The power of sex...or the right to it?

Sex strikes aren't exactly new. Greek comedic playwright Aristophanes wrote Lysistrata, a play about women withholding sex on a mission to end the Peloponnesian War and to make their husbands argue for peace. A recent Boston Globe article reports that Brookline’s Patricia Connors has a very ambitious idea to end the war in Afghanistan through a sex strike - a notion that is currently lacking support.

Women stop having sex so that men will stop fighting wars. And, unusually, sex strikes are proposed all the time - whether or not there is any follow through is an entirely different story. The article gives a few examples, citing places like Kenya and Colombia (where women stopped having sex to get the government to pave a road connecting them to the city) as a few locations where this has happened. Another great example is Belgium.

Now, relating this back to the Reader, we've been talking about the right to sex, age of consent laws and the generation gap between Michael and Hanna. What right does Hanna have to sex, does Michael have to sex, and do the men fighting for their nation have to sex? A movement purely designed to stop a war through withholding sex highlights the societal value of sex, not only to men, but also to women.

Age of consent laws can, arguably, be put in place to protect innocence and inhibit bad decision making. But, in cases with Michael and Hanna, one can argue that Michael was mature enough to make his own choice and pursue his right to have sex with whoever he wants. What place does the government have in regulating sex? Or, even more interestingly, how can sex - more specifically, a sex strike - affect a government or militia, and its actions? These women are exercising their right to have sex by not having it, hoping it'll change the world - or at least end a war.

Celebrating Bar Mitzvah, 70 years late

A rite usually celebrated by 13 year old boys in the Jewish culture was recently celebrated by 83 year old Sol Laufer.

In 1941, Nazis brought him and his family into a ghetto called Krenau. Instead of celebrating a regular Jewish rite important to his culture, Laufer experienced life in a concentration camp until the Soviet's liberated his camp in 1945. Eventually, Laufer came to America where he is a successful engineer and where he can celebrate his religion, finally.

Eventually, Laufer got to experience his bar mitzvah, even if it took him seventy years. And, in America he regained the religious freedom he lost when he was a child.

Essentially, the Nazi regime took away Laufer's right to practice his religion. What rights did the citizens of Germany and surrounding nations have before the Nazis took them away? And does a political party have the right to interfere with the religion of their citizens? Likewise, some countries have/had universal religions, unlike America. Is enforcing a strict dogma a restriction of rights?

Relating this back to The Reader, it can be argued that Hanna's rights - maybe not religious rights, but rights nonetheless - were also inhibited by the Holocaust. Because she is illiterate, and because she obviously needed a job to support herself, working as a guard may have been the best option for her. And working as a guard, having no other viable options, can be a restriction of her rights to choose what/who she wants to be, even as an uneducated German woman.

Background Information on the Reader

Taking a brief intermission from human rights based articles to introduce Schlink.

If you're at all interested in putting a face to the words of Bernhard Schlink, here is a really brief video of him that includes some praise for his novel and the answer to few questions people have about The Reader.

Also, The Reader was picked up by Oprah's book club, and she has a ton of info on Schlink, the book, and the making of the movie/screenplay up on her website. Available here!

A little introduction to Schlink: born in 1944, in Germany. Successful lawyer and novelist of both nonfiction and fiction - including mystery novels. Also, he's a big fan of 19th century lit.

Denying the Holocaust

My friends father works for a company that is involved in making head phones (I forget what company) but I remember her telling me that when their branch wanted old models of the head phones used during the war, their German branch completely denied that the war ever existed and said that such head phones were not available...

Many people still deny that the Holocaust occurred. For the first site, scroll down to the part that denies the activities in Auschwitz. This site is more factual, proving that the Holocaust did exist. But I did find another site that is highly offensive. I cannot stand how it addresses Jews in such a degrading tone and it gives tons of reasons trying to rationalize that the Holocaust didn't happen. To us, it's absurd. But if you want to see what the rationalization could possibly be in the mind of an ignorant racist, then take a look.

An Interesting Troy Davis Factoid

I know we've moved past Frankenstein and on to The Reader but in light of Troy Davis, I saw this picture floating around the internet and I thought I should share it with you guys. Looking for more information about Crowe, I found this 2008 article explaining that although he confessed to a brutal murder, Crowe was reprieved of the death penalty and instead given a life sentence. Crowe confessed to this murder and plead guilty. It just made me extremely angry to read about this case versus Troy Davis, and I wanted to share.

