politicalmisery

[politicalmisery]

Healthcare Policy Reformation

Health care policy should more closely resemble the polis than the market as issues surrounding and involving healthcare are abstract and not simply black and white. The risks of practicing medicine increase as patients become more and more litigious with competition between insurance companies and hospitals and not provider and patient. The market based system discourages providers and encourages malpractice lawsuits. The market causes more harm than it does good with health care policy and healthcare in general. The vast complexity of the healthcare system, and the average Americans knowledge of healthcare policy, protocols and procedures is severely limited which further hinders a market approach with minimal alternatives. Additionally, preventative care is not practiced by the majority of Americans which further erodes the market based approach to healthcare and obliterates competition and innovation. If a base-level of universal health care with the option to individually purchase additional coverage or insurances was provided and a community-based approach was taught, than preventative care may increase and perhaps a market-based approach to health care policy would work in conjunction with the polis. 

Competition in the healthcare market as it currently exists incentivises providers to leave private practice and embrace the protections that are offered by medical conglomerates. This is because competition is limited to competition between insurance companies and hospitals (Peters, 2015). As discussed in American Public Policy, “a higher percentage of American doctors practice in hospitals” than in other countries (Peters, 2015). One of the issues with healthcare policy is that, in the United States, healthcare as understood by most Americans centers around hospital care and hospitalizations. One of the many reasons there are less private practices with general practitioners and more hospitals with internists is because healthcare providers cannot afford the malpractice insurance required to maintain a general practice. As discussed, “the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance” has deterred many healthcare providers from practicing privately (Peters, 2015). Nowadays, in order to incentivize well-qualified providers to work at a certain hospital, the hospital will cover its providers malpractice insurance, legal fees and settlement on top of competitive packages which are not offered, or affordable, with private practice (University of Arizona, 2018). This moves healthcare and healthcare policy out of offices and into hospitals. 

Further, most Americans do not engage in preventative care despite the incentives that health insurance companies offer and that doctors recommend (Palfreman, 2009). Instead, due to a number of issues unrelated to healthcare itself, most Americans wait until they are in need of emergent medical care and will instead go to a hospital or an urgent care for treatment instead of their primary care physician at a private practice. As discussed in Policy Paradox, and as reinforced in the film Sick Across America, most Americans will make medical decisions that are not full-informed, rational or in their own self-interest (Palfreman, 2009) (Stone, 2012). This is due in part to the culture of emergent medical care versus preventative care. As seen specifically in Sick Across America, one man interviewed did not purchase health insurance until he needed it, which was after he had a heart attack (Palfreman, 2009). Prior to the Affordable Care Act, this pre-existing condition would have made it impossible to find affordable health insurance in a private market. This idea that preventative care further enforces that hospital based medicine remains dominant. This combined with the litigious nature of Americans incentivises providers to leave private practice, or the practice of medicine altogether, removing qualified providers who provide quality care from the market. Providers are less likely to embrace experimental approaches to medicine in fear of lawsuits, and hospitals may reject innovative approaches based on liability and impact on profits.

Another obstacle with healthcare policy in a market-based system is that in order for a market-based system to work it requires that the exchange is voluntary and the parties are fully informed. This cannot occur in healthcare within the United States as most individuals rely on their doctor’s healthcare recommendations and defer to their judgment on the subject because medical terminology and medical procedures are foreign to most Americans. As a result, all healthcare decisions and thus, transactions, will affect buyers and sellers adversely.They make healthcare decisions based on emotion or fear instead of rational and reason. This is shown directly in the rise of malpractice suits and the decrease in providers specializing in specific fields because of the high risk of malpractice suits. It is impossible for the doctor to fully inform a patient when different patients react differently to treatments and where the doctor cannot fully inform a patient of what is going to occur because medicine is not that black and white. Information will always be incomplete in the field of health care which further complicates a market-based system and health care policy (Stone, 2012). If there was a base level of healthcare provided  to all, then theoretically everybody would be receiving the quality and standard of care. Those who decided to purchase additional coverage would theoretically encourage patients to do their own independent research on procedures before committing to them instead of relying on providers. 

Finally, competition in the field of health care is vastly different than other fields in the market. As discussed in American Public Policy, “entry into the marketplace by potential suppliers is limited by licensing requirements and further controlled by the professions themselves...unlike some industries, the healthcare field makes it difficult for competition to develop among suppliers…” (p. 295). Making healthcare decisions and choosing certain providers and procedures is not like choosing between two or three different sandwich shops to have lunch at. The decision to have a turkey sandwich or a reuben is quite different than choosing between two neurosurgeons. You may not be able to choose the neurosurgeon of your choices if it is not covered by your insurance company. In the market, the consumer has the ability to make an informed and educated decision on a purchase. When it comes to healthcare decisions, the consumer is likely uneducated on the subject, and is forced to trust the healthcare provider that is chosen by an insurance company. Decision-making is limited in healthcare. It comes down to what the hospitals are willing to provide and what insurance companies are willing to pay for with providers and patients being caught in the crossfire. 

A market-based system seems to increase litigious action which, in turn, drives providers from practicing medicine altogether or to leave private practice. It increases the need to practice “defensive medicine” which drives prices up, encourages health insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and increases premiums, copays and provider costs. If the United States were to utilize a system similar to Canada, basic healthcare needs would be provided to all individuals, and the individual could purchase additional insurances (dental, vision, catastrophic, long-term, etc.) which they could pay for privately, or which may be offered through their employers.. While free-riding cannot be prevented, it would be limited. Implementation of such a program would not halt innovation and experimentation, but would alleviate some of the financial burden that is placed on the government and taxpayers. Finally, with a base level of health insurance provided to all, it may bring down the number of malpractice complaints that are filed as everyone would be provided the same base level of health insurance where they are guaranteed payment, allowing them the luxury of remaining in or going to private practices where preventative are would be promoted, while those providers who specialize in a field would still be paid for their specialty. 

WORKS CITED

Palfreman, J. (Producer). (2009, March 31). Sick Around America [Video file]. Retrieved 

February 16, 2018, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/sickaroundamerica/

Palfreman, J. (Producer). (2008, April 15). Sick Around the World [Video file]. Retrieved 

February 16, 2018, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/sickaroundtheworld/

Peters, B. G. (2015). American Public Policy: Promise and Performance (10th ed.). Washington, 

D.C.: CQ Press.

Salary and Benefits. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2018, from 

http://meded.arizona.edu/prospective-students/salary-and-benefits-0

Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (3rd ed.). New York: 

W.W. Norton & Co.

[politicalmisery]

Book Review of “A Mother’s Reckoning: Living in the Aftermath of Tragedy” by Sue Klebold

I really struggled with justifying the purchase of A Mother’s Reckoning: Living in the Aftermath of Tragedy written by Sue Klebold. This was the first time I have ever questioned if it was ethical for me to purchase a book on Columbine. That being said, I was curious about the “insight” that reviews claimed she had written about as a mother. As a result, it took a few months before I purchased the book. I will be completely honest – I was underwhelmed and disappointed. My sympathy with her son grew and I began to dislike her immensely. There were many times I had to shut my Kindle off and walk away from it because her words had infuriated me. After completing the book, I was convinced that Dylan Klebold could have had a sign around his neck saying, “I am going to shoot up my high school” and his parents would not have noticed. As most, if not all, people know, Susan Klebold is the mother of the infamous Dylan Klebold – one half of the Columbine Shooters. Growing up and going to school after Columbine fundamentally changed safety and security procedures at private and public schools across the United States. While school shootings had taken place before, this particular school shooting was broadcast on live television, which had never occurred before. Also, the Internet, while still fairly new, granted those of us who knew how to use computers and the internet with a barrage of news updates. The Columbine massacre ushered in a new era for those of us who were alive and in school at that time. To this day, Columbine still has a lingering presence in everybody’s life. This event brought an array of topics into discussion. It also promoted more bullying and stereotypes. I was once told that the type of guys I dated were: “Those who would most likely shoot up a school” because of their clothing choices, or the fact that they liked computers, electronics and video games, and because they were sarcastic. So, I was obviously included simply by association. High school sucked, but not enough to actually give much of a damn. Literally, all she had to do was tell him: "It's only high school, it gets better. It's only four years of your life." She literally only had to have a conversation with him - a real conversation. Columbine created an entirely new genre of outcasts. It created an entirely new set of legislation for schools. It fundamentally altered our society. Suffice to say that Columbine altered the lives of those of us who were in school when it occurred. That is why it was huge news that Susan Klebold was publishing a book and was willingly talking to reporters. Was Susan Klebold finally going to give us some insight as to what happened from her perspective? Could she provide some sort of advice to parents? Part of my justification in purchasing the book was that perhaps she could provide parents with clues as to what to look for – warning signs. She did none of this. The best thing she did writing this book was telling us what not to do as parents. The biggest problem is how self-absorbed she is with herself. I was under the impression that this was to be about Dylan but it really wasn’t. It seemed to be Sue Klebold’s autobiography. I learned more about her than anything. Thanks for the pointers on what not to do, as a parent, Mrs. Klebold. First of all, by constantly referring to the Columbine Massacre as a tragedy, she downplays the fact that her son participated in premeditated mass murder where the intent was to kill hundreds of people, not a dozen. Throughout the book, she deflects Dylan’s actions onto mental health, video games, movies, music, bullying, or Eric Harris. She literally pins the majority of the blame on Eric Harris. Eric was the sociopath – Dylan was the depressed one who really just wanted to commit suicide (even though, throughout the entire Massacre, he was in a euphoric state laughing and having the time of his life whereas Eric was subdued). The only time she blames Dylan is when she goes on some tirade about some asinine conversation that Dylan steered her towards to deflect her attention elsewhere. Second, her apologies are not really apologies. She complains that she didn’t receive many responses back from the victim’s families for her apology letters. She states that she understands, but her droning on about these very unimportant things in the scheme of things gives you an idea of what she is preoccupied with, and what kind of person she was before the massacre occurred. Third, she has an insane preoccupation with the image she portrayed and portrays. I mean, she talks about how when her house was basically torn apart by the police and various responding agencies, that she was concerned about what her neighbors would think. She even says that appearances, respect and being accepted has always been important to her. Yet she doesn’t understand why Dylan was insecure and self-conscious? Each time she brings up an event that would scream “red flag” to anybody with half of a brain and two fairly functioning eyeballs, there is a lengthy couple of paragraphs or pages that come before or after during which she attempts to lessen the severity and portray herself in a positive light. Another issue was her blatant political lobbying throughout the book. While she has no problem sharing her severely naïve opinions on gun control and administrative responses to bullying, she glosses over any real discussion about these issues and makes a very poor attempt to advocate for mental health. Despite the fact that her son, and Eric, were severely tormented and bullied at Columbine, she downplays the severity of the bullying as if it is were common. In fact, she states that Dylan was a very sensitive boy and that he basically grow a sack and deal with it. When he would come to her, or his father, they would disregard his feelings as Dylan being Dylan and how he’d get over it because “he’s Dylan!”. As for gun control, it is more or less her opinion on guns and less an educated attempt at prompting or promoting real discussion for gun control reform. In case you wanted to know, her and her husband were very much against guns, and couldn’t believe that their son owned any without them knowing, even though he asked them to purchase one for him the Christmas before Columbine, and despite the fact that subscriptions to gun magazines, addressed to Dylan, were coming to their home. Obviously mental health needs to be discussed – but she failed in this area too! Instead of using her son, or Eric, as her focus – it is entirely about her depression after Dylan’s suicide that she utilizes. We even get the backstory about how she got into mental health advocacy. It is just further proof of her rampant narcissism. Further, her referring to depression as a “brain illness” instead of using the word “depression”, she is still refusing to admit that her son suffered from severe depression. Perhaps it is because, even sixteen years later, she doesn’t want to admit that anything is wrong with her family or her children, due to her preoccupation with how others will view her. Further, citing academic publications and the like is all good and well; however, most of us are very much aware of the statistics and information she is citing. Most parents before, and especially after Columbine, were aware of the warning signs in depression. Her excuse that mental illness was considered taboo in the late nineties, and wasn’t a topic of discussion is fairly ridiculous. She attempts to cover her negligence by blaming society for her failures as a parent. It is almost like: “Look at me! I did all my research to help my son after he had already killed thirteen people and then turned the gun on himself!” Another big issue with this book is the constant shift of blame. I was prepared for her to blame video games, movies and music – even though she states that her and her husband screened everything that Dylan watched, played and listened to. What I did not expect was focusing the blame and piling it on top of Eric Harris. Anybody who has had even a minor curiosity in studying Columbine knows that Eric was pretty much demonized in the media and that he incurred more blame than Dylan to begin with. Also – Dylan murdered people. He may have committed suicide once they were done, but just because he committed suicide doesn’t mean that he’s absolved of what he did. That doesn’t make you a survivor because your son committed suicide. Downplaying what he did is absolutely atrocious. You are the mother of a murderer who happened to commit suicide. Another thing – just because part of your family is Jewish, and that Dylan participated in Passover or a Sabbath when you made him, doesn’t mean he cannot be anti-Semitic. I think my biggest problem with this book was that Sue was doing her damnedest to show the world that she was a good mother and, as such, it isn’t her fault that Dylan turned out to be a mass murderer and she was constantly excusing alarming behavior stating that it was “normal” and “he was a smart kid” that they trusted to “do the right thing”. The honest truth is that they neglected Dylan when he needed his parents most. For the last year of his life, it seems like he was left to take care of himself, only arriving to punish him when he got into trouble. For example, when he hacked the school’s server and got the locker combinations, and then made a list and gave it to Eric, she thought that his suspension of five days was too harsh. She was more concerned with the price of fines than their underlying cause. For the love of Odin, he was driving drunk and received a DUI and was still allowed to drive? If I was 17 and I got a DUI, my parents would have sold my car and made me walk. I think the fact that she never wrote the paper that Dylan had written basically foretelling what was going to happen, is the greatest example of the parental neglect that ran rampant in the Klebold household. What would have been helpful is if she had not glorified the “Sunshine Boy” and described the struggles he had been facing through his time in Columbine. The simple conclusion is that she cannot do so because she was completely oblivious to his depression until the police investigated him after he killed thirteen people with the intention of killing hundreds. Even when she thinks in hindsight, she makes excuses for very blatant signs of depression. This was absolute drivel.

[politicalmisery]

I recently saw this on my Facebook feed whilst scrolling through this week. Unfortunately, what was not included was a link to the academic article where this photo-based infographic was created from. If you want to read my opinion one's ability to trust academic articles, feel free. I’ve included the academic article, which was funded by CHIPRA and ACA. The data was taken from the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health, where N=91,642 (where there are over sixty million children ages 0-17 in the United States. There conclusions were of special importance in the 2009 CHIPRA and ACA legislation.

I have this sickening suspicion that this “new normal” will be blamed on “obesity levels”. So, I decided that instead of disproving each and every single one of these statistics, I’d be brief. Let's face it. Most of you just skim read, and if you see citations or footnotes, you’re not going to bother. I get it. I didn’t realize the importance of footnotes and endnotes until graduate school. Considering only 7% of the country complete graduate school, I know that at least 90% of you want something quick that you can cite, and if there are any questions, they go to the source who has the real citations.

And yes, that is condescending, but since the majority of you are lazy, uneducated morons  - I really don’t care.

