#DignityIsPriceless

UNRWA is facing a budget crisis of proportions never witnessed before, due to the withdrawal of funds from the United States.

In January 2016, the US had contributed $368 million to UNRWA, which initially made up one-third of the agency’s budget. The decision to stop providing funding created “the most severe funding crisis in the history of the agency,” according to spokesperson Chris Gunness. Over half of the population of Gaza is reportedly reliant on UNRWA’s programs, with many more in Lebanon, the West Bank, Syria and Jordan depending on the agency’s health, education, protection, emergency, and legal services.

Before delving into the negative aspects of the cuts, let’s begin with the advantages it has brought, such as the fact that UNRWA funding is not longer conditional on the basis of Western satisfaction, and thus not subordinate to certain political or diplomatic concerns. In 2017 during UNRWA, I worked with education specialists to remove any semblance of aggression, non-neutrality, and gender inequality in textbooks in Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, and Syria in order to gain approval from the United States and other Western countries who disapproved of the original textbooks of the nation. Of course this upset the local governments who believed their personal histories were being erased, that the plight that they went through and issues such as the Nakba and the occupation of various Palestinian territories were being suppressed by international agents. UNRWA is forced to negotiate between these two parties, wanting to recognize the difficult past of Palestine refugees while also ensuring an unbiased (debatable pro-Israeli) education for the students. Most of UNRWA’s actions prior to the budget cuts were highly mandated by the politics of the US. However after President Trump announced that he would cease funding UNRWA, many of the political restrictions were dropped, allowing UNRWA schools to maintain a peaceful curriculum while also teaching about their history, no longer constrained by Western agendas.

However, changes in conditions since the budget cuts have been dramatic, with mass lay-offs across UNRWA’s programs. This is especially clear in education facilities where many students are left without qualified teachers, and when children are denied an education it is harmful to the entire community. While working in Zarqa area, the difference in the cleanliness of the camps was drastic, with the traditionally cleanest areas nowru being covered in litter and grime due to need to cut back on sanitation workers in the camp. The cuts have only worsened the horrible conditions in the Palestine refugee camps, with UNRWA workers threatening to protest and add to existing anger within the camps and general Palestinian communities ever since Trump moved Israel’s capital to Jerusalem.

Most of the fields and area offices are extremely understaffed due to austerity measures and the lack of funding to train and hire new workers. In Zarqa refugee camps, there are 1,300 families, and 900-100 families in the South Amman camps, with families typically including five to nine members; however, there is only one protection caseworker assigned to each of these camps (while other camps have none), with over 25 new cases assigned to protection caseworkers each month. They receive no training on psychosocial support or protection, provided instead with only one introductory training course on case management. The protection department in UNRWA was established around 2012, dedicated to cases involving Gender Based Violence (GBV), denationalization, lack of documents, fake documents, and childhood protection, nowadays typically involving Palestinian Refugees from Syria (PRS) who fled to Jordan and neighboring Arab countries due to the civil war in Syria. 

When in charge of providing necessary programs to five million refugees, with many of them living in poorly constructed houses made out of scrap material with entire families (5-9 people) sleeping in a single room, with many fathers being imprisoned, killed, or simply absent, there is simply not enough funding to provide for these refugees. Conditions have worsened greatly since the civil war began in Syria in 2014 and since the US budget cuts in 2017, however there is hope for a better future. Further, with so much energy now being used just to find funding to keep UNRWA’s programs functioning at even minimal capacity, less attention is going into creating and implementing new opportunities to assist Palestine refugees in improving their future conditions. If governments, organizations, and individuals take responsibility and make up for the failure of the United States to provide necessary support, UNRWA will be able to create a sustainable and strong future for the refugees with education opportunities and stable careers, with the goal of having them one day not be reliant on UNRWA.

#FundUNRWA at unrwa.org/donate
 

For more information on UNRWA, look at their website here:
https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are
https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions

Sex, Harassment, and Aziz Ansari

The current question of Aziz Ansari is an extremely polarizing topic; everyone seems to have an opinion. For those who are not familiar: Aziz Ansari went on a date with an anonymous girl, henceforth referred to as Grace. After dinner, they went back to his house where, according to her, he pressured her into sexual behavior that she did not feel comfortable with, which she fought back against with both verbal and non-verbal cues. Several months later she talked to a reporter from babe.net where the story was released, which resulted in a controversial debate across the internet.