Child Brides

The "Age of Consent" post got me thinking about how arranged marriages for young girls are culturally acceptable in some societies. I wanted to know how this must affect their development and mental health. So I found these statistics:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/341/facts.html

Michael vs. Lolita

For those of you unfamiliar with the reference, Lolita is a main character in Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov's controversial novel, Lolita. Similar to our protagonist (Michael Berg) in The Reader, Lolita is sexually involved with a middle-aged man at the tender age of 12.

While your disgust at the situation sinks in, try to recall whether or not Michael's relationship with Hanna produced the same reaction. Given, the age difference is probably more shocking with Lolita, but it is still common for people to feel more anger and repulsion when the victim of such a situation is a female. This is probably due to society's idea of masculinity - boys of Michael's age are expected to be tougher, to be controlled by raging hormones, to want sex. Meanwhile, a girl of the same age is seen as someone to protect, because she is delicate, naive, and pure.

What of the adults in the relationship? Is Lolita's lover more immoral because he is a man, while Hanna is a lonely woman?

Whatever your opinion, go ahead and see what the rest of the world thinks of age and sex with regards to sexual consent. Are there any specific countries that stand out to you? What do you think of their reasons for their laws in the "Notes" section?

nazi dad murdered.... by his 10 year old son

This may be one of the most shocking and most controversial stories that i have ever heard in literally my entire life. Watch and read and be amazed Why Did 10-Year-Old Boy Murder Jeff Hall, His Neo-Nazi Dad?

Age of Consent and Legal Age of Marriage

Above you can see the age of consent laws, which vary widely from country to country--dark blue is very young, green is 16, yellow is getting golder, and red is 21.

As I mentioned in class, legal age of marriage laws are different and often younger than age of consent laws. In the United States, age of marriage without parental consent is usually 18, but is often lower with parental consent. I was surprised to see that in good old Massachusetts, with parental consent, males can marry at the age of 14 and females at the age of 12. (I'm not 100% sure that all of this data is entirely accurate, by the way--it seems to me that they give slightly different numbers for some of the states.) It is very interesting that the age of marriage varies by sex. I would be surprised if that would hold up to a court challenge in the United States.

Firsthand Experience of the Death Penalty

"Having witnessed executions firsthand, I have no doubts: capital punishment is a very scripted and rehearsed murder. It’s the most premeditated murder possible."

A former commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections shares his experience with executions, and his opinions on the death penalty.

Allen Ault, now the Dean of the College of Justice and Safety at Eastern Kentucky University, oversaw five executions during his time as commissioner. Though convinced of the guilt of everyone executed under his watch, he believes that the death penalty is not only an ineffective deterrent against crime, but also an inhumane act that takes a great toll not just on the one being executed, but also on the public servants carrying out the execution.

Concerning the recent and questionable execution of Troy Davis, perhaps we need to rethink the death penalty in this country. Ault even mentions the execution as he and five other death-row wardens wrote a letter to commute his sentence. In his words,

"I feared not only the risk of Georgia killing an innocent man, but also the psychological toll it would exact on the prison workers who performed his execution."

Thoughts or comments? I personally agree with Ault that even if the person being executed is guilty, the cost is too great on everyone involved. The reason we consider murder a crime is because we do not think anyone has the right to decide who lives and who dies. So why is it different when the state does the killing?

Bubble Boy

I just stumbled across a photo gallery depicting images of "the boy in the bubble," David Vetter. In the 70s, there was a lot of media attention on David, who was born with an immune system deficiency disease that made it impossible for his body to handle germs. Not wanting to lose their son, his parents opted to keep him in a plastic sterile environment.

David became a science experiment of sorts. No one was sure of the effects of long-term confinement, and doctors were able to study his germ-free blood. NASA actually made him a suit so that he could venture into the outside world, but David is reported to have been extremely terrified that germs would breach his protective suit.

David passed away at age 12 after he received a contaminated blood marrow transfusion that ended up creating hundreds of cancerous tumors all over his body.

David is somewhat similar to Frankenstein's creature. They were both isolated from society, forced to make do with their unhappy existences. They could both watch the outside world and long to join the people they saw, but were powerless to fully integrate themselves. And then of course there is the question of whether or not it was ethical to keep David in such conditions, and how far science should go. To quote the end of the 2nd linked article, "In our rush to prolong life, are we creating states so unnatural that they beg the question of what it means to be human?"