Autism, and chronic illnesses are linked not only to genetics, but to environment. Specifically, autism has been linked to environmental stressors beginning in utero. One of those? Pollution. So, if you live in Los Angeles County, prepare for the likelihood that your children will be on the spectrum and shut the fuck up. If you could pull your heads out of your asses long enough to, I don’t know, get involved in your community to bring about change in governmental regulations (that pander to big business, obviously), you might be doing some good for your children.

Obesity.

Blaming genetically modified crops is absolute fucking bullshit. Notice that most people who shit on Monsanto don’t ever cite the academic reports or data that they are pulling out of thin-fucking-air. Everything we consume is genetically modified in some way, shape, or form. And, organic? Do your research. Blaming vaccinations makes me stabby. Especially when reports from over two or three decades ago are cited. Even more so when they link Dr. Sears. How about if you’re going to blame big businesses, you blame those that are dumping hormones into the drinkable water, or pumping toxic shit into the air. It isn’t always Big Pharm.

Considering there are a number of more likely reasons that could be looked into, but which most are too lazy to Google…

[politicalmisery]

Thoughts on Planned Parenthood, Abortions, and Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life

I wasn’t going to even post a personal opinion on this subject because, quite honestly, an abortion is a personal decision that I want nothing to do with. I know women who have had abortions, I’ve seen what that has psychologically done to them, and I see the trauma it has caused them. But, I am also a mother.

I didn’t want to write about this. At all. I didn’t want to think about it, do the research on it, or even make a post about it. It disgusts me. The fact that people are posting memes about it, or joking around about it, disgusts me. Is Planned Parenthood breaking the law? Maybe not. They have found, and admit to using, these loopholes, in order to defend the sale of fetal tissue for research purposes where demand for fetal tissue is diminishing. Does that make it ethical? No. It doesn’t. People have every right to be outraged by Planned Parenthood’s ethics. Just like supporters of Planned Parenthood have every right to be outraged by the tactics used by some Pro-Life organizations.

Planned Parenthood charges, on average, about $800 to perform an abortion. The cost of an abortion elsewhere is typically about $1,500.00, but can go as high as $4,000.00. So, there is a clear profit off of abortions performed, whether it is Planned Parenthood or not. The sale of specimen is just additional profit. Further, the companies who buy the aborted fetal specimen provide the sellers of fetal tissue with a commission of sorts. Thus, fetal tissue is being sold for profit.

Before I became educated on the subject, I was pro-choice. Reproductive rights for all women. The government should not have a say in what I do with my body. Those were the token terms I utilized when abortion was brought up in a discussion. After being enlightened about partial-birth abortions, the way abortions were performed, and educating myself on the development of a fetus, as well as being a mother,I cannot even fathom getting an abortion. The moment I found out I was pregnant with my child, my life was no longer my own. This little life was growing inside of me, and I was not going to do anything to harm the life that Bryan and I created. While my body was being used to grow this life, this fetus that I carried for nine months was an individual. She was not simply a part of my body. Yes, she was a part mine and Bryan’s personhood, and our genetics. But she was an individual human being that would one day be able to live outside of my womb. She was using my body in order to survive until that time.

So what is pro-life? What is pro-choice? When I was delivering Lilith, my instructions to Bryan and my Mom were as follows: If something happens, I want them to save Lilith. I would have sacrificed my life so that my daughter could live. My life. My body. My choice. Is that pro-life or pro-choice?

The clips that are being shared on Facebook, or other social media sites - those might be edited. However, the full videos and the full transcripts can be seen and read. So, stating that these videos had been highly edited and doctored is lazy. Taking the extra two minutes to look at the full footage, or to locate the full transcript goes a long way.

Let us get some things out of the way.

First of all:  Planned Parenthood performs only 3% of the abortions that are performed in the United States every year. So, defunding Planned Parenthood would hurt those men and women who utilize its services more than it would hurt Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has enough private backers that it doesn’t need federal funding in order to survive. Defunding Planned Parenthood won’t stop abortions from taking place.

Second: While some people have the belief that a fetus isn’t a human until it takes its first breath, a fetal heartbeat begins twenty two days after conception. The spine and nervous system, and intestines start to form at week three. At week six, brain activity is detectable. At week eight, the baby can hear. Between week 9 and 10, that baby is making facial expressions and moving around. At week twelve, the baby can feel pain, and self soothes by sucking on its thumb. Between weeks seventeen and twenty, that baby has dreams, and recognizes its mother’s voice. It is also at this time most abortions are performed.  In most states, abortions can be performed up until twenty-four weeks.

Please remember that I am providing you with information that neither side will provide you with. I don’t care what you choose to do with your body. Personally, I don’t agree with the harvesting of fetal tissue. Maybe that’s because I have spent the time to understand fetal development. Maybe it’s because of my own moral background. Perhaps its because I think life begins at conception. These are my personal beliefs. I could care less about what your decision is when it comes down to it. Your decision to get an abortion is between you, your partner, your doctor, and your morality - whether that be God, Cthulhu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But to accuse people of being bigots and morons because they are upset by these Planned Parenthood videos is uneducated. Who gives a shit if the videos were released by pro-lifers? It doesn’t make what is in them any less true.

I think what people are forgetting when it comes to Planned Parenthood’s sale of “fetal tissue” is the fact that the mothers who are choosing abortion, and who are asked if they want to donate the “fetal tissue” for research purposes, are not made aware of the fact that abortion doctors are doing the following to obtain exactly what they want and need for profit purposes:

Pregnant women  are not being made aware of the fact that feticide chemicals are not being used to terminate the pregnancy, which, essentially, causes the baby to have a heart attack and die. Doctors are, instead, terminating live pregnancies, which is illegal.

Typically, when attempting to harvest fetal tissue, especially in women that are terminating their pregnancies in their second trimesters, abortion doctors will deliberately manipulate the fetus so it is in the breech position in order to obtain the most intact fetal body parts as possible. This is not something that women who are terminating their pregnancies are made aware of. They are not made aware of the fact that the fetus is alive, and being crushed and dismembered. Over ninety-percent of women who have had abortions have wanted the fetus dead before the abortion is performed, making the fetal tissue unusable. Planned Parenthood has not been providing women with this information when they bring up the idea of fetal tissue donation.

Pregnancies that are terminated without the use of digoxin are the only types of terminated pregnancies that can utilize fetal tissues. This means that, instead of the fetus being killed by a heart attack, it is instead killed from its skull being crushed by forceps, or some other medical instrument that is being used. To the point where doctors have admitted to utilizing ultrasound video in order to make sure they do not damage body parts they are hoping to harvest. 

The fact that doctors admit to altering abortion procedures to accommodate specific requests for “fetal tissue”, and altering the cost of the fetal tissue to obtain profit from selling it, deliberately attempting to create a legal loophole. What is illegal about this is that it is against federal law to alter abortion procedures to procure fetal tissue. Further, it is illegal to deliver an intact fetus. Finally, it is illegal to sell fetal tissue for profit. This is not something that women who are terminating their pregnancies are made aware of.  Planned Parenthood even admits to this via Melissa Farrell: “We alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget, that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.”

What horrifies most people is the fact that the termination of a life, is being discussed so casually by society. In these videos, doctors are seen choosing what sort of wine to have with their lunch while discussing crushing the skulls of living beings. In these videos, assistants and doctors are excitedly exclaiming, “Another boy!” while they sift through the body parts of a fetus.

Most abortions are performed between seventeen and twenty weeks. Do you know why abortions are not allowed to be performed before twenty-four weeks? Because the chances of survival after birth at twenty-four weeks is over fifty-percent.

Am I going to call Planned Parenthood an “abortion factory that sells the body parts of dead babies or fetuses”? No. I know that Planned Parenthood does more than simply terminate pregnancies. But I am also not going to close my fucking eyes and ignore the fact that what Planned Parenthood is doing, with regard to its abortion procedures, is illegal, unethical, and, if a fetus was given rights, cruel and unusual. This is a procedure that traumatizes and terrorizes the doctors who perform the abortions.

If you’re okay with a baby being pulled apart, piece by piece. That’s on you. If you’re alright with the dismemberment and decapitation of a fully formed human head. That’s on you. You can say that it is a blob of tissue as much as you want, but the simple fact is that it is a little tiny human with a little tiny spine, and a little tiny heart, and little tiny lungs, and rapidly developing brain. That is a little human that is spending most of its time completely growing and partially developing. That growing and development continues outside your womb.

[politicalmisery]

"Why They Do It: Beliefs & Emotional Gratification." Book Review

This brief publication was written by Jane F. Gilgun, Ph.d., LICSW.

Dr. Gilgun states: “People commit violent acts because of their beliefs. They almost always get a strong emotional charge out of being violent. These two features are the core of why people are violent: Beliefs and emotional charge. There are many variations after that, but these are the constants.” She goes on to state that violent individuals always act out their violence in premeditation, and that there are no logic behind their decisions to commit violent acts, or who their victims are. Her entire argument is based on the interviews she has conducted with a series of rapists, domestic violence perpetrators, and murderers who say that they enjoyed the fear that their violence caused, and that they committed these acts because they felt like they were entitled to.

Her case studies are limited to abusive men who rape and rampage killers whom she refers to as murderers. Rampage killings are  significantly different than murder and must be studied and treated as such. If she had even a passing interest in the roots of violence, she would know there is a difference between murder and rampage killings. What is most troubling about Dr. Gilgun’s case studies is the comparison between rapists and murderers. While admittedly these are both violent acts, they are not comparable. Even the psychology behind what drives a murderous rampage, and what drives a serial rapists is vastly different.  This can be seen clearly in her case studies and interviews - which is limited exclusively to male perpetrators.

For example, “Don” states that he only rapes “loose women” because they were asking for it. What she doesn’t address is the fact that our society is immersed in rape culture where victims are continually blamed for acts committed against them. “Don” states that he raped these women because they were “in that bar looking for guys anyway...so they had it coming, or they, you know, it didn’t matter to them.” Another one of her case studies told her he beats his wives and girlfriends when he feels like he is disrespected, or if they ask him a question he doesn’t like. One more states that he he beat and raped his wife infront of his daughter to establish his manhood. only beats his wives and girlfriends when he feels like he is being disrespected. He uses being asked to vacuum as an example of why he brutally beat his girlfriend once. Before he beats her, however, he states he left for nine and a half hours and got drunk. His girlfriend had cleaned the house while he was gone, and he took offense to it because, according to him, she should have waited. He beat his first wife for asking him a question that didn’t “sit with him”.

I take issue with her statement that perpetrators are oblivious to the effects of their thinking, especially when it comes to the subject of rape, which has been used, throughout history, as psychological torture and warfare. Does she differentiate between members of a paramilitary organization and a lone serial rapist? Research has shown that individuals who commit acts of horrific violence are oblivious to how they are thinking, and, if they are not, they are unable to control it. This isn’t because of an inability to control one's emotions or some other infantile excuse for domestic violence. She attempts to lump various forms of violence into the same category of domestic violence. How does that account for rampage attacks, terrorist attacks, suicide bombers, women who murder their children, mass murder, etc. This list could continue indefinitely.

Further, she allows her bias to enter her study. To most academics, this would completely invalidate her findings. While it is never entirely subtle that her bias has entered her findings and, as such, corrupted her entire study, it became abhorrently apparent when she begins to state things like, “if he were a real man”, “as a grown man”. A word that is repeated, ad nauseum, throughout her publication is “manhood was disrespected”. This is problematic for various reasons. First of which, it assumes that women are unable to commit acts of violence, whether it is domestic violence, rape, or murder.   This it completely negates any acts of violence committed by women and excludes them from her findings. Secondly, it places an inordinate amount of emphasis on biological differences, which, unless she agrees with Francis Fukuyama, are a moot point in the social sciences.

One thing that is connected across all of the case studies involving murder is the lack of mental health in the countries. Further, she refers to what these individuals may have done before hand which could have signalled their intentions - which can be pulled straight out of the DSM-V. Alienation. Depression. Self doubt. Anxiety. But her entire argument as to why mental illness cannot be the reason why acts violence take place? It can be quoted, verbatim, approximately halfway through her publication: “Most people who have mental illnesses are not violent, just as most people who do not have mental illnesses are not violent. People with mental illnesses who are violent have beliefs that violence is what you are supposed to do under certain prescribed circumstances. People with mental illnesses and who are violent have the same beliefs as people without mental illness and who are violent.” That statement is unbelievable convoluted, but essentially posits that the reason why violence isn’t caused by mental illness is because, if it were, everybody who was mentally ill would commit acts of violence.

However, later in this book she states: “Many of their highly reactive responses are related to unresolved traumas, such as abuse and neglect in childhood, witnessing violence, bullying, losses, thinking that’s what you are supposed to, and the like.” What is your definition of mental illness? Is it psychological damage or is it merely a chemical imbalance in the brain? No matter what her trivial and highly questionable definition of the term mental illness is, she voids her entire hypothesis. This completely negates her argument as to mental health and its impact on acts of violence. To state that violent acts occur because the perpetrators feel like violence is what they are supposed to do, and then provide absolutely no evidence with regard to how she came to that conclusion is absolutely ludicrous.

Essentially, this publication argues that beliefs and emotional gratification are core issues when violent acts occur and that mental illness, and the individual's history, is only secondary. Dr. Gilgun attempts to make this argument by presenting a methodology rooted in case studies before she posits her argument about how society must address beliefs and emotional gratification in order to prevent acts of violence.  While most academics would attack the credibility of her use of case studies, I do not take issue with case studies or any qualitative or mixed method approach to research. I do, however, take issue when an individual cherry picks their findings, and refuses to define their variables clearly and concisely. Academic research can be interpreted in various ways, and in order to ensure that your research is valid, accurate and credible, is to thoroughly define the variables which are the crux of one’s research.  

Dr. Gilgun received her Ph.D. from Syracuse University, and is employed by the University of Minnesota as a professor in the School of Social Work. Her areas of interest are listed as: “Resilience or how persons overcome adversities, meanings of violence to perpetrators, development of violent behaviors, factors associated with positive client changes in social work practice, oral history, qualitative research methods, feminist research methods and methodologies, philosophy of science.” While she attempts to discuss the origins of violence, she is woefully unqualified to discuss anything outside of the realm of domestic violence, which is not comparable to rampage violence or acts of rape. Further, a brief glance at her publications over the last twenty years shows that she has published mostly on methodology for social work research, specifically qualitative methods, with a focus on domestic violence against children, and the influences of ecology on human development. Dr. Gilgun attempts to push her own personal beliefs and agenda in this publication based on her titles. This is made obvious when glancing at her Reference List, which includes thirteen reference. She cites her own publications, on websites such as “Scribd.com”, eleven times. 

[politicalmisery]

The Confederate Flag is a Symbol of Racism: (Or Maybe You Should Have Paid Attention In Your History Class)

Since the Charleston, South Carolina shootings took place, there is a massive debate that is raging in the United States - splitting it, much like the Civil War did. Up until the Charleston shooting, a lot of citizens probably were not even aware that the Confederate Flag was still proudly flown by millions of Americans today. Why? Because they did not care about this flag. But the moment a homicidal, psychotic, drug-addicted, uneducated, alcoholic twenty-one year old white boy who references American History X in his manifesto is shown in a photo with the Confederate Flag, it is immediately equated to racism, slavery and “rednecks from the South”. There was no massive call for professional athletes to remove a flag that they wore for years. There was no pressure to pull Dukes of Hazzard based on the fact that the Stars and Bars sit on top of the General Lee.  Did you know that General Robert E. Lee thought slavery was a moral and political evil and had not owned slaves since the 1840s? Do you know which General still owned slaves at the end of the Civil War because Lincoln had only made slavery illegal in the South? United States General Ulysses S. Grant.