To start, let’s speak about the journalistic integrity of the piece. While these types of articles afford women sexual liberty in being able to include this in discourse, when dealing with matters of sexual abuse or violence, this is not the best place for this kind of piece – on the same page as this call-out for feminist action, you can find a list of how to give the best blowjobs. Further, the author was extremely inexperienced, and only provided Ansari with less than six hours to respond with a comment, on a Saturday during awards season and the holidays, when the industry standard is 24 hours to respond. The article purposefully depicts Ansari in a very negative light, without a sense of neutrality on the subject, offering her own input every so often.

The journalistic standards and the platform in particular are an issue, especially the way the author chose to sensationalize the issue and cash in on this larger cultural #MeToo moment. But the fact remains that there exists a whole ethos where guys both “don’t have to pick up on non-verbal cues”, but can also be incapable of picking up on them – as they have no cognizance of such a vocabulary due their own social programming. The present imbalances in gender power dynamics cut both ways – in a best-case scenario, males are not equipped with the skills because they are not expected to develop them. That’s the status quo, but it doesn’t mean that it’s the way things should be. If anything, it’s about changing the conversation around expectations and behaviors during intercourse. Consent isn’t just about a hard yes or no (although Grace explicitly said no to Ansari), especially considering the power dynamics in these situations. This idea isn’t even remotely new to feminist and sexual health literature, and popular culture, as was pointed out by one of the many NYT articles on the subject.

The content of the article has deeply divided feminists and the current #MeToo and TimesUp movements focusing on sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and consent in general. The question was posed: what constitutes sexual abuse? What is sexual harassment? At what point are our uncomfortable experiences just “bad sex?”

I personally believe that the situation can be classified as sexual harassment, although I also see how it can be considered otherwise as just “bad sex”. Sexual assault is defined by the Department of Justice as “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient,”. However the term ‘abuse’ is more typically used when more physical violence is constituted. We need to use this term carefully and critically, if we start using it for less extreme situations, we will desensitize the term and dilute its importance. This also crosses into legal implications, because sexual harassment and physical abuse have different consequences. While some may argue that this situation does not constitute sexual harassment due to it crossing from implications to actions, harassment does not necessarily need to be verbal – physical coercion can be included under this definition as well. If nothing else, Ansari’s actions were gross, offensive, and left someone feeling violated. We should all be able to agree on that.

One debate that has sprung up in the aftermath of the article is one regarding what constitutes “bad sex,” as it means different things to everyone, especially between men and women. Most typically, men consider “bad sex” to be sex that is unsatisfactory, short, non-adventurous, etc. Studies show that with women the same complaints still exist, but the more common response is description of painful, forceful, or manipulative sex; they have become so used to this kind of behavior that they simply categorize it as an unfortunate, yet normal part of life.

They also aren’t mutually exclusive experiences – sexual assault is always ‘bad sex’ whereas ‘bad sex’ is not necessarily always sexual assault

There are many shades of grey regarding consent and sexual misconduct, which is partially why this topic is so controversial and difficult to talk about. Sexual assault and “bad sex” are not the only binary options, there are many intricate aspects to this and everyone may categorize such situations in different ways according to their own experiences (they also aren’t mutually exclusive experiences – sexual assault is always ‘bad sex’ whereas ‘bad sex’ is not necessarily always sexual assault). The concept of this account “trivializing” other women’s experiences makes me uncomfortable; while this interaction between Ansari and Grace was not as extreme as other forms of sexual harassment or abuse, it should not be simply written off. If we just say, “it could have been worse,” then substantive progress will not be made in this field, and we will continue to permit men to take advantage of women in sexual situations.

However, the lack of a traditional mold of what is considered sexual misconduct doesn’t matter in this situation; what is more important is the perception and safety and overarching themes of men believing themselves inherently deserving of sex and women being conditioned to not only accept this, but suffer at the hands of it.