Religious Freedom or Safety Hazard?

I thought this article in the Courier-Journal, a newspaper from Kentucky, would be pretty fitting after our discussion yesterday. To sum it up, nine Amish men in Kentucky were arrested for not putting orange safety warning signs on their buggies. They refused because their religion forbids them from wearing bright colors, or using the triangular shape of the signs. They attempted to compromise using gray reflective tape, but were arrested anyway.

The first amendment says we have the right to freedom of religion, but what if the practices of your religion come into conflict with the law? These men want to use reflective tape and lanterns instead of the signs, but the state has told them they will still be a safety hazard during daytime. What do you guys think? Are their beliefs really endangering other citizens, and if so, should they still have the right to those practices?

Killing Troy Davis

An excellent editorial on the execution from the Nation. Puts into question the ability of the legal system to ever impose the death penalty.

Troy Davis Will Be Executed

His last appeal has failed.

Troy Davis and the Danger of Convicting the Innocent

In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, we have several instances of miscarriages of justice, or near-miscarriages. Justine is put to death for murdering William, on the basis of incriminating evidence that Victor Frankenstein and the readers know to be false. Later, Victor is almost convicted of murdering his friend Henri Clerval, again because the evidence is misleading.
Here in the US, Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed this month. He has been convicted of a murder that took place in 1991, but in the meantime 7 of the 9 witnesses have recanted or significantly changed their story. There is significant doubt about his guilt. Forbes Magazine, not really a radical leftwing publication, talks about the "innocence of Troy Davis."

Child Abuse, the Vatican, and Human Rights

Not super directly related to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but interesting in terms of how modern human rights law. According to this article in The New York Times, several organizations are suing Pope Benedict XVI and other top officials at the Vatican in the International Criminal Court, where war crimes and human rights violations are prosecuted. The charge is that the Vatican has not done enough to protect children against child abuse and instead has protected perpetrators of child abuse.
As you recall, we've been talking about how in a human rights framework, governments have an obligation to protect the rights of individuals. So it is particularly serious if a government fails to protect the rights of individuals.
Arguably, the Vatican is a government in two senses. First, it is definitely an independent city-state, with its own money and stamps. (Yes, stamps are actually an issue in nationhood!) Secondly, more controvesially, the Vatican represents the Holy See, which is the "nation" of Roman Catholics throughout the world. The Holy See has a permanent observer mission at the United Nations. It's the only religious organization that has that status.
 The Vatican has been a signatory to many human rights treaties and conventions, including several on the human rights of children. As such, it is obligated to protect and ensure these rights. These are the terms under which the suit at the Hague is being brought.

Human Rights and Abortion

This article reports on how the Bush administration supported Nicaragua's 2006 decision to eliminate all exceptions on its abortion ban. So, previously abortions were basically illegal, but there were exceptions in the case of rape, or if three doctors agreed that a woman's life was in danger. I thought it was interesting, in light of our discussions about human rights, that the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights has called on Nicaragua to permit "therapeutic" abortions.

Gene Therapy: a new alternative to sex reassignment surgery

Ignoring the fact that this article tends to use the words "gender" and "sex" interchangeably, it does a good job in explaining recent research that may lead to alternatives for people seeking a sex change.

Essentially, the article explains that the genes that make us male or female work like light switches; if the female switch is on, the male switch is off. Tests done on lab mice have shown that if you turn the female switch off in a female mouse, the mouse's ovaries will actually begin to develop into testes and vice versa.

Though this "technology" is still a long ways away from being able to help transgendered people get a sex change without any hormone therapy pills or invasive surgeries, it's still a step in the right direction.

This article can be tied into the whole "designer baby" discussion from Margaret's thread. But, unlike the designer babies, this kind of scientific progress would be able to benefit people who have already been born and who are capable of making the choice themselves. (Although, in radical cases I could see how this technology could be misused... parents who have have a baby and then decide post-birth that they'd like to switch the sex, etc.) What do you guys think? Is this kind of research worthwhile and should people have the right to choose to alter their biology?

One website in particular that I found that argues against this kind of genetic alteration happens to be a religiously affiliated website. It can be found here and basically argues that "One cannot help wonder what apocalyptic horrors transgenic could unleash, but there is no doubt that for humanists, this is evolution in reverse and a violation of nature. For those who subscribe to the science of catastrophe, it's Jurassic Park. For believers in God it is an assault on His creative genius."

