

For me, this book comes down to two things, which are intrinsically connected: the dismantlement of hierarchy, and the prioritizing of human rights over culture. What is manifest again and again in The Means is that hierarchy hurts the vast majority of the world’s people, whether it comes in the form of Patriarchy, the caste system, or capitalist economic dominance (and truly they are all very much interconnected), true fulfillment of human rights is simply impossible within a hierarchical context (unless, of course, one rejects equality as a fundamental, indeed prerequisite, element of human rights).

The dawning realization is that “culture and tradition is not a monolith” (p. 195); culture, as anthropologists have long droned, is dynamic. It is forever changing, evolving moment to moment, sometimes subtly, sometimes drastically, at times subconsciously and at other times with human imperatives hugely present. This issue, in my opinion, is one that has been growing more and more salient on the world stage. Maybe the major question every human individual needs to decide is “when culture and human rights collide, which should prevail, and who gets to decide?” (p.104). Traditionalists often cite identity, autonomy, and sheer reverence as reasons for the reactionary approach to culture, but to do so is to maintain harmful systems of hierarchy. That is one reason why I so appreciate the perspective of Agnes Pareyio, whom Goldberg interviews at length: “[Pareyio] wants Masai culture to change to embrace strong, educated girls” (p. 147). Pareyio’s ideas can and should be debated by individuals and groups of people, and globalization has made this somewhat unavoidable anyhow. This is an idea which the themes in Goldberg’s book foreground not only through her analysis of worldwide trends, but also through the relation of individuals’ experiences. It is time for humanity to move out of the age of the Cultural Mandate, and for each of us as individuals to engage in the study, shaping, and reshaping of culture, beginning with a collective redefining of cultural values.

BC Infographix!

For your viewing-pleasure, birth control infographics.

Emergency Sex (a guest review)

The following is a guest post from Ellen Ripley of photography fame which reviews the Cambodia-related sections of Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth.

I was excited to see a book on Amazon about the shortcomings of development in Cambodia as told through the personal experiences of developers, only to be sorely disappointed by what I will refer to as U.N propaganda. This book has sections on countries besides Cambodia, but this review will focus solely on the accounts of the authors on their U.N work for Cambodia’s 1993 national elections.

This book starts out similar to a lot of stories: a bunch of 20-somethings trying to find their place after college or to start some kind of career where it seems like they’re stuck beating their heads against the wall. Anyway, with limited opportunities and intimate struggles, each of the people in this book apply to work for the U.N and end up in Cambodia.

Firstly, the way the authors immediately jump into what is missing in Cambodia bothers me; perhaps because of what’s missing they quickly seek to stay at the “IT” house in the capital of Phnom Penh. Why is it considered the “it” house, you’re wondering? Because that’s where all the cool expats and U.N workers party. Why does this mentality annoy me? Simple: they were put in this country to help the people but each one of them actually seeks out the chance to disassociate themselves from Cambodian people. I still see this today among NGO and U.N workers; it makes it hard to believe that they are here to help others and not themselves.

The other interesting thing about this “it” house is they are so proud of the “diversity” of its residents: people from many different backgrounds and ethnicities, etc. But guess what is strangely missing from the mix (which wouldn’t be hard to find): a Cambodian. This book clearly makes Cambodians into the outsiders, the Other.

I should specify that one author is different in this regards. Andrew, who built himself a house and lives on the outskirts of the city, has been here since war ceased as a doctor. He’s the only one who has attempted to pick up the language and has an interest in working to help this country.

Before I embark on the chapters of this book and how little I actually learned (other than that the world of development work has not changed) I will talk about the shortcomings of the U.N program for the election in Cambodia.

From the outset, this mission did not begin out of the goodness of the U.N’s heart. It did not want to spend $2 billion on making Cambodia into a democracy. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the declaration that the Cold War was over came the idea of a New World Order and how through this globalized society we will all be free, blah blah. Naturally, all the big wigs sat around and came up with their great plan to prove to the world how things were going to be different, but in order to do that they needed to pick a puppet to demonstrate that possibility. If they could make Cambodia into a democracy, they could help any country make the switch, right? Obviously, because becoming a democratic state is like some sort of math problem wherein there is a set formula. Never mind that Cambodia had just come out of a genocide where the ruling government had led that genocide and now they were supposed to count on said government to help Cambodians– that’s sort of an issue in itself. Then to not remotely understand how the previous dictator Pol Pot enforced lessons on the “right idea” behind politics though education…It may come as a big shock to you, but guess how the U.N went about teaching the Cambodian people about democracy? Through education at wats and schools, without a hint of irony.

Needless to say, the Cambodian people were greatly changed by the genocide, during which time they were forced to agree with whatever they were taught or else it would equal death.

Never the less, when the U.N went on with their education plan, they could not figure out why the people always agreed with whatever they said (e.g. yes, they felt safe voting in the new elections) but then UN workers would find out through the grapevine that people actually didn’t trust the elections. In fact, some people believed satellites could watch them voting and thus the government would get even with them. Maybe this all seems extremely far-fetched to you or me, but to a person who has seen crazier things (and not to mention had a king who was always telling them that the CIA had been watching him and wanted to overthrow him) it’s pretty plausible. Let’s be honest, none of us know what Nixon did to level the war in Vietnam, anyway.