There are power dynamics inherently present in this situation, not only because Aziz Ansari is a man of some influence in society, but also because he is a man in general. Social programming condition both men and women such that there are certain expectations going into any social or sexual situation. These expectations usually mean there is some discomfort or awkwardness when women are put in positions to refuse men. Couple this with inherent and real fear that women experience and one can see how the power dynamics lend themselves to constrain women’s behaviour, unbeknownst to men involved in these very situations. Although Ansari may have never directly articulated that she had to comply with his sexual desires, women are socialized to believe that they cannot refuse sex without some sort of retaliation. The prioritization of male pleasure over female comfort is something many women have experienced, and most have this in mind when they engage with men. This is, in some ways, a nonverbal cue that women have been forced by these situations to understand and to worry about. Maybe men should take a page out of their book on the subject of nonverbal cues. Cognizance of the cultural power dynamic is important for men so that they reduce this sense of entitlement going into any sexual or romantic relationship. However, to expect these invisible constraints on women’s behaviour as being the impetus of solely the men is exactly the mind-reader concept that these articles refer to. Men should be made aware but it is negative reinforcement to take it far by saying that it is the onus of men to only recognize these nonverbal cues. It takes both men and women to communicate this explicitly using both a cognizance of non-verbal cues but also direct verbal ones.

I do not mean to infantilize the woman in question or say that she did not have agency over her own actions. We cannot blame her or any woman for feeling that she did not have the opportunity to say no or to just leave. While she made various other decisions that day that led her to Ansari’s bed, she did not deserve what happened. No matter what you think about nonverbal versus verbal consent, entering an apartment is not consent. We can discuss and contemplate what happened inside that apartment, but entering it was by no means consent to what happened inside.

While people have criticized responses to the article which attack Ansari’s sexual desires, such as him putting his fingers forcefully in the woman’s mouth, this leaves out the crucial aspect of consent. Of course we should not kink-shame, whatever people choose to do in their own beds is their own business. However, we cannot simply attribute the complaints of Ansari’s actions to it being “strange” to the general public. If the woman did not consent to Ansari’s behavior, aggressive, kinky, or otherwise, she has every right to be uncomfortable.

This debate is a good challenge to the current movement bringing attention to sexual assault and harassment. While some have argued that the babe.net article divides the movement and takes attention away from the larger picture, I believe that we ought to be conscious of all forms of sexual misconduct, from small gestures and unintended coercive tactics to rape and other forms of extreme sexual assault.

We cannot write off these small moments because there are “bigger things to handle.” That being said, the quality of the article does not adequately address the issue at hand. As I have said before, men are often unaware that their actions are hurtful, especially in a context where consent seems to be implied, such as on a date. Ansari has been lauded as a feminist and as someone who stands up against sexual harassment and such issues, which is exactly why this story is so controversial – if a male feminist can also commit sexual assault, who can’t?

Was it Ansari’s responsibility to recognize Grace’s actions and stop pursuing his sexual acts, even though she was not actively saying no? Should men be checking in every so often to ensure that the woman wants to continue? This seems difficult if not impossible to do consistently, and could certainly “ruin the mood.”

According to the original babe.net article, Grace had sent a message to Ansari the day after the incident saying, “I just want to take this moment to make you aware of [your] behavior and how uneasy it made me.” Ansari responded apologetically saying that he misread the situation. While I do not condone his behavior and believe that he acted poorly, I still respect Ansari for apologizing to Grace once he was confronted with his actions and do not believe that his career should be ended because of this incident. Men need to be held accountable for their conduct, but in the situations where they obviously were not aware of how harmful their actions were, it is much more useful to start a conversation and explain why it was inappropriate instead of merely attacking them, and we can start by creating a recognizable vocabulary to arm ourselves as both men and women for what may be perceived as an uncomfortable discourse.

Nonverbal cues are as important as they are confusing: was it Ansari’s responsibility to recognize Grace’s actions and stop pursuing his sexual acts, even though she was not actively saying no? Should men be checking in every so often to ensure that the woman wants to continue? This seems difficult if not impossible to do consistently, and could certainly “ruin the mood.” As many critics of the babe.net article have suggested, men should not be expected to be able to read their partners’ minds in order to achieve consent.