Does anybody else feel that pulling an old TV show off of a channel that airs old television shows based on the fact that an inanimate object has a confederate flag painted on its roof is slightly ridiculous considering television shows that exploit children, endorse violence, and employ known pedophiles continue to remain on the air?  

Just because the news doesn’t focus on crimes that happen to “white” people (unless you’re a pretty, young, white girl who went missing overseas or from a coastal state) does not mean that they do not occur. Even if they are quite clearly hate crimes committed because of race, it is not included in your nightly broadcast because white people is synonymous with colonization and enslavement.

FYI: For “Millennials” like me, the news never stops. Thanks, Cortana.

Now, if you’re like me, you are probably irritated about why the Confederate Flag has come under attack. The American Flag flew while slavery was legal for seventy six years.The Confederate Flag existed for four years. That is a negative seventy-two years that this “symbol of racism” has on the American flag.

Another argument states that the famous book Gone With The Wind by Margaret Mitchell should be completely banned because it is a symbol of racism. The simple fact of the matter is that this book is one of the most realistic depictions of the Confederate South. Did you know that the Academy Awards banned the black actors and actresses that co-starred in Gone With The Wind from attending the award ceremony? Hattie McDaniel, who played Mammy, was the first African American to win an Academy Award. The only reason she was able to attend the Academy Awards was because Clark Gable threatened to not attend. Though she appeared, she was segregated from her costars. This was in Los Angeles. Hattie McDaniel was the first African American to be honored with a US Postage Stamp and has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.  Her parents were former slaves. As a matter of fact, her father was forced to serve in the Union Army after the Second Confiscation Act was passed. Not only were they forced to serve, due to the color of their skin, they were not allowed to advance past a certain rank, and they were paid less than the white Union soldiers that shared their rank. This was the Union which was allegedly fighting to abolish slavery, yet instituted the concept of segregation and lesser pay. In the end, Hattie was criticized by her own community because of the roles she took as an actress - specifically her role as Mammy in Gone With The Wind and was thus rejected.

Why are we not calling for a ban on rap music?  It symbolizes racism and sexism. It is illogical to ban a flag or a book when racist words make record labels and musical artists millions, if not billions, on an annual basis. It’s hypocritical. The symbolism argument is invalid - that is, if you have a decent understanding of American History and a basic understanding of the Civil War.

Now, to be extremely pretentious, I am going to delve into a history lesson regarding some of the flags which the Confederacy used during the four years existed. There are three flags that the Confederacy used: The Stars and Bars, the Stainless Banner, and the Blood-Stained Banner.

Stars and Bars

The Stainless Banner

The Blood-Stained Banner

In addition to the “Official Flags” shown above, there were also Battle Flags that the Confederacy flew. These included the Bonnie-Blue Flag - which is most known for flying during the battle at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, in Charleston Harbor.

The Bonnie-Blue Flag

Additionally, there was the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, which was first used by the Army of Northern Virginia.

The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia

It would be this flag that apparently stands for oppression, slavery, white privilege and the like. And maybe, to uneducated Americans, that is in fact what it stands for. It doesn’t matter that despite the fact that between 10 and 15 million Africans that were sold into slavery, approximately 400,000 ended up in what became the United States while the rest of these African slaves were sent to South America. Nor does it matter that, even though we are taught that all white Southerners owned slaves, the truth is that only six percent of Southern white citizens (this would be Southern, land-owning white males) owned slaves. We are not told that slavery was still legal in the Northern States, which is why Union General Ulysses S. Grant was able to maintain position of his slaves, along with the 1.4 percent of slave-owning Northerners.

Nor does it matter that we are not taught that nearly thirty percent of “free blacks” owned slaves in comparison to their white counterparts. We aren’t taught that 2/3rds of the slaves that were imported to the Colonies between the 1600s and the 1860s were “white”. We are not taught that “white indentured servants” were actually kidnapped, sold at auction and routinely beat to death. We just assume that since they were white, they had a choice. Perhaps because the United States focuses on race and skin pigmentation, we forget that ethnicity and nationality is what matters to the rest of the world.

I could continue with a plethora of historical facts, and a number of other designs of flags which the Confederacy used over the period of five years, but there are quite a few more that look nothing like the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and other symbols of the Confederacy. Instead, I will delve into the current issue at hand.

As I discussed above, to some, the Confederate Flag stands for racism, slavery and oppression. To others, they consider it to be a symbol of white supremacy. To supporters, the Confederate Flag is seen as a symbol of heritage, state rights, and a memorial to the over 250,000 Confederate soldiers who died during the Civil War, and the over 130,000 who were wounded fighting under this flag. While there have been a small minority of individuals who fail to educate themselves on American History which have always openly disrespected the Confederate Flag, this minority has quickly mushroomed because of nine black parishioners who were killed in a hate crime in Charleston, South Carolina. Why has the Confederate Flag faced such intense scrutiny as of late? Dylann Roof, the Charleston shooter, had a series of photos posted online with his “racial” manifesto. A manifesto which discussed his enlightenment of racial tensions after the shooting of Trayvon Martin and some of Edward Norton’s words in American History X. A few of those pictures showed him holding the Confederate Flag. In some of the other photos, he is seen spitting on the American Flag, and burning the American Flag.

However, it is the Confederate Flag which has obtained the spotlight - not the murder of nine innocent people, not gun control, not mental health, not racism. The symbolism behind the Confederate Flag. Why? Approximately half of the United States believes the Confederate Flag stands as a symbol to racism and slavery because the flag was flown during the Civil War, which obviously was a war to end slavery. To the other half, the Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Many southerners instead believed that they were fighting for state rights. Those of us who have remotely studied the Civil War are aware that the Civil War was fought over the cotton trade and the profits accrued from the South’s cotton exports. Part of the reason cotton was so profitable for the South, and thus for the United States of America, was because along with slaves of all races that were indentured to plantation owners, along with those in debtors prison, slave labor is what harvested the cotton crops. Yes, slavery was bad, and it still is bad (because, guess what, slavery still exists). But the Civil War was not fought over freedom for slaves. If the Southern States were able to secede from the United States of America, they would be taking approximately $200,000,000.00 a year with them… in cotton. The South thought that Europe’s addiction to its cotton exports would bring European countries intervening on their behalf. This would have likely solved the dilemma that the South faced - lack of industry. But Europe did not intervene and the slave-owning General of the United States Army and the industrialization of the North defeated the South.

History lesson aside, I fail to understand the reasoning behind attacking a symbol of the American South because of a domestic terrorist. Because of Dylann Roof’s actions, and his photos with the Confederate Flag, there has been a call to get rid of the Confederate Flag and ban its existence. Why aren’t video games, poverty, drugs, domestic violence, or mental illness (all things that Roof dealt with, used or suffered from) being blamed for what happened? Typically video games and violent movies are the first things that are blamed in mass shootings. If he were hoisting the flag of the United States of America, would the flag discussion even be happening?  Amazon has refused to sell any product with the Confederate Flag, as has Wal-Mart. A number of other businesses will ban its sale. The argument is that the Confederate Flag violates its terms of use because it promotes or glorifies hatred, violence, racial, sexual, or religious intolerance, as well as organizations which hold such views. With Gay Marriage now being made legal across the United States, many people have changed their photos to have a rainbow flag over their face to show that they stand with LGBTQ population, and that they support gay marriage. Some people have even desecrated the flag of the United States in support of gay marriage. Why is there no unrest over this? We become angry when we hear about Americans walking, burning, or spitting on the American flag - but that isn’t the case when a rainbow, or anything supporting any cause that is socially popular, is displayed.

Society says that this is acceptable: 

But this is not acceptable:

People and organizations will always use a symbol for good or for evil. Dylann Roof disrespected the Confederate Flag and its meaning (which was really the South not wanting federal law to trump state law) and the United States flag - and he happened to be a bigoted racist who killed nine innocent people. That does not mean that the Confederate Flag should be banned from existence because its existence upsets some of the population. Gay marriage upsets part of the American population, marijuana legalization upsets part of the American population, immigration upsets parts of the American population… but symbols of such things are not banned.Secession from the United States of America is what the Confederate flag symbolizes to some. Honoring fallen ancestors is what the Confederate flag symbolizes to others. Some activists are wishing to take it further and rename any counties, towns, buildings or streets named after any Confederate leader, military leader or soldier. Why? Because they believe that all those who identified with the Confederacy are a bunch of backwards racist rednecks? Respect should not be paid to those who fought to defend something they believed in?

I fail to see why any group has the right to decide what is allowed to upset and offend and what is not allowed to upset and offend. Banning the Confederate Flag is inherently unconstitutional and against American’s First Amendment Rights. As I have discussed before, the flag is a symbol that has only as much power as you give it. If you choose to view it as a symbol of racism, that’s your prerogative, but be consistent in your beliefs. The flag of the United States of America is just as much of a symbol of racism and hate, if not more so. Remember, under the flag of the United States of America, slavery was legal for seventy-six years. The Confederate Flag only existed for four. Are we going to stop using the American Flag because it is a symbol of global oppression, capitalism and colonialism? While most Americans don’t see the United States in that way, much of the international community does.

Racism is defined as the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races; a policy, system of government, etc. based upon fostering such a doctrine; discrimination; and hatred or intolerance of another race or races. This means that racism can occur to any race. It is not simply something that occurs to minorities. Is there anything in that definition that specifically references the black population or slavery?  It is a socially constructed concept that is reinforced by the society we live in. In the United States, we call it racism. In other countries, it is nationalism and ethnocentrism. It is the exact same thing. Removing a flag that is not historically intertwined with racism or slavery is not going to stop racism from existing. Removing the Confederate Flag does as much good to stop racism as hanging a sign that says “No Guns Allowed” does to stop firearm violence (thanks, my love).

My questions are the following: Why is there a massive debate of the meaning behind the Confederate Flag? Are symbols of hate acceptable as long as that is the status quo and it is socially acceptable? Do you have to be a part of the majority in order to offend the minority? Why are we not discussing the very real fact that racism still exists in the United States and address that?

And remember, these ancient and modern monuments and buildings were built by slaves:

[politicalmisery]

sorry,politics again.

EU does not trust Greece. So I’m assuming they do not trust the Greek people. But they trust the measures and the austerity. Those measures and austerity that led: 10000 Greeks to suicide, over 60% of young people without jobs, almost 50% cut from the pensioners, thousands of stores and workshops closed down. And those are just a few things of what happened in the last 5 years. Thank you corrupted men in suits. well done!you are awesome!keep it up guys. but please don’t visit Greece this summer. keep your bullying and your money for yourselves. :P

[politicalmisery]

That moment you're reading an AMA on Reddit where:

- The Reverend Jesse Jackson critiques the use of guns in a war zone; - The Reverend Jesse Jackson states that the shootings in South Carolina are more horrific than school shootings (like Newtown); - The Reverend Jesse Jackson says racism isn't based on race discrimination but resource discrimination; - The Reverend Jesse Jackson calls Silicon Valley racist because they don't teach STEM to black kids in public schools (just the white kids); - The Reverend Jesse Jackson states that secession was never about racism, but that the Confederate flag is racist; and - The Reverend Jesse Jackson states that Affirmative Action was not about racial discrimination.

[politicalmisery]

I Hate The European Union (or Why Do Morons Think Europe is the definition of "Cultural Unity" instead of "Forced Financial Integration"?)

Before I found out I was pregnant with Lilith, I studied mostly Central and Eastern Europe. Specifically, my research was centered around domestic violence and ethnic conflict in post-Soviet states. As a result, this meant I did a lot of research regarding various conflicts throughout history in the former Yugoslavia. As one can imagine, a lot of the material that I was confronted with in my research was horrifying. Once I became aware that I was pregnant, I decided that I was not going to continue doing my research on the region and that my thesis and dissertation were going to change to something less emotionally and psychologically scarring, that had little to no danger if field research needed to be conducted. Nonetheless, as I somehow became an “expert” in international relations, specifically when it comes to international law and institutions, I follow news reports that come from the Hague. I was one of many that was following the capture, and trial, of  Ratko Mladic in 2010.  For those of you who are unaware, Ratko Mladic was a Bosnian Serb military leader in charge during the Yugoslav Wars. There were a number of conflicts that took place in the former Yugoslavia following the collapse of the USSR.  The Yugoslav Wars is a blanket term used when referring to the following:

War in Slovenia; 

Croatian War of Independence;

Bosnian War;Kosovo War;

Insurgency in the Presevo Valley; and

Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia. 

The capture of Ratko Mladic was of particular interest because Serbia was in negotiations to become a member-state of the European Union. Specifically because of his role in the Siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre. One of the insinuations I had read is  that Serbia had decided to finally give up Mladic in order to become a member-state of the European Union.  Of course, this has some credit to it. Mladic was considered a war hero in Serbia after the Yugoslav Wars, and is still viewed as one by nearly half the country. In the sixteen years he was “at large”, he continued to collect his pension from the government and was seen multiple times in public - not remotely in hiding.  When he was apprehended, he was apprehended at the residence of one of his known family members. The report stated bluntly: “Serbia needs to cooperate with the war crimes prosecutors to start negotiation for gaining entry to the lucrative EU club.”   Admittedly, the word “lucrative” set off a fit of laughter. If you happen to be watching any sort of news, you are aware that we are about to watch a country exit the Eurozone, which, as a result, has sent global markets diving in response. Considering the formation of the EU was to integrate separate market economies (which is discussed below), the consequences of any country exiting the Eurozone is going to have a profound impact on international finances.

Brief summary of the Greek Crisis: Greece is about to default on loans it has taken from the IMF, totaling about 1.8 billion dollars. The European Central Bank (“ECB”) is not going to bail out the Greek banks and, because of its financial issues, the European Commission, IMF and ECB want to completely overhaul Greece’s economy - specifically pension reform, which arguably infringes on the nation's sovereignty. There are a lot of things that I can discuss about what is going to happen to Greece, what is going to happen to their currency, the depression they will face, the possible political repercussions, the impact on other European countries that are members of the EU, the impact on the global economy, or a plethora of other topics. I’m mostly just going to rant about the European Union and why I detest its existence.

Anybody who has been following international headlines, the International Monetary Fund, the financial woes of Greece and their imminent departure from the Euro are very much aware that the EU is no longer the “lucrative” club that it once was. In fact, the argument can be made that the EU is falling apart, as one country after another continues to fail to meet the minimum constraints placed on them by the EU (and I really mean Germany) when they became member-states. To be even more concise, I am talking about the fiscal demands that were made of the EU on second and third world countries in Central and Eastern Europe who were plundered during USSR occupation, and Western capitalism after communism collapsed. This has resulted in the Western half of Europe controlling the wealth, and the Central and Eastern half of Europe plunging into even more destitute circumstances than they had lived with under communism, and before becoming member-states to the European Union.