I definitely don't agree with that website's analysis of the issue, but it's a point that relates back to Frankenstein in that Victor is essentially altering genes at a lesser level; he's reanimating body parts and "playing God." And what if Victor's horror at what he's done runs much deeper than just "the creature is just so hideous?" That is to say, is Victor being punished for what he's done? The novel's alternate title is "The Modern Prometheus"; Prometheus was punished by the God he stole from... is Victor also being punished by a being? (This semi-official Mary Shelley website has some good information on Prometheus)

SNL Parody...yes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI_zHGLRWXo

Hope you all enjoy!

Cloning & Frankenstein

Within the novel, Victor is the first person in the world to successfully create life. As his story progresses, we become increasingly aware of Victor's horror at the creature's appearance and his fear of being exposed as a "madman." Victor's main fear seems to be that the monster will wreak havoc upon a society of innocent people; but what about the scientific implications of his creation? Obviously, the fact that Victor discovered a way to reanimate the dead is a HUGE contribution to science. If he were to share his findings, he'd be able to influence an entire area of scientific study.

This point leads me to the modern debate over whether or not cloning is morally acceptable. Scientists made a ton of progress when they were able to successfully clone a mammal, Dolly the Sheep. While this website explains cloning and claims that as of right now it is not possible to successfully clone a bonafide human being, it may very well be possible a few decades from now.

What do you guys think? Do scientists have the right to the pursuit of knowledge, no matter what that knowledge may be? Would cloned human beings still be considered "human"? Should the Universal Human Rights apply to someone who is a clone?

Designer Babies: The Modern Prometheus?

One thing that's always fascinated me about Frankenstein's monster is the way Victor created him with the intention of beauty and surpassing perfection. However, the end result was something ghastly. I can't help but think of the ability to design exactly what your offspring will look like, with the modern day concept of "Designer Babies."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2011/04/one-step-closer-to-designer-babies/

The first article provided is much older, but it introduces the concept of genetic modifications to embryos before they begin to develop, in order to create exactly the effect parents want. Although initially, said modifications were limited to adjusting gender, this article speculates that "within two decades" there could be ways to adjust height, hair and eye color, body type, personality - anything a parent could want to choose about their child.

The second article, much more recently posted, explains developments in "noninvasive" prenatal testing. This new, safer, and easier way of testing the mother's blood at 5 weeks is under development and being tested for commercial use.

Currently, they are only releasing it to test for certain disabilities, such as Down syndrome. The article is quick to point out that no testing is foolproof (yet), because statistics can be misleading. Parents could decide to terminate a pregnancy because of a disability their child could develop. (Tie in to the abortion posts from earlier.)

All of this information aside, these two articles and the idea of Designer Babies (think Brave New World) can be a little scary, and it leads me to two different trains of thought, one relating to Frankenstein and one relating to our modern world.

Victor essentially creates his own Designer Baby when he builds his creature. Is that moral? Is it wrong to choose what you think is the most attractive quality to put in your child? Should parents be able to choose that for their children? And should Victor be able to take action now that the choices he made did not turn out the way he wanted them to? Likewise, if a parent uses genetic modification to create their "perfect child" and something goes wrong, can they hold it against the child, or do anything to change that? Does it deny a fetus (designation of "human" is based on your personal beliefs) any basic human rights to their own DNA if a parent wants to define their standard of beauty, either inward or outward, and then apply it to that fetus, or is it the right of the parent to make that decision? Is this just a step into the future, and a way to use technology?

The creation of a human without humans..... human cloning

Frankenstein went against nature and created the monster. Human cloning is a pressing issue today. People are afraid of diving into the unknown. What do you think would happen if human cloning were aloud?Human Cloning | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity

Human Rights and September 11

In case all of our abortion posts have not been enough to get your attention, what human rights issues do you think have arisen from September 11?

And are there any connections to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein?  You might want to think about the tumultuous times in which Frankenstein was written. The French Revolution produced something called The Terror, which resulted in some of the first discussions of "terrorism" as a political concept.

hyperlink that went with previous comment

Politically, judicially, no more pressing issue than abortion


June 30, 2011
IN HIS June 27 letter “To win his vote, GOP must get politics out of personal rights,’’ Gerald Evans writes, “Why does the abortion debate have to be a political or judicial issue? What happened to an individual’s right to privacy?’’