Next was the hiring of all these peacekeepers and UN workers who I’d have thought, to be given a mission like creating a new democracy, would have be pretty well-qualified right? Yeah, not the case. The main people in this book prove this by showing just how easy it was for them to sign up. Yet it gets worse than some lost souls in their 20s– to putting downright criminals in charge. Apparently once the Wall fell down, Bulgaria desperately needed U.N assistance. Nothing is free, of course, so in exchange they were supposed to give the UN some “peacekeepers”. The Bulgarians instead made their own version of the deal with their own people, which resulted in Bulgaria giving the UN people who were criminals or insane. If said “peacekeepers” served the UN well then they would be given a free pass when they got back. This was well-known by everyone at the time. It’s an ongoing joke in Cambodia that the only thing the UN gave this country was AIDs; these criminals were known for rape, buying prostitutes, etc. Shocker, I know, yet these people also had the peace and safety of Cambodia in their hands as well. So what about the 20-something UN workers?

Heidi, the sole female perspective in the book, is from New York, and starts off with how crappy her life is: being poor and not pretty enough. At first I found her relatable, which it is always egotistical of a reader to think that they could be that person, but hey, I’ll admit it, I did. With her experience in social work and understanding what it feels like to be hard-pressed for money, one would think she would understand how a Cambodian would feel and better relate to them. That’s not the case, however; she lets her new salary and the low cost of living in Cambodia go to her head and soon she becomes like the person she once worshipped walking down Madison Ave. She does not even try to make herself an equal in Cambodia; she talks about her trip to Kampong Salm, the beach, how she was able to order everything on the menu, and how the Khmer women came out to serve her friends and herself with out thinking about how that whole situation looked or how the Khmer women felt. She participates in this hierarchy which she helps to create, and in the process makes the people she’s there to help her slaves. As far as any insight on Cambodia, it’s all blocked out by her worrying constantly what people think of her and whether or not she is good enough to be around these lawyers and other UN workers. She views the UN system and its people as ideal; she does not once talk about the system in another way, as one might hope when talking about a “true story of hell on earth”. Instead she talks about her own personal growth, and worse yet views all their efforts as successful– meaning Cambodia’s elections were successful and now has a functioning democracy. This book was published in 2003, so there is no excuse: we’ve seen the results of the UN’s efforts to create a “democracy” here.

The reason I can’t finish this book is the blatant lie that the elections were a success. Back in ’93 people did die; there was political outrage in the streets because the winner was being denied the right to rule. Hun Sen, Cambodia’s ruler at the time, would not step down. Instead there had to be an agreement on shared power between him and the fairly-elected leader. To me that’s a fail. So now thanks to this book I do understand something about why Hun Sen will never be thrown out of power– to do so would show the world that nothing has actually changed since the end of the Cold War, and how the UN failed so they just let their pseudo-democratic system stay put rather than actually fixing it.

Another UN worker in the book was Ken, the misogynist asshole. Why he got under my skin with his sexist undertones is simple: he went to a poor country only prove his masculinity and to prove to the world that he is different from what he refers to as a polka-dot-tied lawyer. He objectifies women and flaunts his masculinity throughout most of the book. When he first gets to the party house, he has to go over the physical appearance of Chloe, the house owner. He is taken by her quick disinterest in him. After all, who would not be taken with him? It’s difficult to handle his type of personality in the sense that here is this guy who is hired to promote world peace and democracy but does not even see how his ideas behind what makes him awesome as a man and all females should recognize this does just the opposite of promoting peace and equality. Some excerpts from the book of things he talks about: someone living in the “it” house has a friend who dies, and he is crying. Ken’s reaction to this is to promise himself he will never cry like that because it isn’t masculine. In another instance, Andrew is someone all of them look up to as he has his shit together and does not put up with the corruption and things most people put up with, so in this regard Ken views him as an ideal and wants to impress him that he is just as good. So to gain some bro power he signs up to go out into the provinces, where upon he comes into contact with those pesky Belgian criminals– I mean, UN peacekeepers– who put him in danger and later that night they get ambushed by the Khmer Rouge guerrillas that are still living in the countryside. Needless to say he does not handle this in the masculine way he thought he would and ends up at some UN building for protection. This might explain why he never talks his masculine dominance again, because in fact he had to come to terms with his lack of dominance.

Now let’s move up to the roof of one of these famous parties where Ken has now decided he thinks Heidi is not what he had taken her for at first glance, but describes her as having “big green eyes with short hair, but not butchy-short, still feminine”. Just then he sees Andrew and wants to talk to him, but “Andrew would never take [him] seriously if [he] was seen standing next to Heidi.” Interestingly, Andrew only approaches them because he wants to talk to Heidi, not Ken. Nevertheless, because Ken has let her know what he thinks of her, Heidi seems to feel that Andrew wouldn’t want to associate with the likes of her, since she is of “below-average intelligence.”

On election day, Ken sees a 7 year old girl holding a naked baby, which prompts him to talk about how he wants a kid– but not just any kid, but one that holds a naked baby and never complains about it. He likes the fact he sees this poor 7 year old girl in a submissive role, being taught by society to keep quiet, and he, himself, yearns to have a submissive female of his own.

After the election, he proudly states for the reader that 90 percent of Cambodians voted, but of course doesn’t say how meaningless this is in the face of a leader who refuses to give up power. He leaves us with this advice that he feels he gained for the good Dr. Andrew: “The larger the threat, the more profound the doubts, the deeper you have to dig for faith and CONQUER fear”. Most of his words throughout the book are similar; it’s all about beating and defeating, and little talk is ever focused on the human involvement aspect. It makes me sad to think that he went on a did more “humanitarian work”, and gets to be somebody who is “solving” world problems and fighting for justice and equality. He also never admits that this hell on earth was really a rich paradise for him, and does not seem to see the issues with the job he was doing. Rather, he is bold enough to brag about the supposed success of a truly failed election.

Review by Ellen Ripley.