Sex should be enthusiastic, as consent is not simply agreeing to actions being forced on them; if someone is begrudgingly agreeing to participate in sexual acts, they are not truly agreeing. If they only consent after being begged or pressured repeatedly, then perhaps one should stop pushing and realize their partner does not want it.

Ansari should have stopped once he realized Grace was not enthusiastic, and sex and sexual acts should always be conducted by choice without intense encouragement from the other party. If you have to tell the other person to go down on them or forcefully move their hand such as Ansari moved Grace’s hand towards his penis, and if the other person resists with comments such as “Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill,” as Grace said to Ansari, then perhaps it is not consensual. There needs to be mutual understanding of the situation with equal participation, or else it is not just “bad sex,” it is harassment.

While the journalistic integrity of the article is questionable to say the least, that doesn’t change what the woman’s testimony said. I don’t know about ruining his career – but I definitely will never look at him the same way or consume his material after reading what was written, especially since I personally have had similar experiences. The #MeToo movement isn’t about a witch hunt against men; it’s not about the punitive measure but rather accountability. There’s a subtle difference between the two. Punishing men who have aggrieved women in clear ways surely deserve it. But, it is in this conversation that we realize so many men do not fall in this clear category. Rather they are simply products of their social programming, of cultural expectations of masculine behaviour and sexual behaviour.

Ansari’s humiliation is the humiliation of all men who have in some way perpetuated this culture. To call Ansari’s actions reprehensible is to critique the social programming and the institutions that enable these vacuous spaces to be filled with disgusting behaviour. That’s what we should fight for and in my opinion, what the moderate interpretation of the #MeToo movement is. That is why, babe.net with its sensationalism undercuts the momentum of social reform and progress for feminism. Ansari has just become the scapegoat for a larger paradigm shift – that this social programming is wrong. It is not a personal indictment of Ansari but an indictment of all men (and women) who will continue to act according to this social programming where consent and cues are not considered, evaluated and then acted upon through clear and open communication.

Read the original article here.

Myanmar From a Different Perspective

In the Western media, the Rohingya crisis seems to be a clear-cut moral issue: the military is conducting ethnic genocide of the Muslims of Rakhine State. The basic narrative regarding the conflict is agreed upon by both sides: Bangladesh Muslims emigrated to Myanmar, settled in Rakhine State, requested citizenship, and began to call themselves Rohingya in an attempt to assert their own ethnicity and achieve political recognition.

This, however, is where the narrative changes. According to some sources, such as the BBC, terrorist organizations such as a group called Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) emerged from these Rakhine Muslims, and frustrated by their lack of representation began to attack the military in an attempt to gain political power. The military, in part due to a general fear of Islam in Southeast Asia, responded with extremely harsh attacks on the Muslim communities. This is a different narrative than what is covered in the West, which is best exemplified by a CNN article explaining who the Rohingya are: “They have been raped, tortured and killed. They have been crowded on boats and ping-ponged between nations that don't want them. They have been forced into labor and have no rights to their land. Rohingya Muslims are among the most persecuted people in the world, and once again, they find themselves running for their lives.” The reports of the conflict from the Myanmar government have been proven to be enormously dishonest, as while the military and government denies their killing and raping of civilians, evidence collected by the UN and other agencies seem to prove otherwise. The government has tried to account for these differences, saying that the Rakhine Muslims were burning down their own houses and villages. As one Bagan local, named Christopher described, “It’s frighteningly similar to George Orwell’s, Animal Farm. Some people may think that something’s true, but nobody really knows if something is true or not.” 

However, speaking to people in the country exposes a much more skeptical perspective. Outside of Rakhine State, educated locals admit that there are attacks going on in the western part of the country, although they maintain these attacks are not as extreme as is often being reported. Christopher explained, “I don’t want to say I can’t believe it, but I can only believe one part. People say that their child was killed, but you would not throw a three-year-old child into a fire for no reason; it’s hard to believe. If you write about it, you need to have something behind it. I don’t want to say I don’t believe it, but people have their doubts.”