If economic integration didn’t work after World War II (i.e. integrating the economies of Germany and France to prevent another war), what had occurred which would allow the constructors of the EU to even believe that economic integration between Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - and eventually eleven or so additional countries,  would abolish any political, social, or cultural differences and animosities that had been held? Economic integration does not mean that national identities are going to be forgotten or that people would refer to themselves as Europeans instead of Hungarians, or Bosnian, or Serbian or Macedonian. Perhaps there is a global misconception relating to Europe’s transnational unity that rises above nationalism or racism. The simple fact is that it doesn’t exist and nationalism is prevalent throughout the continent.

Example 1: France paying Romania to take back “its gypsies”. Despite the fact that Romania is a member-state of the European Union and that citizens of member-states have the right to free travel, this right to free travel did not extend to Europe’s Roma. The Roma in France were free to travel to France, legally. But racism in Europe, especially towards the Roma population, is commonplace and socially acceptable.

Example 2: In graduate school, an Austrian member of my cohort referred to Hungarians as the “Mexicans of Europe”, explaining that Europeans view Hungarians the way a stereotypical American views the Latin American population. Her words? “They are taking all of our jobs. They take the jobs we don’t want to do.”

The culture of Europe, and the shortcomings of the EU, and its impact on the average European’s life are not discussed . When we hear about the EU, we hear words like austerity measures (despite the IMF’s admittance that its recommendations of austerity have actually exacerbated the financial woes of the Eurozone).  We do not obtain news that discusses how unemployment is increasing and is at Great Depression levels. If you think that the EU is anything other than the integration of economies to increase the wealth of Europe, you are mistaken. With the formation of the EU, barriers were removed with regard to the flow of capital. This was the idea of the Single Market with the freedom of movement of goods, services, people and money. What didn’t come along with membership into the European Union was any actual oversight on what countries spent the funds they received from the EU on. While it was supposed to be infrastructure, job growth and the like, it was often spent elsewhere. The fact that the EU is attempting to create a committee to oversee national budgets and to form a transnational banking union is irrelevant. It is too little too late.

How does a critique on the shortcomings and failures of the EU relate back to Mladic? It shows the importance of culture, and history, in politics throughout Europe, and the mass global ignorance regarding that importance. The EU is not some sort of “lucrative club” that only “democratically reformed countries” can gain entrance into. Pogroms and ethnic conflicts are daily events in all parts of Europe, no matter how financially well-to-do that country may be. The constructors of the European Coal and Steel Community, and then the European Economic Community,  which eventually became the European Union, failed to take into account the importance of history, culture, and nationalism in Europe. That failure will ultimately result in the collapse of the European Union.

Although the European Union is fantastic on paper, and the theoretical concept of an economically, socially, politically and culturally integrated Europe is seducing, especially to those of us who study European history, one can not blindly dismiss the importance of cultural difference between nations, and the importance that culture plays in the political sphere. Further, while there may have been an integration of capital flows, this was to the benefit of the Western member-states. With no fiscal oversight, security, or even a hint of any ability to centralize, the European Union was destined to fail. Instead of listening to economists, no matter how prestigious they are or where they got their doctorate, perhaps those in power should look at their country, look at the citizens of that country, and do what’s best for them first, and then the continent.

[politicalmisery]

Pediatric Bipolar Disorder (or Antidepressants are for children as young as two!)

I read an article about pediatric bipolar disorder and how copious amounts of children are being diagnosed at the age of two with bipolar disorder.  

Now, for those of you who are unaware of what bipolar disorder is, or you associate bipolar disorder with individuals like Jared Lee Loughner or James Holmes, let me enlighten you. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, bipolar disorder “is a brain disorder that causes unusual shifts in mood, energy, activity levels, and the ability to carry out day-to-day-tasks.” The symptoms of bipolar disorder are different based on if a manic episode is occurring, or a depressive episode is occurring. Also, these changes in mood and behavior are extreme.

How on earth does a doctor state, unequivocally, that a two year old is suffering from pediatric bipolar disorder? What criteria did that two year old meet that warranted such an incredulous diagnosis? NIMH doesn’t even state that bipolar disorder begins in toddler-dom. It can maybe begin in childhood, but typically doesn’t appear until one is in their late teenage years.  Further, the more scientists learn about bipolar disorder, the more the disorder becomes a spectrum where there are “types” and “severity” when it comes to the level of bipolar disorder an individual can land on. This spectrum essentially allows in psychologist to treat any individual for a mental illness they may or may not have.

And the prescriptions that are given to treat bipolar disorder? They don’t have the best side effects.  For the most part, they are typically anticonvulsants that are prescribed to delay depressive and manic episodes. One of the most popular medications is depakote - which is preferable to lithium.  Both of which are expressly fatal if given to toddlers. Lithium is considered too dangerous for pregnant women to take because it will damage a fetus in utero, or an infant that is being breastfed. While you may not have suicidal thoughts with lithium like you can with depakote, one of the most common side effects is hallucinations, seizures, and problems with cognitive function. Lamictal, another favorite, advises to give to those who are older than 16, and that can prove fatal if taken with divalproex or valproic acid (i.e. Depakote). Many of the side effects that are associated with lithium also carry over to lamictal.

A list of common drugs that are given out to treat bipolar disorder are:

LITHIUM - Lithium acts on a person’s central nervous system (brain and spinal cord). Doctors don’t know exactly how lithium works to stabilize a person’s mood. However, it helps people with bipolar disorder have more control over their emotions and reduce the extremes in behavior.

ANTIPSYCHOTICS - Anti psychotic drugs help balance certain brain chemicals called neurotransmitters. It is not clear exactly how these drugs work, but they usually improve manic episodes quickly.

ANTICONVULSANTS -Each anticonvulsant acts on the brain in slightly different ways, so your experience may differ depending on the drug you take. In general, however, these drugs are at maximal effectiveness after taking the drug for a couple of weeks.  Anticonvulsants can cause problems with the liver over the long term, so your doctor should monitor your liver closely.

CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKERS - These drugs block calcium channels, which are the small pores in cells that allow calcium to move in and out, which widens your blood vessels. It’s not clear exactly how the drugs work, but they are used to lower blood pressure, improve irregular heartbeats, and treat migraines. They may also help stabilize moods.

BENZODIAZEPINES - Benzodiazepines act quickly and bring on a sense of calmness. They can sometimes cause lightheadedness, slurred speech, or unsteadiness.  Benzodiazepines can be habit-forming and addictive.

ELECTROCONVULSIVE THERAPY - In extremely rare cases, ECT can cause heart attack, stroke, or death. People with certain heart problems usually are not good candidates for ECT. Short-term memory loss is the major side effect, although this usually goes away one to two weeks after treatment.

ANTIDEPRESSANTS - In October 2004, the FDA determined that antidepressant medications can increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children and adolescents with depression and other psychiatric disorders.

You’ll notice a reoccuring pattern in the description. They do not know exactly how these drugs work, but they seem to. They also all have dangerous side effects or can be addictive. Why would any doctor prescribe such dangerous drugs to a child, especially if they question prescribing it to adults? Bipolar disorder has been vastly overdiagnosed. As a matter of fact, individuals who have anxiety, agitation, irritability or are very restless have been told they have bipolar disorder, and have been treated for it. It is likely that half of those diagnosed with bipolar disorder have not only been misdiagnosed, they have also been receiving treatment for a non-existent illness.

What is the difference between pediatric bipolar disorder and bipolar disorder? Other than the frequency of mixed episodes, and suicide attempts, absolutely nothing. What is prescribed for adolescents and children? Lithium, Depakote, Lamictal, and various antipsychotics that majorly increase the glucose and lipd levels of children. It is important to note that in pediatric bipolar disorder, the diagnosis can always change from less severe to more severe - but never moderate. Oh, and the fact that while the diagnostic manual of mental disorders recognizes bipolar disorder, pediatric bipolar disorder is not recognized. Instead, doctors and researchers have simply used the criteria that is used for adults and have applied it to children.

My biggest problem, however, is that there is no research on the damage that medications can cause to the developing brains of infants, toddlers, children and adolescents. While I am no expert in mental health, let alone the mental health of children, I find it very disturbing that medication is being doled out at an alarming rate with little to no information regarding the side effects, whether they are physical or emotional, on children and how these chemical interactions could interfere with their development. Or worse, causes extensive emotional harm that will chemically alter that child’s thought processes when he or she develops into an adult. Could over-medication be the cause of the dramatic increase in school shootings, public massacres, and physical violence? Could these pediatric mental disorders actually be the cause of the rapid increase of violence in today’s youth and young adults?

Who doesn’t expect children, adolescents, and teenagers to alternate through euphoria and depression? With all of the chemical, physical and emotional changes that are rapidly taking place within them, I expect mood swings. I expect irritability, anxiety, anger and depression. Mood swings as a teenager are as guaranteed as taxes as an adult.  While I see psychology attempting to diagnose everybody with an illness, what I haven’t seen psychology or professionals take into account is how much culture has evolved since psychology came into play. In the academic literature, there is hardly any discussion about the differences between being a teenager in 1981 to being a teenager in 2001. Truly, it seems that experts and researchers cherry pick their case studies in order to produce the type of data they need to prove their theory.

Further, I believe that they continually base their science and information off of things of the past which no longer apply to society nowadays.  Scientific research is inherently flawed based on the human component. Psychology more so than any other science, due to the fact that it is, in fact, all theory. The medication prescribed by doctors is dangerous and most of the time they don’t even know why it works.   They just notice that most of the time, it helps in some way but they have no idea why it does.  But they give it to people they assume suffer from this “disease” without a second thought.  Not only do they give it to adults, they give these sorts of drugs to children when they haven’t even done studies on how it actually works on children. While I hate to give any credence to conspiracy theorists who claim that “big pharm” is out to get them, and is lining the pocketbooks of doctors to preach their gospel, we have all been to a psychologist that gives us a “sample” of the drug they are prescribing. This just reinforces the assumption that medicine, and doctors, do what they need to in order to widen their own pocketbooks.  Furthermore, it shows that psychology supports these fads of mental disorders by diagnosing children with a psychological disorder that they don’t even understand and can hardly conclusively diagnose.

Please remember when doing any research, even when you’re reading a blog article like this:  Like all things in academia and science, the definition of disorders are constantly changing. Psychological impairments or disorders, according to experts, evolve,  mutate, and turn into different things with every study that is conducted based on the researchers, the research question, and the motivation to conduct (and fund) the study.  So while many symptoms are constantly appearing and disappearing, the only constant in the definition is that there are mood swings and that these mood swings are severe euphoria and severe depression. 

This is a societal problem. With the increase in mental illness diagnoses, people are increasingly able to blame their illness for their transgressions instead of taking accountability for their actions. With mass shootings, we hear about bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, or antisocial personality disorder, or histrionic personality disorder. This overdiagnosis of mental illness not only allows atrocities to be blamed on an illness, it also takes away from those who actually suffer from mental illnesses - who are not using a mental illness to defend a massacre.

[politicalmisery]

Review of “The Spiral Notebook - The Aurora Theater Shooter and the Epidemic of Mass Violence Committed by American Youth.”

I do not think I was really expecting anything when I decided to read this book. I had been following the trial off and on, and was intrigued by the fact that the perpetrator was a former graduate student in neuroscience and that he was looking towards cures for mental illnesses, specifically schizophrenia, which he believed he was suffering from. You have to admit, the case is an interesting one. Maybe I should have expected a fairly terrible piece of literature and horrid “investigative journalism”. 

I digress. The authors refer to themselves as investigative journalists and state that they were writing this book in order to understand a generation that has produced so many “mass killers”. They state, in the introduction, that they aim to explore the society that these mass killers are immersed in.

As per usual, a culture of violence  brought up violent video games which they posit dampens any ability to develop coping mechanisms for negative feelings. What I wish they would have expanded on more was the fact that most of those perpetrators happened to be on various psychological medications - specifically SSRIs. I also would have loved if they had expanded on the fact that the generation they are discussing is a generation that has grown up in wartime America. While our parents and grandparents may not have many military friends, I can assure you that anybody born between 1980 and 1992 has a friend or five that is serving in the U.S. military and has been deployed. Further, I would have appreciated an expansion on global society and the epidemic of fear and terrorism that has taken over news coverage. They state, quite frankly, that this new generation has become desensitized to such things like violence, war, death, massacres, etc. Any expansion made on any one of those topics would have greatly improved this book.

Basically: More information from experts, less opinion. More fact and less embellishment, would have been greatly appreciated. If a book is based off an event, especially a tragic event, I really prefer to read factual information and not the opinions of others who do not understand exactly what they are attempting to discuss. This event, and this trial, is more than a mass murder. It shouldn’t be treated like the Jon Benet Ramsey case this couple covered. Apparently they are notorious for using their books to “discuss” some sort of social issue or cultural belief… incorrectly. Had I done some “in-depth” research on the authors, I would have been made aware by the reviews for their publications that Steven Singular attempts to use his credentials as a “reporter” to give his literature some sort of authority. I am not a reporter or a journalist, and I do not make a living publishing books about mass murders and the like. But when I know more about a case than two reporters who have been actively following it since the shooting occurred, that is just distressing.

What they do not address is the fact that this “new generation” is living with the decisions that their elders made. It is not a 19 or 20 year old that declares war. It is not a 28 or a 29 year old who votes on those issues. We are simply dealing the cards that we were dealt. And while I applaud their attempt to connect with our generation, I cannot help but roll my eyes. Especially when they insert quotes from those that they have interviewed that are between the ages of 18 and 30.

Further, there was a very large emphasis, throughout the entire book, placed on the notebook that James Holmes sent his former psychiatrist. If you had been following the trial, a strict gag order was put in place and anything about the case, especially anything having to do with Holmes and Fenton and Feinstein  were off limits. After hearing her testimony, with the revealment of her ineptitude and gross negligence to take care of her patient, I understand why the gag order was in place. I do not think it was to protect Holmes from the prosecution, I think it was to protect Feinstein and Fenton from a massive amount of lawsuits for not committing an obviously homicidal individual that had “psychotic level thinking”. The notebook has now been published, in its entirety. There is nothing interesting about the notebook. It is the ramblings of an obviously mentally disturbed man who is trying to rationally solve his problem of homicidal thoughts and feelings without simply committing suicide. It does not seem rational to us because the majority of us do not think on a psychotic level. He attempts to apply academic thinking to something not in reality and horribly irrational. He diagnosis himself, provides evidence for his self-diagnosis, and displays psychotic level thinking, which he is aware of, in the evidence. He writes down that it has been his desire to commit mass murder at the movies for over ten years, in this notebook. But this notebook had not been released to the public when this book was written. Nor had any information regarding Holmes’ doctor/patient relationship with Dr. Fenton or Dr. Feinstein been disclosed. Maybe Holmes had told Fenton and Feinstein exactly what his homicidal urges were. We won’t even know, but he disclosed it in  his journal, which he sent to his doctor. We do know that Fenton was scared of Holmes, and the Fenton believed that he was operating at psychotic level thinking. We know Fenton was concerned enough to violate HIPAA when she contacted the university, and Holmes’ mother.

Of course, perhaps they should have waited to publish this book until after the trial had taken place so that there was some sort of substantive information regarding societal impacts on the “millennial” generation. Further, perhaps their pool of interviewees should have been extended to those who disagreed with their thesis, or didn’t completely agree.