Tweet Be the first to Tweet this! .
ShareThis .


Abortion is a debate over human rights, namely the right to life, and like all human-rights debates before it, such as slavery and civil rights, it is playing out in the political and judicial realms.


Nearly 60 million human lives have been terminated in abortion clinics in the United States since abortion was legalized in 1973. You can’t expect people of conscience to be silent or ignore such an immense human tragedy.


What happened to an individual’s right to life? Evans enjoys the right to life. Why does he seek to deny that right to future generations?


Evans also writes, “It’s time to get moving on the serious issues facing us.’’


It’s hard to imagine a more serious issue than the deliberate termination of an innocent human life.


Donald Lyman Jr.
Wilmington

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

Abortion as a human right, Victors right to abort the monster....

The pressing issue relates with Frankenstein because it comes into the question of life and who has the right to control, create and destroy a life. Victor created the monster and didn't want anything to do with it after it was complete. Could victor have been able to abort his creation like people. Under which human right does abortion fall under?

health care... is it a privilege or a right?

In many countries national health care is a reality but in the U.S.A. many people have to wake up every morning and live without health care. In the recent unpleasantness of the economic downturn many people lost their jobs and were left without health care. No Job, No Insurance, No Health Care - NYTimes.com

Intolerance in Iran

Iranian government is imposing upon citizens' rights. What do we do/how can we help?

Vote on a Human Rights Logo!

There's an initiative to create a logo for human rights. Here's a video on it. And here's where you can vote. What do you think of the whole idea?

Humanitarian aid for rape victims

This article Humanitarian Aid for Rape Victims - NYTimes.com is interesting because it gets into some very controversial subject matter including abortion and the war tactic of rape. Some believe that abortion should be prohibited even if the woman was raped. They are looking at the potential life instead of valuing the life that is already present.

"Peacekeepers" Sex Scandal

Here, UN officials talk of firing a police officer who has brought their sexual abuse of women to light. A UN member claims, "Those girls are whores of war...It happens; I will not dictate for morality." It seems as though the sexual crimes committed have been swept under the rug, justified with candy or small amounts of money, or are poorly investigated. Interesting that peacekeepers are accused of sexually exploiting the very people they're supposed to be protecting... Although the crimes have allegedly decreased, they are still occurring and many remain unresolved. Is this really an effect of war? Is this more common than we may like to think?

Harsh Drug Addiction Treatment in Russia

I thought it was interesting that Human Rights Watch was the main source of information for this New York Times story on harsh system for treating drug addicts in Russia.

Sex Registration Laws

Several new studies have come out questioning the effectiveness of sex offender registrations. As you know, most states and municipalities now have strict laws requiring sex offenders to register. This information is publicly available. (Here is where you would begin to search for registered sex offenders in your neighborhood in Massachusetts.) Many people argue that these sex offender registration laws violate a number of the human rights of the sex offenders. Other argue that these laws protect the human rights of potential victims of sex offenders.

Sex Work in Germany

Sex work brings up a lot of human rights issues. Is the buying and selling of sex in and of itself a violation of human rights? What about the human rights of sex workers? Many of these issues come up in this story about a new tax on street walkers in Germany. The city of Bonn has installed a parking meter of sorts, which sex workers who work on the street can now use to pay their taxes. The idea is that sex workers who work out of brothels are already paying taxes, so the streetwalkers should also pay taxes. Prostitution is legal in Germany--and the city of Bonn provides a great many services to the sex workers. It pays for a security firm to watch out for the neighborhood and has even built "special wooden garages nearby where customers can park their cars and have sex." How would you begin to think of this issue in terms of rights?

US Medical Experiments on Guatamalan Peasants in the 1940s

Here is a really horrific story about American medical experiments on Guatemalan prisoners, soldiers and mental patients in the 1940s. From 1946 to 1948, the United States government "paid for syphilis-infected Guatemalan prostitutes to have sex with prisoners. When some of the men failed to become infected through sex, the bacteria were poured into scrapes made on the penises or faces, or even injected by spinal puncture." The details are gruesome, and what is particularly upsetting about this is that it is taking place as the Nuremberg trials are getting underway. So at the very same time as the United States is decrying the crimes of Nazi physicians, the United States government was itself sponsoring medical research that was clearly in violation of human rights standards.