Buddhists in Rakhine State argue a more extreme narrative, claiming that the Rohingya were originally Bengali Muslims brought to the area by the British in order to fight against the Rakhine and to work the rice fields. Now, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have come over the Bangladesh border illegally and are now referring to themselves as Rohingya, while raping and attacking villages in the area. The issue as explained by these locals is not that the groups are simply Muslim, but that they are terrorists demanding citizenship and political rights that the government will not agree to. Some even argue that the military is in fact defending the Rakhine Buddhists, and that though the Rohingya were offered an opportunity to become citizens, they declined, demanding further independence.

The Washington Post recently published an article addressing this local anti-Rohingya mindset, blaming new technology for spreading “fake news” fueling ethnic hatred against the Rakhine Muslims. As the article explains, “an endless stream of provocative photos and cartoons claim that there is no “ethnic cleansing” against Burma’s Muslim Rohingya minority. Instead, according to the posts, international news and human rights organizations are falsely accusing the military of carrying out atrocities against the Rohingya to help terrorists infiltrate the country, kill Buddhists and carve out a separatist Islamic province… A recent study found that 38 percent of Facebook users in Burma got most, if not all, of their news on the site. And news feeds in Burma are rife with anti-Rohingya posts, shared not only by ordinary people but also by senior military officers and the spokesman for Burma’s de facto leader, Aung Sang Suu Kyi.”

There is truth to both sides of the conflict, and it is extremely important to consider all available information (which is quite limited). Western media definitely has a bias to it, as seen with the constant usage of the term Rohingya, which carries much more significance and meaning to it than is recognized in most sources. As explained by a Myanmar local, “we have eight major ethnic groups and 135 minor ethnic groups in the country… Rohingya Muslims believe that by naming themselves they can create their own ethnic group and their own state as a Muslim territory. That’s not how it works.”

Further, it is necessary to note the differences in why the conflict arose in the first place, as while it definitely seems like a “textbook example of ethnic genocide” in an attempt to rid the area of Muslims, it was also a reaction to small militant groups. Of course, it was an extremely disproportional and extreme reaction on the part of the military, carried out on a much larger scale than the original small group which conducted the original attack(s).

The treatment of the Rohingya is unacceptable, no matter what the context.

I did not write this to excuse the military’s behavior or the mass killings that are being systematically conducted against the Muslim communities in Western Myanmar. However, it is necessary to understand the mindset of the people on the ground, and to analyze ways in which information about the issue is being transmitted; propagating only one version of the narrative and offer a multiperspectival approach to a highly complex and volatile situation.

It is also crucial to consider Aung Sun Suu Kyi’s role in the Rohingya conflict. She has been consistently attacked in Western media for not defending the persecuted Muslim population, however there is uncertainty as to what this would actually achieve. The military has an incredibly strong rule over the country, and her speaking out against their actions may lead to her being removed from power, further hurting the democracy of the nation instead of fixing the humanitarian crisis in any manner. Most locals continue to support her as one of the sole protectors against the military rules, “I always supported Aung Sun Suu Kyi and I still believe in her, and I think she is going to do her best on the crisis. She doesn’t care about the religion, she cares about the country, and she’s going to make the country good. I never liked the military government, and if they take power again for some reason I will try to get out of the country as I don’t want to risk my child if they take power again.” Alleging that while she could be doing more to defend the Rohingya, it is perhaps politically shrewd for her to negotiate with the military behind closed doors. We do not know if she is fact attempting to do so, but it is potentially unfair to write her off already as disrupting the democracy that she previously worked so hard to achieve.

It is also interesting to note the similarities between this conflict and that of Israel-Palestine, with much of the same language being used in regards to an ethnic minority being displaced and systematically killed under the guise of being labeled as terrorists. However, when the West has less reliance on the country being called into question or political and economic care in the matter, it seems we are much quicker to call out genocide and mass murder.