What should have been discussed in this book is societies blatant disregard for humanity and the growing shadow of apathy that is covering our global society. Instead of stopping or intervening in fights or bullying, most simply pretend it is not happening. When we see somebody who is mentally ill, we do not try to assist them. We do not intervene. We’ve been taught that it is perfectly okay, and it is the norm, to ignore what we see. Every mass killing that has taken place could have been prevented had somebody simply not ignored blatant warning signs.

Is it that difficult to admit that most societies simply do not care enough about one another and that is why events like this continue to occur?

[politicalmisery]

On May 25, 2015, the international press announced that Ramadi had finally fallen to ISIS. While mainstream media reports on the subject, they don’t explain exactly why they are reporting about a city in Iraq. One of the major reasons that this most recent Battle of Ramadi is making headlines is because in 2005 and 2006, U.S. Forces fought to take the city from Islamic militants in Iraq. What adds some meat to the reporting is the fact that members of the Iraqi Security Forces fled Ramadi and allowed ISIS to easily take the city.

What I think should be making the news is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended - the Obama Administration simply shrank the number of U.S. military personnel in the regions, and increased air strikes. While the President has publicly stated that the United States should not be fighting for the security of Iraq, the fact is that the massive withdrawal of U.S. military forces is what has led to the region being destabilized is only mentioned on comedic news like Fox. Also, the fact the fact that Iraqi Security Forces, along with militia and U.S. military advisers began to attempt to take back Ramadi, Fallujah, and basically Anbar Province - is overlooked by news reports. The fact that the ISF has been defending Ramadi against ISIS for the last year is missing. Also, it has not been reported that Iraqi Security Forces are notorious for running away during battles and firefights. This is how distanced the American public is from its international relations and foreign policy.

Frankly, the United States government, and its military, have an obligation to assist the Iraqis in their military and governmental endeavors. Campaign promises like: “Bringing the troops home” was more significant and more important to this current administration. Securing an ally in the Middle East, and delivering on the promise to Iraqis, and the international community, specifically that U.S. Forces, and the Coalition that stood behind it, would not leave until the country’s stabilization was achieved, was not. Your personal ideas of why the United States went into Iraq to begin with are irrelevant to this fact. Billions of dollars was spent for an alliance with a Middle Eastern country. Putting somebody who is Western-centric into power is sort of par for the course when it comes to foreign relations between the United States and developing countries.

To be blunt, the fall of Ramadi to ISIS is more symbolic than anything. It is especially devastating to the U.S. Forces who fought in Al Anbar province. So why is it making international news? That is why it has been making international news. Iraq has been losing large parts of Al Anbar province to ISIS for quite some time. While the First Battle of Ramadi, and the Second Battle of Ramadi did not see many U.S. casualties, Ramadi is within the province that is responsible for the deaths of approximately 80% of U.S. military personnel. Ramadi is where heavy fighting took place between insurgents, the U.S. military and Iraqis for years. It is the province where a large number of the over 1,000,000 civilian casualties perished. It was the province were thirty different tribes formed an alliance with coalition forces in order to fight insurgents, believing that Iraq could be different.

This is not a political bashing of one party or another. As the Obama Administration downplays the parts of the world that U.S. military personnel are stationed at, how many drone strikes are taking place and a plethora of other things - the Bush Administration previously downplayed human losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. That being said, the Obama Administration continues to do so. Both administrations have deceived the American people. What this is, is a critique of our populations continued ignorance of international news, foreign relations, and foreign policy; as well as a displeasure that the American people continue to listen to politicians that they know they can’t trust, or believe.

Case in point: Currently, most of the United States believe that the wars are over, and that the troops could come home. The truth is that the reason why the United States pulled most of the military personnel stationed in Iraq, out, is because the United States refused to agree to the terms set out by Iraq in its Status of Forces Agreement.  “Bringing the troops home” was a campaign promise that the Obama Administration plugged. So, despite the fact that the Iraqi government, military officials, and service members, believed that this was the wrong thing to do, the Obama Administration failed to negotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq and claim that the war was over. By pulling U.S. Military Forces out of the country, the Obama Administration set Iraq up to become a failed state. After removing Saddam from power, the goal of the United States was to leave a stable government in Iraq, that could be our ally in the Middle East - not a safe haven for terrorist organizations. This was what the United States government, and the military were working towards. While I could say that the Obama Administration made its decisions in order to win a presidential election, the poor foreign policy decisions made by the Administration have directly led to a power vacuum being created, where terrorism thrives.

Despite what Susan Rice says, the Obama Administration did not end two wars responsibly. It has continued a war irresponsibly. There are still daily air strikes in Iraq along with approximately three thousand non combat military forces in Iraq which are described as advisers to the Iraqi Military. In other words, it is the Administration's way of putting “boots on the ground” without admitting that it has put boots on the ground. Combined with intelligence gathering, surveillance drones, and drone strikes, it is fairly difficult to make the argument that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ended. Further, the Justice Department even continues to state that the United States is still actively at war wherever “al-Qaeda, Taliban, and associated forces” are. Those statements that the president makes to the public regarding the end of the wars are simply political statements that are “misunderstood”. Department of Defense General Counsel Stephen Preston even said that American presence in Afghanistan has not been removed, it has simply been reduced.That is not even factual. U.S. military presence in Afghanistan has doubled since 2011.

As for the surprise about the Iraqi Army’s characteristic of running away from battle, I fail to understand how this is surprising considering that it is a characteristic that happened repeatedly during the first Gulf War, the War in Iraq, in Mosul, and once again in Ramadi. It is not news. What should be news is the discussion of lost U.S. military equipment, vehicles, and weapons, which were left behind and are now in the hands of ISIS. Not an Iraqi predisposition to run away. Also, American diplomacy would suggest that derogatory statements made by  politicians is not the very best form of foreign policy.

How do we expect a culturally and religiously divided country, with no central leadership or functioning government, to fight for a country that has no theme of connection? How do we expect them to risk their lives for their country when their country is fragmented? There is no unity in the country, let alone the Iraqi Security Forces, that could remotely encourage Iraqis to fight against yet another insurgency. Military forces have turned to tribal militias, volunteers, and paramilitary groups,  two groups that are likely to cause sectarian divisions due to the fact that Anbar is mostly a Sunni province, and some of the paramilitary groups are Shia. It is these two religious factions that have been instrumental in failure of Iraq to put an effective, working government into place.

[politicalmisery]

According to various news reports, a new challenge has gone viral to pay respect to Eric Sheppard, who brought a gun to a campus protest, and has since gone on the run from the FBI for committing a felony. Despite the fact that Eric Sheppard fought with Air Force veteran Michell Manhart, who had attempted to stop the desecration, and that he is currently wanted for questioning for making terroristic threats on social media (as a representative of the New Black Panther Party), many have decided to take part in this new challenge. To show their support of Eric Sheppard, alleged “social activists” are utilizing the hashtag #EricSheppardChallenge, photographing or capturing a video of them desecrating the flag of the United States, and posting the visuals on social media websites.

Sheppard’s attorneys have stated that he is hiding in fear of his life because of statements made by military personnel and civilians alike. While he has self-identified as a “terrorist against white people”, he is now accusing those who have expressed their opinion regarding his “anti-flag movement” as the “real terrorists”. His lawyers have stated that the counter-demonstration that was being held in response to Sheppard’s anti-flag demonstration was not peaceful and that members of the Klu Klux Klan were in attendance.

“I’m a terrorist toward lies. I’m a terrorist toward liars. I’m a terrorist toward those who are wicked. So yes, I am a terrorist toward white people,” Sheppard said. “What I’m saying to you all is a warning of death that is coming upon this nation.”

Some might ask why I am bother to write about this. There are more important hashtag activist sayings I can discuss. For me, our flag is a symbol of what our country should be. Not a symbol of what it is. Our country is falling apart at the seams right now because of the amount of hostility, animosity and anger that is so thick, it can be tasted. The U.S. flag is a symbol of every struggle for every person who has ever fought for something that they felt they should have. It’s a symbol of the greatness our country had and still possesses. Why do you think that people burn the American flag when they’re upset with the United States? Because they’re destroying a symbol. When I see Americans burning or desecrating the American flag, I see it as a symbol of the destruction of what makes the United States the unique country that it is.

What should offend us all is the fact that so many people can freely desecrate a symbol that so many people have sacrificed their very lives for. “The flag is more than thread and material. Its colors bleed with stories of sacrifice.”  It was not just “white people” who died defending that flag. Those are people who come from every facet of life. That flag is a symbol that over 1.3 million people in the United States Armed Forces died believing in, protecting and fighting for. Forget what you think about our government, or our leaders. They are not the people sacrificing their lives in order to defend that flag. That is a symbol of the freedoms that we Americans, whether you are white, black, yellow, green, blue or brown, are free to enjoy. We are not told what we will be when we grow up, or what we are going to study in college. We are not put on a waiting list to buy a car, or not allowed to practice our own religions. or who we can and cannot be in a relationship with.

What response am I going to get? That a flag means more to me than black people? That I am a race baiter? That I am racist? Part of white privilege means that people already automatically assume that about white people anyway. I could argue until I am blue in the face about social activism, equality, privilege, etc. But all of this would be voided out by the color of my skin. What offends me is the symbol that is being desecrated. What the flag means to so many people, not only in the United States, but around the world. Perhaps the world we live in now only shows the negative, only reports the negative and only informs you of the bad. But that is not what the United States was, and that is not what the United State is. Do not confuse the country with its leadership.

To speak plainly: He broke the law. He made terroristic threats online and he brought a gun on campus. Both of those actions are felonies and he should be held accountable for his actions because they are illegal. The gun was not planted in his backpack, the threats he made online were not made by somebody else, and he is evading the authorities now, not some individual pretending to be him.

[politicalmisery]

How Political Science Could Benefit from Intersectional Analysis

Doing research on the basis of intersectional analysis, in my opinion, means recognizing the differences between races, cultures, ethnicities and every category that we construct to isolate ourselves in. One would think that this would be a analysis that political scientists would openly embrace given the particular subjects they study, but it is not. Intersectional analysis is a method of analysis which political scientists, especially those studying comparative and international relations, would greatly benefit from. In this paper, I will attempt to explain exactly how the utilization of intersectional analysis would benefit the field of political science. Specifically, intersectional analysis would assist political scientists in realizing the patriarchal construction of the field itself instead of remaining indifferent to it - merely acknowledging that patriarchy exists in the international and state system is not enough. Additionally, intersectional analysis can be utilized with the theory of social constructivism, challenging the grand theories in international relations of realism and liberalism that are closely fiercely protected by the predominantly white male culture that tyrannizes the field. Also,, intersectional analysis allows us to recognize and being aware of our “arrogant perception” of differences and to identify, acknowledge and respect those differences instead of blatantly ignoring them. Unfortunately, the majority of political scientists focus on what makes individuals, societies, cultures and nations the same instead of the fundamental differences that exist.

Political science is a white world and has always been submerged in an ocean of patriarchy. The famous political scientists we study are all white men. The work of female political scientists who utilize feminist theory in general, but specifically cultural feminism, are treated of examples of what not to do if you want to be taken seriously in the field, unless you are an Americanist. Feminism is dismissed in comparative politics because generally two state actors are being compared - not contrasted. In international relations, theories that remotely challenge realism and liberalism are automatically discriminated against and deemed inferior.  For the most part, the only feminism that is recognized by most political scientists is radical “white” feminism that not even all Western women agree or associate with. McIntosh (1989) sums up the sort of education political scientists are trained in:  “Whites are taught to think of their lives as morally, neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work which will allow ‘them’ to become more like ‘us’.”  As a result, feminism in political science mirrors the patriarchal underpinnings of the field as a whole. Being taken seriously as a researcher in political science is to think as a white male. Given the fact that most political scientists in international relations hope to one day influence foreign policy in the international system this form of white normative thinking seems counterproductive. That being said, patriarchal Western policy is transplanted and forced onto cultures which they do not understand and hardly attempt to understand. It is colonization through ideology. More borderlands and conflicts are created as a result of intolerant “tolerant Western multicultural” policy. The borderland that Gloria Anzaldúa (1987) described so eloquently is created and trauma is impacted on the individual. These borderlands impact and oppress all individuals as a result; however, certain genders and minorities face several different oppressions that others do not. That being said, with the transplantation of Western ideology, those differences are not seen, or they are ignored and dismissed.  

To counter the realist and liberalist theories that dominate most of political science, social constructivism is currently being used. I would suggest utilizing intersectional analysis to strengthen the social constructivist theory in political science. This would additionally strengthen the argument for the importance of intersectional analysis because of how different oppressions apply directly to the individual, the society, the culture, the individual states and the international community.  This is easier said than done as no political scientist hoping to have a successful career in academia within the field of international relations would risk their reputation so early in their academic career. Nor are they being trained to question the grand theories. Fortunately enough, I am not interested in a tenured-track career in academia which puts me at an advantage in introducing the concepts of intersectional analysis in international relations and comparative politics.  Social constructivism is especially useful in allowing  me to utilize intersectional analysis in my research without much of an issue because of the flexibility of the theory. Whereas realism and liberalism focus on the actions of the state, social constructivism looks at the individual and the society, which is fundamental in understanding the actions of the state or groups that have some sort of power. Further, social constructivism allows political scientists to embrace what their field is - a social science. Intersectional analysis would provide political scientists with ways to understand “emerging identities, given the divergent theories regarding the relationship between globalization and cultural formation” (Grewal & Kaplan 2001). Although Western concepts have become transnational, which could be arguably seen as a form of colonization, identity is not so easily erased and continues to live on in some way, whether it is apparent or not. By being aware of these differences, political scientists can deepen their understanding as to why Western foreign policy fails in certain regions comprised of certain cultures. Further, it allows political scientists to be aware of their “arrogant perception” and ignorance of other countries and cultures.

Being aware of my “arrogant perception” is something I have known, but have never had a word for. I remember sitting in an undergraduate course with Dr. Carol Mueller, titled ‘Women, Power and Politics’. Dr. Mueller was attempting to explain how globalization affects women in second and third world countries. On this day, she was comparing and contrasting the plight of women in Ciudad Juarez and Guatemala to women in India. I heard a classmate turn around and say: “If I were that woman, I would leave. I would not let anybody touch me like that.” Before Dr. Mueller could give an irritated moan and continue with the lecture, I turned around in my chair and looked at the woman who, with her words, had insinuated that the women being abused were weak. “Do you not get it? They have no where else to go. Do you know how many women in the United States have been beaten, raped and murdered so that you can have the freedom to say something so ignorant? These women have no place to go. There are no shelters or organizations to help them. They cannot go to their families because they are likely to be ostracized. They either die, or they stay.” Looking back, I now realize that this is one of the first times I vocalized what I now know to be intersectionality. I was aware of my privilege and the oppression of others. Kimberlé Crenshaw (1993) states the following: “Many women who seek protection are unemployed or underemployed, and a good number of them are poor. Shelters serving these women cannot afford to address only the violence inflicted by the batterer, they must also confront the other multilayered and routinized forms of domination that often converge in these women’s lives, hindering their ability to create alternatives to the abusive relationships that brought them to shelters in the first place.” If researchers do not recognize this in their own communities, how would they recognize it in a community and culture they do not understand? It was through my lived experiences of being raised in a conflicting Irish-Hungarian culture that in some ways empowered womanhood while at the same time suppressing it is what allowed me to see the differences in lived experience between myself and different women.

As the society we live in has labeled differences a taboo discussion, we do not talk about differences. We live in a “politically correct” and “multicultural” society where we are raised with contradicting knowledge of differences that should not be recognized. By allowing that contradiction to thrive, and become naturalized into our lives, we suppress that individuality. Utilization of intersectionality sunders this normalization of invisible differences that are not actually invisible, but are actually just not acknowledged. Intersectionality allows us to explore what socially constructed binaries and different areas of oppression do not allow us to see. This is the most fundamentally important aspect of humanity. The individual. Intersectionality allows us to explore what societal norms deem socially unacceptable. Differences are allowed to be spoken about. We are able to learn how to discuss differences. Most importantly, intersectionality is assistful, to me, in being aware of my privileges. If there is one sentence that has spoken to me more than others, it is one created by Gloria Anzaldúa (1987): “I change myself, I change the world.” Thinking and doing research on the basis of intersectional analysis means experiencing my research in an attempt to truly understand it. As a political scientist, I decided that I would pursue my degrees in an effort to change the world in a positive way. I did not come to academia seeking glory, publications or a tenured track career as a professor at a research university. I came to academia hoping that I could take some of the knowledge I have the benefit of obtaining and to utilize that education in a way to make life better for not just others, but also to educate myself.

By doing research on an intersectional basis, I am being educated by the cultures and societies I am immersing myself into. Producing research that others can benefit from means that I cannot simply be absent from my research for the sake of convincing my colleagues, my cohort or  my peers that I am not emotionally invested in my research. As Gloria Anzaldua says, “In trying to become ‘objective’, Western culture made ‘objects of things and people when it distanced itself from them, thereby losing ‘touch’ with them.” (Anzaldúa 1987).   If we remain objective, we objectify. If I objectify my research, and my research is society, I am perpetrating that very same patriarchy that I am fighting against and that countless individuals have been fighting against since its creation.  Conducting research utilizing intersectional analysis allows me to see past the socially constructed binaries that our worlds are built in and to recognize that there are several types of oppression.

As Lorde (1983) says: There is no hierarchy of oppressions. “I cannot afford the luxury of fighting one form of oppression only. I cannot believe that freedom from intolerance is the right of only one particular group. And I cannot afford to choose between the front upon which I must battle these forces of discrimination, wherever they appear to destroy me. And when they appear to destroy me it will not be long before they appear to destroy you.”  By blatantly ignoring that those oppressions exist, political science is giving them the power to grow and to fester and to accumulate until conflict erupts. Acknowledgement and acceptance of differences is key to changing the Western ideology that dominates political science. “To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions. The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political tool here. They keep the thinking about equity incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred dominance by making these taboo subjects.” (McIntosh 1989). Just like those oppressions are invisible to those who do not experience them, the privilege that shields them from seeing those oppressions is invisible to them as well. After being introduced to the concept of intersectional analysis, I became aware of so many things that I had, seemingly, ignored before. Once I was aware of it, I saw oppressions everywhere that had never shown themselves to me before. My eyes were opened and my observation deck was completely altered. “As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something which puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taunt not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage” (McIntosh 1989).

Works Cited

Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute, 1987. Print.

Anzaldúa, Gloria. "Playfulness, "World"-Traveling and Loving Perception." This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Colour. By Cherrie Moraga. S.l.: Kitchen Table, 1983. Print.

Crenshaw, Kimberle. "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color." Stanford Law Review 43 (1991).

Grewal, Inderpal, and Caren Kaplan. "Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality." GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7.4 (2001).

Lorde, Audre. ""There Is No Hierarchy of Oppressions"" Hierarchy of Oppressions. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.

McIntosh, Peggy. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." Peace and Freedom (1989).

[politicalmisery]

Former Albuquerque Police Chief Accused of Corruption For “Greasing” Contact with TASER International - - (or What Is Really Happening in New Mexico and Why is TASER International The Media’s Focus?)

As TASER International, Inc. (“TASER”) announces its acquisition of its former competitor, MediaSolv Solutions Corporation, news implying that the company bribes law enforcement officials has brought international coverage. According to various news sites, former Albuquerque Police Department (“APD") Chief Ray Schultz’s is being investigated because of a $2 million dollar, five year contract between the APD and TASER was penned in late 2013. New Mexican State Auditor Tim Keller has put forth the argument that the former police chief pushed through a no-bid contract due to his professional relationship with TASER. While officially, no laws or rules were broken by Schultz, Keller is using APD’s relationship with TASER as his pedestal for reform in New Mexico. Keller argues that Schultz violated the Governmental Conduct Act by taking a job with TASER after retiring. Additionally, Keller accuses Schultz of circumventing the city from allowing bids to come in, despite the fact that the city argues that a contract with TASER was financially sound and beneficial, especially since the APD was already carrying Tasers produced by the company. Keller believes that since APD found a loophole to sign into a contract with TASER, that laws which do not exist were violated and must be created in order to retroactively hold Schultz accountable for a contract he did not sign.

What happens to be buried in the news reports regarding the relationship between TASER and APD is that, Police Chief Allen Banks, Schultz's successor, made the decision to enter into a contract with TASER regarding its camera storage system - not Schultz. Reporters have acknowledged that the city defended the contract between itself and TASER. The city has further stated that there was no legal wrongdoing. Nonetheless, Tim Keller is arguing that Schultz , along with the ADP Senior Buyer and Fiscal Officer, are being accused of violations of the Governmental Conduct Act. Until 2011, when this legislation received its third major overhaul, police officers and certain officials were exempt from this law.  Nonetheless, Mr. Keller, who happens to have his MBA and not his juris doctorate, continues to spout his legal opinion regarding the alleged conflict of interest. Finally, most reports state that Schultz is an employee of TASER. What is not clarified is that Schultz is merely a contracted employee who speaks of his experiences utilizing TASER products as a law enforcement official. Specifically, he  speaks at TASER events about his experience with TASER products and TASER pays for his meals, travel and lodging… as is the industry norm. In fact, Schultz is employed as Assistant Police Chief in Memorial Villages, Texas. His contractual employment with TASER does not violate any employment contract or agreement that Schultz had with the City of Albuquerque. It is common practice for private businesses and governments to hire individuals based not only on the expertise in a specific field, but also based on their social network and the connections that they have developed professionally. Is any law being violated? According to the City of Albuquerque: No.  Further, city employees told the auditors that “Taser cameras were better and more affordable than other products.”  

What the reporters also fail to mention is a background on Keller.  In addition to being the State Auditor, is also the Arizona Senator Majority Whip and that he created the Governmental Accountability Office for the state of New Mexico. Nor is it mentioned that he is planning a campaign for Governor in 2018. Also omitted is the fact that he cannot, as State Auditor, issue an opinion regarding the financial state of New Mexico blaming his predecessor for the overstatement of funds and the missing millions. Nor can he provide an explanation as to why $4.5 billion New Mexican Tax dollars are not being utilized since prior to 2007. Instead of leading a witchhunt against TASER and Schultz, perhaps it would better serve Tim Keller to figure out where that money is and allocate funds in order to properly train police officers and other authoritative figures in New Mexico - as suggested by the DOJ. While that sum of money floats around, the City of Albuquerque will continue to impose pay cuts, layoffs, and forced retirements on its dwindling police force.

For those that are unaware, the majority of TASER’s clientele is law enforcement. As a result, the company has relationships with a number of law enforcement officials, and, due to intelligent business dealings, probably employs retired military and law enforcement professionals who utilized their product while performing a public service. One of the corruption charges that is being leveled against Schultz is the fact that he has spoken at TASER sponsored events and conferences, or conferences and events that TASER was present at. How this surprises absolutely anybody is relatively mind-boggling.  Why would anybody expect somebody other than the authorities, or military personnel to come and speak at a TASER sponsored event. Law enforcement and military make up 97% of TASER’s clientele. Nonetheless, in response to the public backlash, TASER has decided to instate a one-year period where they do not approach or offer former law enforcement officials for consulting arrangements in an effort to alleviate any public concern regarding the perception of conflicts of interest. This means that TASER will not hire retired law enforcement or military personnel that they had a relationship with for at least a year after they have left their jobs in public service. Additionally, in their public statement, General Counsel Doug Clint provided a chronological outline of TASER’s relationship with Schultz. As indicated in the press release, it is indeed ridiculous to claim or even insinuate that TASER’s conduct was unprofessional, outside of industry standards, or even remotely considered bribery.

Other reports argue that the use of Taser’s soared under Chief Schultz who served as police chief for eight years from 2005 until 2014. For three years of his role as chief, specifically 2009 to 2012, there were twenty officer-involved shootings that resulted in fatalities. The Department of Justice outlines that officers used less than lethal force excessively, basing this off of approximately 200 force reports.  While arguing that there was a sharp increase in the use of Tasers, they in turn reveal that  less than lethal options (such as a Taser) were only deployed 11% of the time. While positing that the APD was lax in its audit of lethal force, the DOJ omits that they were lax in their review of the department.  Of the over 1,800 Use of Force Reports which were produced between 2010 and 2013, the DOJ included only 200 reports that they reviewed, and insisted that the number was 33% - arguing that 2% number produced by the APD (based off of a number of over 1,800) was invalid.

While reporters are quick to point this out, they fail to provide the exact number. Further, they fail to inform their readers that the specific reports that the DOJ used were specifically chosen so that use of force could be called into question. If more police officers are carrying Tasers as a non-lethal weapon, would this not be expected? A large amount of responsibility is placed on the authorities and not the individuals who resisted arrest, ran from the authorities, threatened the authorities, or threatened somebody else. Did the DOJ cherry-pick the reports they wished to review? From 2006 until 2010, 47 officers were involved in 37 officer-involved shootings. The result of these officer-involved shootings was 18 fatalities. Finally, what is not being reported is that, under Raymond Schultz, the APD was able to utilize a workstation which provided its officers with intelligence that would make their jobs more efficient, and to ensure that perpetrators and criminals were apprehended and the public was kept safe. An increase in arrests occurred, so one would assume that the statistics for use of force, use of less-than-lethal force, and use of deadly force reports would increase.

This is not the first time that the APD has made the news. They have been accused of being excessively forceful in arrests, using deadly force often, violating citizen’s 4th Amendment rights, and not being held accountable for their actions.  In a report from the U.S. Department of Justice dated April 10, 2014, the DOJ states: “Although APD has taken steps to allay the public’s concern about the department’s use of force, these initiative have been insufficient to ensure consistent accountability. They also have not addressed longstanding deficiencies that have allowed a culture of indifference to constitutional policing and insularity to develop within the department.”

There are a number of questions I have as to why this story has come to the surface, after over a year of “investigating”. I question why it has gained national attention. Why is TASER the subject of scrutiny? While Digital Ally’s news is limited to their soaring stock, TASER is, instead, affiliated with unrest, rioting, racism, and a plethora of other negatives. Given the current political and racial climate that our society is immersed in, I cannot help but wonder the reasoning behind singling out APD’s former and current relationship with TASER, other than the fact that the Attorney General recently announced that $28 million dollars was being allocated to help authorities obtain body cameras in an effort to enforce police accountability. As TASER is a leader in the United States when it comes to body cameras and electro-shock weapons, the obvious subject of scrutiny would be the company that would be profiting off of the chaos of the world today.    As a result, because TASER is the leader in its field, it receives the bulk of the bad press and scrutiny. While it is practically common knowledge that stock in TASER’s shares has increased over four percent, with a sales increase of 18.1%. What is not mentioned is that the shares of TASER’s competitor, Digital Ally, have increased fourfold.

While the race riots that are occurring throughout the country are tragic - this ordeal regarding Schultz and TASER seems irrelevant. A company is being scrutinized because its products are selling. Based off of the tone of some of the reports and news, one would think that they were accusing TASER of orchestrating deep seated racism in these communities and instigating the riots.

If you are truly interested in the occurings and happenings in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Albuquerque Police Department publishes an Annual Report, Monthly Report, Strategic Plan, Internal Affairs Report and Equal Opportunity Plan that can be accessed by the public (including reporters such as Nick Pinto of Rolling Stone,  and Rachel Aviv of The New Yorker , (as well as the DOJ) should they wish to do so.

[politicalmisery]

Sidney Tarrow's "Power in Movement" and the EuroZone Crisis of 2012.

In Power in Movement: Social Movement and Contentious Politics, Sidney Tarrow attempts to blend theories and research from comparative politics, history and sociology to illustrate that political power moves beyond the international and political structures that we, as political scientists study. He emphasizes that contentious politics and social movements occur in various facets of society. Tarrow successfully shows that social movement is fluid. Tarrow places and emphasis on the importance of historical and cultural change, political opportunities and constraints, and the international community with the global advances in communications technology and transnational international economy. Essentially in his introduction, while there are differences that are mentioned between states, the international system seems to be more like a multinational community. Tarrow makes a clear distinction between the definition, and the difference between contentious politics and social movement. Tarrow (2011) posits that contentious politics are triggered when changing political opportunities and constraints create incentives to take action and that a social movement is when citizens mount, coordinate and sustain against the changing political environment. The main questions that Tarrow posits are the following: i) What are the conditions that bring about powers in movement?; ii) What are the common dynamics in social movements from beginning to end?; and iii) What are the consequences of social movements, especially after mass mobilization has declined? Through a series of examples and case studies of social movements, he shows that even small and temporary groups of collective actors have had an impact on domestic and foreign politics, and can, at times be a force to be reckoned with (Tarrow 2011). Tarrow argues that the theoretical framework must be broach in the approach to understanding the social movements, cycles of contention and revolutions that are defined as contentious politics – which is something political scientists emphatically fail to do. Tilly (2003) argues that social movements share some of the same variables of other political contentions, but they have their own characteristics. Tarrow expands on this when he discusses contentious collective actions, which he states serve as the basis for social movements. What I enjoyed most about Tarrow’s theory of collective action and contentious politics is that it placed an emphasis on the importance of interdisciplinary research – especially when it comes to qualitative methodologies. Tarrow argues that much is lost in our research due to the fact that political scientists narrowly focus on institutions and less attention, if any, gets paid to political actors, who could, in fact, be anybody. The methodology Tarrow utilizes shows the complexities of events and movements which, in my opinion, some political scientists automatically steer clear of. His writing style, and the arguments put forth, are easily understood by a variety of fields inside and out of academia. Instead of critiquing Tarrow’s work, I intend to expand on Tilly’s (2003) theory of collective violence, specifically with regard to football hooliganism. In Charles Tilly’s, Politics of Collective Violence, some doubted that the idea of football hooliganism could be defined as a form of collective violence. Further, the argument was put forth that football hooliganism could not be tied to political, social or economic grievances. This is simply not factual. Football has been historically connected to political, economic and social grievances as early as the 12th century (Foer 2004) where King Edward III and Edward IV banned the game for those very reasons. A football match can serve as a contentious collective action because it provides ordinary people with a resource that do not generally have. Football matches provide this forum for contentious collective actions along with the disruptive, yet organized and united identities, which are key to contentious politics (Tarrow 2011, Tilly 2003). As such, this paper seeks to utilize Tarrow’s methodology to expand on Tilly’s emphasis of social protest, utilizing football matches as the independent variable. If political parties and interest groups can begin a contentious political movement, football fans can do the same. By expanding on Tilly’s (2003) theory of collective violence, utilizing the theories posited by Tarrow, we can strengthen the argument regarding football’s influence on local, domestic and foreign politics (Foer 2004). For example, according to Tarrow, an environment for collective action must exist. An environment for collective action automatically provides an environment for collective violence. Football matches provide a sphere for contentious politics, and an environment for collective action. Also, the identity does not have to be created in a face-to-face environment, initially. With the increasing popularity of the internet, and the easing in access to the internet, identities are being formed online. Unlike Tilly, Tarrow (2011) places a special importance of transnational networking and mobilization. Most importantly, he leaves the definition of what this transnational networking is open. Tarrow states that in order for a movement to be contentious, it must be disruptive. The internet, and its networking platforms, assist in the organization of mobilizing these collective actors for contestation. The internet has shown that it can be a disruptive tool in politics. The network as a tool of contention also allows for movements to be contained and repressed with relative ease. As a result, this does not limit us to social platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, but can be nationalist and ethnic message board’s online, extremist magazines, journals and newspapers, cell phone applications, etc. A simple Google search with the terms “nationalist” “ethnic” “football” “clubs” and “message boards” returned approximately 444,000 results. With the utilization of the internet, mobilization and support can occur almost instantaneously. They are individuals who form a collective group which have a common interest and identity, whether it is cultural, nationalist, ethnic, or a fandom identity through their national football club, regional football club or local football club. Historically, football hooliganism has influenced political decisions made by leaders due to their fears of sedition, social unrest, and treasonous activity. It is common knowledge that football hooliganism has existed as long as the game has (Goldblatt 2008). Events of football hooliganism, however, were not reported on until about sixty years ago (Dunning et al, 1988). Broadening on the fact that nationalism and football hooliganism are intertwined, it is common knowledge that nationalist ideologies typically arise during football games (Goldblatt 2008). Though Tilly (2003) had argued that football hooliganism was simply boys being boys, he still defined it as collective violence. For those who are not interested in the history of football, examples of the political agendas underlying football hooliganism are just a Google news alert away. In the last few decades, football hooliganism has been directly connected to nationalist, ethnic and political ideologies where the actors who are participating are motivated by reasons that are not related the football games, but who is playing in the football match, their nationality, ethnicity, religion or race along with the political beliefs of the region, country or county they originated from (Goldblatt 2008). These small, collective groups utilize football matches to further their own economic, political, social or religious agenda through violence (Spaaij 2006, Foer 2004). In my opinion, and my interpretation of the definitions, this is an example of contentious politics. To provide you with an example that does not involve the FIFA World Cup, when Greece played Germany in the quarter finals at UEFA EURO, to some, this may have simply been a typical football game. To many, however, the Eurozone Crisis was world news and the austerity measures Germany had put in place for Greece was common knowledge. The economic and political tensions between Germany and Greece spilled over into the football game where countries took sides between Germany and Greece and the quarter-final match literally became synonymous with foreign policy (Kulish 2012). Further, Greeks and Germans were attacking one another based on nationalistic, ethnic, historical, cultural and socio-economic grievances. When German chancellor Angela Merkel chose to attend the game, and cheered Germany on in the quarter-finals, many Greeks thought that she should not have done so and compared her championing of Germany during the game to her policies in Europe (Smith & Connolly 2012). German newspapers mentioned that the Greeks would not be bailed out by Germany this time, referencing the multi-billion dollar bailouts received by Greece (Smith & Connolly 2012). Likewise, newspapers in Greece’s called for the bankrupting of Germany, while Italy insisted that Angela Merkel was birthing an economic “Fourth Reich” (Heffer 2011). Other newspapers had no issue caricaturing her in SS regalia, and the like (Kulish 2012). This football match did influence policy decisions between Greece, Germany, the European Union and the international economy (Malkoutzis 2012). I should note that while examples at an international level may strengthen the argument, political scientists, sociologists and others who study collective violence and contentious politics can look at the regional, national and local level. This does not have to be at an international or a state level. Throughout the world, albeit perhaps not the United States of America, football hooliganism exists and persists due to ethnic differences between supporters of certain teams. This is especially apparent in the countries who make up the former Yugoslav federation, or in any country that has a minutely significant population made up of immigrants from any other country in Europe. Football matches are an excuse to express ethnic grievances that may or may not be politically or socio-economically motivated (Goldblatt 2009; Foer 2004). The motivation was not because a match was lost – the motivation was the political ideology that the match is a symbol for (Spaaij 2006, Foer 2004). There are a number of critiques that could be lodged against Tarrow’s theory. Once could be that the theory is too broad, a fact which Tarrow states in the beginning of his book. Some could argue his definition of contentious politics cannot be applied universally (Wendt 1999), or that it is not individual actions that spur collective violence (Waltz 1979), but it is political entrepreneurs and violence specialists that are coercing and manipulating individuals to participate in collective violence (Boyle 2014; Tilly 2003). While Tilly’s theory could be considered more quantitative, Tarrow’s could be more qualitative. This would introduce a host of critiques, depending on what side of the divide you find yourself in. That being said, these are some of the most common arguments that political scientists put forth regarding new or improved theories. It truly depends on the theory and methodology being utilized, the expertise of the academic utilizing the theory. Works Cited Boyle, Michael J. 2014. Violence After War: Explaining Instability in Post-Conflict States.Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Foer, Franklin. 2009. How Soccer Explains The World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. New York: HarperCollins Publishing.

Goldblatt, David. 2008. The Ball is Round: A Global History of Soccer. New York: Penguin Group.

Heffer, Simon. August 17. 2011. “Rise of the Fourth Reich. How Germany is Using the Financial Crises to Conquer Europe.” The Daily Mail.

Kulish, Nicholas. June 22, 2012. “Greek-German Tensions Over Finances Spill Into Another Arena.” The New York Times.

Malkoutzis, Nick. June 22, 2012. “Greece vs. Germany: The Real Fireworks Come After the Soccer Match.” Business Week.

Smith, Helena and Kate Connolly. June 22, 2012. “German and Greek Fans Find Eurozone Crisis and Euro 2012 Inextricably Linked.” The Guardian.

Spaaij, Ramón. 2006. Understanding Football Hooliganism: A Comparison of Six Western European Countries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Tilly, Charles. 2003. The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tarrow, Sidney G. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movement and Contentious Politics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics.

Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[politicalmisery]

Western Foreign Policy and Hungarian Nationalism How does a country liberate itself from oppression when oppression becomes normalized within the culture? While transnational feminists express the importance cultural relativism and historical contexts of other cultures (Abu-Lughod, 2002) how does one alleviate a matrix of oppressions in a culture that has never respected the rights of anything other than the normative, heterosexual, ableist and biologically Hungarian male in a paternalistic and misogynistic country?  How does one alter the treatment of the “Other” in a country where the “Other “ is the collective majority and where any differences are eliminated with violence? Further, how does the foreign policy of other nations influence different cultures?

In this article, I posit that it is the foreign policy that Western nations impose on developing nations which disregards their cultural norms assists in intensifying gender, sexual, economic, education and ethnic oppressions (Balogh, 2011). As a result, the government of the developing nation responds harshly to anything that is not normative in that culture.While Hungary could hardly ever be considered a beacon of equality, it was the foreign policy of Western nations, who did not see past their own manifest destiny and ideological colonization which helped exasperate the current state of affairs that Hungary is embroiled in. By dismissing the culture of an entire nation and forcing economic and political changes onto it, the West has successfully assisted political elites in pushing through a nationalistic agenda.

When the West descended into Hungary, their ethnocentric approach to a country and culture they deemed inferior to their own, and subsequent failure to globalize, assisted in Hungary’s nationalistic and oppressive ideology. While the U.S.S.R took Hungary’s natural resources, the West stripped it of its market capabilities by introducing third world wages to the population, the Euro Zone, and by withholding economic and humanitarian aid if the Hungarian government did not meet its demands (Hinsey, 2012; Ghodsee, 2004; Arpad, 1994; Adamik, 1991). More and more often, foreign policy of Western governments and organizations, but specifically norm entrepreneurs, the European Union and a large number of non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations and multinational corporations, fail to include the culture of the countries they alter into their global agendas. This results in catastrophic consequences for the citizens of the country.

More than twenty years after Hungary was “liberated” from the oppressive regime imposed on the country by the U.S.S.R., their secret police, and a cruel Hungarian government, Hungary is now being crushed by a hybrid capitalist-socialist system that was thrust upon it (Jordan, 2010; Olsen 1997). As a result, the political ideology is turning increasingly backward and nationalistic. This nationalistic ideology is littered with misogyny and patriarchy, as the Hungarian government is heralding a return to the past, complete with traditional gender roles and the importance of a large Hungarian nuclear family (Nielsen, 2013; Balogh, 2011; Beres-Deak, 2011; Janos, 2011). Unfortunately, this summoning for a return to what is perceived as ethnically Hungarian is a return to feudalism, indentured servitude and constant conflict (Janos, 2011) where all but ethnic Hungarian men would face severe oppression at multiple intersections. While this feudal political ideology has not quite taken hold, the rise in popularity of radical religious political parties is alarming for the future of an increasingly unstable country. Further combined with this, is that the oppression experienced by certain Hungarians prior to World War I never truly left. It was brutally suppressed under a communist ideology and exploded when Hungarian culture clashed with Western ideology (Nielsen, 2013; Jordan, 2010; Olsen, 1997).

This included and currently includes any and all genders, ethnicities, nationalities or socially constructed categories which do not conform to the ethnic Hungarian nuclear family. They are openly persecuted, demonized and blamed for the troubles of the nation. The severity of these oppressions compounds and multiplies if an individual occupies more than on oppressive category. In a nationalistic country of a little over ten  million, which includes over two million ethnic minorities, one can assume that at least 20% of the population is discriminated against based solely on ethnicity. That assumption fails to account for discrimination that is directed at any individual who is mentally or physically disabled, a closeted or open member of the gay and lesbian community (Uitz, 2004), women who do not thoroughly embrace femininity and motherhood (Balogh, 2011), men who do not conform to Hungarian concepts of masculinity and everything and anything that threatens or is perceived to threaten Hungarian nationalism (Koncz, 2008; Smith, 2007; Nagy, 2005; Goldfarb, 1997; Haney, 1994). The Hungarian government seems to be utilizing the tactics that were used by the Third Arrow Party which controlled the country under the Third Reich (Nielsen, 2013; Hinsey, 2012; Smith, 2007; Chiva, 2005; Sanchez-Osorio, 2001; Audit, 1999; Haney, 1994) This is demonstrated in the amending of the Hungarian Constitution which legalized the discrimination and oppression of the minorities listed above, and anything that is not the ideal ethnic Hungarian (Hinsey, 2012)

Prior to the constitutional amendments, the legislative changes made for accession into European Union were not enforced due to doctors, police officers and judges who violated their sworn oaths to protect the citizens of Hungary (Fabian, 2012). Women and children are routinely abused, members of the gay and lesbian community are forced to “pass” as heterosexual in public for fear of being attacked, Roma families fear leaving their small communities for healthcare and education (Nielsen, 2013, Kazai et al, 2013). Further, politicians argue that if women would simply stay at home and have children for the nation that domestic violence would not be an issue (Human Rights Watch, 2013; Nielsen, 2013; Fabian, 2012; Szalai, 1991). Members of the Jewish community face virulent anti-semitism. Compiled onto the already oppressive government who obtains immunity from the international community, Hungarian society follows in the footsteps of its government and enforces the same oppressions onto minority communities and individuals.

As the country falls further into poverty and dissent politicians, who profited from the fall of communism and Western corporations colonizing the Hungarian market, are looking for a scapegoat (Jordan, 2010). As such, Hungarians have harnessed a racist, nationalist rhetoric blaming the financial problems, and thus all problems of the nation, on those who are not ethnic Hungarian or those who do not comply with normative Hungarian standards (Nielsen, 2013; Imre, 2008; Chiva, 2005; Nagy, 2005; Ghodsee, 2004). As the country diligently works to annihilate any political and human rights of those who differ from the ideal Hungarian, a violent backlash against the ideology of feminism and women’s rights is utilized. Previously, Hungarians blamed the Roma and Jewish communities for the problems of the country.  Now, with the assistance of Western ideology, the Hungarian government is now able to blame the women of Hungary for the faults of the nation. Utilizing the ideology promoted by Western feminists, the Hungarian successfully caricatures and demonizes gender rights in. This began when Western feminists attempted to dismantle the patriarchal family in the early 1990s, stating that it was the source of oppression and the plight of the nation. Apathetic to the cultural importance of the family in Hungarian society. While feminists blamed the patriarchal family, the paternalistic government, who had historically viewed the hearth in the control of women, agreed enthusiastically. “The movement blames women for the increasing mortality of middle-aged men, the rising divorce rate, the falling birth-rate, and the generally decreasing stability of families” (Adamik, 1991). Since the family plays such an integral role in Hungarian culture, the Hungarian government focuses its attentions on influencing and shaping this area of Hungarian life. Western feminists inadvertently gave Hungary a perfect scapegoat.

While there are various mistakes Western feminists made when they attempted to introduce Western ideology in Hungary, the fatal mistake of attacking the family unit was its undoing. Western feminists came into the country peddling the idea that women were the same as men, that Hungarian women did not want to be at home with their families, that they should fight the womanly fight transform themselves into the equals of men (Jung, 1996). “Western feminists are accused of falsely assuming that all women share important interests and desires, that Western notions of gender, sexual difference, and patriarchy can apply cross-culturally, and of valorizing the West as the best model for women’s struggle for equality and power.” (Olsen, 1997). The complete disregard of Hungarian history was a slap in the face of Hungarian women who thought democracy and capitalism meant freedom. Under communism, it was the family unit that Hungarians used to escape and to build a sanctuary (Beres-Deak, 2011; Morvai, 2004). Apathy and blatant disregard for Hungarian culture, specifically with regard to the importance of the family, and Hungarian history secured a distrust of the West.

Olsen (1997) argues that “Western feminists are accused of falsely assuming that all women share important interests and desires, that Western notions of gender, sexual difference, and patriarchy can apply cross-culturally, and of valorizing the West as the best model for women’s struggle for equality and power.”  Hungarian women, under communism, were rewarded by the state for having children. The state assisted women with social services, maternity leave and other economic incentives. While this disappeared after communism, the Hungarian government is trying provide the same economic incentives. The only difference is that these incentives are only provided by the state if women marry and reproduce and that these economic incentives provide women with the bare necessities of life. It is the Hungarian governments way of providing incentives to reproduce and create more ethnic Hungarians (Smith, 2007). As a result of these economic incentives, women are seen as acquisitions once more.  While the brunt of the persecution falls onto the shoulders of all women, it specifically impacts those men and women who do not embrace the Hungarian rhetoric that posits a woman’s place is in the home, reproducing Hungarian offspring and taking care of the family (Koncz, 2008; Smith, 2007; Nagy, 2005; Goldfarb, 1997; Haney, 1994). They are seen as selfish and treasonous. While Western feminists were destined for failure in Hungary, what was not anticipated was how their  ideology would would be used to distort the concept of gender equality and cause more matrices of oppression within the country.

Imre (2008) notes that the more insecure a country is, the more likely they are to embrace nationalism and that with nationalism comes restrictions on gender and sexuality. As a result, oppressive action is not connected to a gender, an ethnicity or a sexuality. It is connected and intersects with gender, ethnicity, sexuality and anything which challenges the normative.  

“...a resurgence of macho nationalism and patriarchy in the eastern states, belongs to men. This is linked to the decreasing participation of women in the public sphere in post-1989 eastern European countries, in the erosion of their rights there, and in the increasing liminality that women as carriers of national cultural experience in states that themselves liminal to Europe.” (Griffin 2003, p. 54).

Lack of cultural empathy and colonization are critiques that frequently occur with West. Whereas Hungary is nationalistic, Western powers are ethnocentric. Rita Beres-Deak (2011) uses the European Social Survey to explain that Hungarians typically place the importance of family above all else, including other relationships that they may or may not have. As such, the typical Hungarian family unit has a massive impact on not only the daily lives of Hungarians, but the choices that they make in life, the careers they choose and the people that they date. Any problem, any disappointment, anything out of the norm is not just a reflection oneself, it is a reflection of the family and this, a reflection of the country. The very idea of being rejected by one's family, as a Hungarian, is devastating. Part of the reason gender roles have been able to be so reinforced in Hungarian culture is because of this fear of disappointing the family (Balogh, 2011; Beres-Deak, 2011). In Hungary, the family is the reason for living.

“A married couple is supposed to sacrifice everything for their children, their friends,

their interests, their hobbies, their time, energy, and money… They need to provide everything needed in life until their son or daughter gets married; even after their children get married a couple still feels obligated to feed, clothe, and manage their children’s lives - it is their purpose in life, to raise children.” (Smith 2007, p. 12).

While Western nations praised Hungary as a beacon of Western ideology (Hinsey, 2012) due to their Western legislative changes, the enforcement of those legislative changes did not occur. Further, the legislative were purely political in order for the country to ascend into the European Union. Ascension into the European Union would provide Hungary with desperately needed economic funds to attempt to rebuild the nation. Currently, as there is no way to actually be expelled from the European Union, Hungary has begun to deliberately alter its legislation to reflect the current political agenda. As stated, once an attack on the patriarchal  family was made, Hungarians began to question the ideologies being imposed on them critically. Attacking the family unit was absolutely unacceptable and was seen as an attack on the country. The U.S.S.R. tried to suppress the family:  “The State consciously tried to weaken the role of the family, considered a dangerous capitalist institution. As a result, during state Socialism the family was a sphere of resistance. After the transition, political - especially right-wing - rhetoric has emphasized the importance of the family for the survival of the state and the nation” (Beres-Deak 2011, p. 339).  

Unfortunately, at least to Hungarians, the West who claimed to be the antithesis of communism, had seemingly presented themselves no differently with regard to family (Arpad, 1994; Haney, 1994; Olsen, 1997; Snitow, 1999; Ghodsee, 2004; Imre, 2008; Lazar, 2009; Guenther, 2011).

As stated, the family represents the crux of Hungarian culture. It is the single most important aspect of the Hungarian community. This emphasis on the image and reputation of the family deters many Hungarians from living a fulfilling and happy life. For example, members of the LGBT community from coming out to their family and friends because of a fear of being rejected by their family, yet their inability to adopt children and have a family also incurs rejection and discrimination. In a culture where family is everything, the government punishes by withholding this. Men and women who focus on higher education or a career have their sexuality and priorities questioned by family, friends and complete strangers because of their decision to not start or, perhaps, not have, a family. (Sanchez-Osorio, 2001; Guenther, 2011; Smith, 2007). While differing ethnicities and religions face persecution because of differing religious and cultural ideologies, all who refrain from familial ideologies, specifically marital and childbearing duties, are oppressed by the nation, the community, their family and friends, their colleagues and their co-workers, and their culture and society. Disregarding the lived experiences of women in Hungary was devastating to Western ideology. The lived experience of being a Hungarian woman in a corrupt, communist government where conformity was praised and individuality was punishable by death is unconscionable to most Westerners. Life under communism was a life that was dictated to Hungarians from birth. They were told where to go to school, what they would learn, what ideology they could embrace, where they could live, what car they could drive, who they could marry and the job they would spend the rest of their lives doing. The only freedom Hungarians experienced was in their homes, where they were not comrades or solely products of the socialist state (Goldfarb, 1997). Having Western ideology swoop in and attempt to state that the very place that was previously the only part of life one had control over, the only place a Hungarian living under communism could be free to do what they wished was wrong, was apprehensible in the eyes of Hungarians. After over seventy years of being told by the international community of what they could and could not do, and could and could not be, Hungarians were refusing to have that occur again. Western ideology was dismissed by many at this point  (Goldfarb, 1997).

As Hungary transitioned into a capitalist economy, which was necessary to ascend into the European Union, poverty and joblessness soared (Kazai et al, 2013; Beres-Deak, 2011; Koncz, 2008; Morvai, 2004; Goldfarb 1997). Currently the unemployment rate is nearing fifty percent (Jordan, 2010). The social services which were once provided by the communist government have disappeared under capitalism (Acsady 1999; Kiss, 1991). As Hungary falls into more and more debt, a distrust for the government has become palpable where the so-called communist government is yearned for (Hinsey 2012). Further exacerbating the situation is the machismo of Hungarian males who have succumbed to alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide as their perceived masculinity, which is tied into their status in the community, their wage and their employment, has disappeared (Eberhardt 1991, Adamik, 1991). As a result of this perceived loss of masculinity, domestic violence has exploded without repercussions (Human Rights Watch, 2013). Prior to 2013, domestic violence was not illegal unless there was extreme violence and, as explained before, figures of authority encouraged victims to refrain from making formal reports or complaints (Human Rights Watch, 2013; Fabian, 2012; Smith, 2007; Adamik, 1991). After 2013, victims of domestic violence have been routinely shamed by doctors, police officers and judges if they attempted to speak out (Human Rights Watch, 2013; Kazai et al, 2013).

Western feminism failed to take into account the lived historical and cultural experiences of Hungarian women, rallying under the banner of sisterhood. This made Hungarian women weary and hesitant of the West, and provided the government with a reason to discredit Western ideologies.  With the rise of capitalism, employers are hesitant to hire women who have children because they are considered unstable employment as women are primarily those who will stay home if their children are sick and it is obviously women who are most likely to need to take maternity leave. Yet, they’re unlikely to hire women who do not have children because they are seen as parasitical and anti-Hungarian (Kazai et al, 2013; Jordan, 2010; Koncz, 2008; Nagy, 2005). What does this mean for those women who are unable to have children, who choose to not have children for any number of reasons or for closeted lesbian couples who are not allowed to adopt children?

As Hungarians rally around a nationalistic agenda which stresses the importance of a return to traditionality and the gender norms that are associated with the nuclear family, women who do not recognize their “rightful place” as mothers and wives are going to continue to face oppression because their actions directly contradict the policy that the Hungarian government is attempting to implement. Though Hungarian women feel the oppression of their country slowly suffocating them into submission, there are various severities of oppression that accumulate on top of simply being biologically female. Roma women not only face the oppression of their own highly patriarchal community, but they also face the oppression of so-called ethnic Hungarians and a highly ethnocentric government that actively propagates this caricature of the Roma (Nielsen, 2013). Like the United States demonization of the “Welfare Queen”, Roma women are seen as over-sexualized, immoral and lazy thieves and murderers and this has been a concept promoted through the entirety of Europe since the Roma immigrated to the region in the 9th Century. The difference now is that instead of simply oppressing ethnic minorities, the Hungarian government is oppressing ethnic Hungarians which do not conform to the government's idea of what a real Hungarian is considered to be. Instead of ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide, oppressive legislation, cultural indoctrination and an apathetic international community enforce the oppression. This legislation impacts every aspect of life for the Hungarian-proclaimed minorities.

The Western ideology and foreign policy approach failed, as did Western feminist rhetoric. By failing to take into account the lived historical and cultural experiences of the population of Hungary, which are fraught with nationalism, ethnic cleansing, gender violence and occupation  to instead attempt to rally under the banner of universal democracy, the wants and needs of Hungarian men and women were discarded, just as had been done under communism. Further, it provided the Hungarian government with ammunition with which it needed to discredit any association with normative. The West is often criticized of promoting the concept of democracy as a universal ideology, assuming that all cultures are the same; allowing any differences to collapse in unimportance, hurting the very people they were attempting to “liberate” in the first place. Western feminist rhetoric exacerbated the distrust of Western ideology because of its criticism and dismissal of the family. Further, feminism did not exist in Hungary before, thus it could be utilized by the government as a scapegoat (Adamik, 1991; Arpad 1994; Ghodsee 2004). By attacking the patriarchal family, Hungary regressed to the archaic and feudal ideology it had propagated before the first World War, oppressing those who digressed from normative Hungarian culture and lifestyle (Kazai et al, 2013; Chiva, 2005).

The impact that the foreign policy has on other countries is unimaginable, as I believe this paper has proven. It is pivotal that Western nations who attempt to engage in nation-building begin to at least acknowledge the historical and cultural differences that exist in the international system. If nation-building countries continue to blatantly ignore the needs of foreign countries that they insist on assisting, they will continue to cause more harm to the people of the country while providing the government in power with reasons and excuses to continue to repress and suppress its citizens.

References

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2002. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others.” American Anthropologist. 104(3). pp. 783-790. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).

Acsady, Judit. 1999. “Urges and Obstacles: Chances for Feminism in Eastern Europe.” Women’s Studies International Forum. 22:4. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).

Adamik, Maria. 1991. “Hungary: A Loss of Rights?” Feminist Review. 39. pp. 166-170.  JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).

Arpad, Susan S. 1994. “On Teaching Women’s Studies in Hungary.” Women’s Studies International Forum. 17(5). JSTOR. (Accessed March 4, 2014).

Balogh, Andrea P. 2011. “Kinging in Hungarian Lesbian Culture.” Journal of Lesbian Studies. 15(3). pp. 299-310. Taylor & Francis. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Beres-Deak, Rita. 2011. “‘I Was A Dark Horse in the Eyes of Her Family’: The Relationship of Cohabiting Female Couples and the Families in Hungary.” Journal of Lesbian Studies. 15(3). pp. 337-355. Taylor & Francis. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Chiva, Christina. 2005. “Women in Post-Communist Politics: Explaining Under-Representation in the Hungarian and Romanian Parliaments.” Europe-Asia Studies. 57(7). pp. 969-994. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Conrath, Alan Brady. 2003. “A Tale of Two Eastern European Cities.” Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. Web. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Eberhardt, Eva and Julia Szalai. 1991. “Women of Hungary.” Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General Information, Communication, Culture, Women’s Information Services. 32. Web. (Accessed April 7, 2014).

Fabian, Katalin. 2012. “Defining Domestic Violence in Hungary: Successes and Continuing Challenges.” Scholar Research Brief. December 2012. GoogleScholar. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Ghodsee, Kristin. 2004. “Feminism-by-Design: Emerging Capitalisms, Cultural Feminism, and Women’s Nongovernmental Organizations in Post Socialist Eastern Europe.” Signs. 29(3). pp. 727-753. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Goldfarb, Jeffrey C. 1997. “Why Is There No Feminism after Communism?” Social Research. 64(2). pp. 235-258. ABI/INFORM. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Griffin, Gabriele. 2003. “(Other) Feminisms - European Women’s Studies/Women’s Studies in Europe.” Hecate. 29(2). pp. 50-61. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).  

Guenther, Katja M. 2011. “The Possibilities and Pitfalls of NGO Feminism: Insights from Postsocialist Eastern Europe.” Signs. 36(4). pp. 863-887. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2013).

Haney, Lynne. 1994. “From Proud Worker to Good Mother: Women, the State, and Regime Change in Hungary.” A Journal of Women Studies. 14(3). pp. 113-150. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).  

Hinsey, Ellen. 2012. “The New Opposition in Hungary.” New England Review. 33(2). pp. 126-142. Project MUSE. (Accessed March 5, 2014).  

Human Rights Watch. 2013.Unless Blood Flows. Lack of Protection from Domestic Violence in Hungary. NY: New York.

Imre, Aniko. 2008. “Lesbian Nationalism: Winner of the 2007 Catharine Stimpson Prize.” Signs. 33(2). pp. 255-282. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).

Janos, Andrew C. 2011. The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary, 1825-1945. Princeton University Press. Princeton: New Jersey.

Jordan, Michael J. 2010. “The Roots of Hate.” World Policy Journal. 27(3). pp. 99-111. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Jung, Nora. 1996. “What is New About the ‘New’ Women’s Movements in Eastern Europe?” The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms. 1(3). pp. 920-925. Taylor & Francis. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Kiss, Yudit. 1991. “The Second ‘No’: Women in Hungary.” Feminist Review. 39(Autumn). pp. 49-57. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Koncz, Katalin. 2008. “Women in the Hungarian Labor Market Compared with the European Union.” International Journal of Sociology. 38(4). pp. 76-93. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).  

Kazai, Agnes and Bernadett Szita and Gabor Porzce. 2013. “‘Backwards in High Heels’: Education and Career Challenges in Hungary.” Research on Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(5).  pp. 23-46. GoogleScholar. (Accessed March 6, 2014).

Lazar, Michelle M. 2009. “Communicating (post)feminisms in Discourse.” Discourse and Communication. 3(4). pp. 339-344. SAGE. (Accessed March 5, 2014).

Morvai, Krisztina. 2004. “Women and the Rule of Law in Hungary.” Feminist Review. 76. pp. 100-109. JSTOR. (Accessed March 3, 2014).

Nagy, Beata. 2005. “Gendered Management in Hungary: Perception and Explanations.” Women in Management Review. 20(5). pp. 345-360. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Nielsen, Helene Pristed. 2013. “Joint Purpose? Intersectionality in the Hands of Anti-Racist and Gender Equality Activists in Europe.” Ethnicities. 13(3). pp. 276-294. Sage Publications. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Olsen, Frances Elisabeth. 1997. “Feminism in Central and Eastern Europe: Risks and Possibilities of American Engagement.” The Yale Law Journal. 106:7.pp. 2215-2257. ABI/INFORM. (Accesed March 1, 2014).

Sanchez-Osorio, Marilyn. 2001. “The Road to Recognition and Application of the Fundamental Constitutional Right to Marry of Sexual Minorities in the United States, the Netherlands, and Hungary: A Comparative Legal Study.”  ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law. 8. pp. 131-149. HeinOnline.(Accessed March 6, 2014).

Smith, Jeffrey Alyn. 2007. “The Five Year Plan to Trap Your Man: Discourses on Marriage, Family, and Divorce in Hungary.” The Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe. 7(2). pp. 3-18. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Snitow, Ann. 1999. “Cautionary Tales.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law). 93. pp. 35-42. GoogleScholar. (Accessed March 6, 2014).

Szalai, Julia. 1991. “Some Aspects of the Changing Situation of Women in Hungary.” Signs. 17(1). pp. 152-170. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).

Uitz, Renata. 2004. “Hungary: Mixed Prospects for the Constitutionalization of Gay Rights.” International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2(4).  pp. 705-715. HeinOnline. (Accessed March 6, 2014).