Further reading:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42595275
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/opinion/sunday/myanmar-aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya.html
https://www.mmtimes.com/opinion/12452-rohingya-or-bengali.html
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/12/economist-explains-19

Eyes and Obedience in Pan’s Labyrinth

Guillermo del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth is an exploration into the life of a young girl, Ofelia. Ripped from her home and forced into the world of her stepfather, Captain Vidal and the Spanish Civil War, she hides herself away in her books and fairytales. When she is told by a Faun that she is the Princess of the Underworld, she immediately leaps at the chance to prove that she’s not mortal in order to distract herself from the patriarchal and violent world around her. Every character in the film must decide what part they play in her story, whether they will obey their superiors or create their own path, whether they will see beyond their instructions or blindly follow orders. Symbolism of eyes and sight appear everywhere, guiding the audience through the film and raising questions about what it really means to see. In Pan’s Labyrinth, only those who are able to open their eyes and not blind themselves with rage and make decisions beyond what they are expressly instructed to do are able to succeed. 

The film begins with a fantastical story about a Princess who lives in the Underworld realm who dreams of joining the human world. She escapes her captors, but as soon as she breaks out, the brightness of the sun blinds her. This is the first reference to both sight and obedience, as the Princess loses her sight as soon as she goes against her orders, and in doing so she loses her memory, suffers, and quickly dies. By introducing the viewer to the main story with a fairytale, this scene immediately sets the fantastical tone for the rest of the film, as well as making the audience aware of the themes of eyes and the cost of disobedience. 

The movie then abandons the fairytale format and formally begins the story of Ofelia, the protagonist. While on the ride to Captain Vidal’s house, Ofelia's mother Carmen tells her daughter to stop looking at her fairytale books. Soon after, Carmen stops the car due to pregnancy nausea, and although Ofelia is instructed not to wander, she takes the opportunity to explore the nearby area. She comes across a statue, decrepit and somewhat hidden within the greenery surrounding it. Ofelia finds a stone eye on the ground and fits it into the statue, as if it was a puzzle piece. This action begins her fantastical journey, as it brings forth an insect that appears from the statue, an insect which later morphs into a fairy and guides her to the faun. This unexpected and life-changing incident would never have occurred if Ofelia followed directions and stayed by the car. She disobeys, which may end badly as it did to the Princess in the prologue, but for now it is merely driving her story forward. Ofelia’s returning of the eye references the myth of Horus’ eye being restored by Thoth in ancient Egypt. The right eye is associated with factual information and logic, normally seen as the male side of the brain, while the left eye of Horus distinguishes the spiritual and mystical, noted as the female side of the brain. By returning the left eye (left to the audience and Ofelia), Ofelia is inserting her female and mystical presence into the male dominated world that she is currently living in, achieving the important balance that is needed to begin her journey and eventual transformation. 

When the car finally arrives, both the audience and Ofelia are formally introduced to Captain Vidal. With a fixation on timeliness, anger about Ofelia shaking with the wrong hand, and specific shaving rituals, he is a man who is obsessed with rules. Late one night, his soldiers bring him two men who they suspect of spying, while they claimed to be mere rabbit hunters. Vidal pierces the eyes of the younger man with a bottle, blinding and then killing him. This is especially ironic as rabbits were found in the man’s bag after it was searched, making it so that Vidal was literally blind to the rabbits and to the truth, and because of his stubbornness, murdered an innocent as well. This scene explains who Captain Vidal is to the audience: he is a man who acts before he sees, a man who takes away the sight of others in fear of losing his power or respect, a man who values obedience over truth or what is “good.” 

Despite Captain Vidal trying to enforce his ideals and rules on Ofelia, she begins her journey for the faun to prove her place as royalty. In one of her tasks, she must visit the Underworld and take a knife from a room filled with red food and a gruesome creature with eyes on his hands. She was given express instructions not to eat anything, but she ate a few grapes anyway, awakening the “Pale Man.” The Pale Man is most likely designed after the Japanese legend of the Tenome. Tenome was a blind man who was murdered by a mugger and became an angry ghost--so furious that he lost his eyes, but new ones grew back on his hands. He sought revenge on his murderer, killing everyone that he could lay his hands on, without even seeing who it is. Tenome’s intense anger rendered him forever figuratively blind (Scary for kids). The Pale Man is the fantastical reflection of Captain Vidal, a man who will kill whoever gets in his way in his quest for ultimate power and triumph, with an indifference towards children and the innocent. This is another example of how only those who are open to seeing the world around them, those who are not trapped in their own obedience and rules, will be successful. Ofelia breaks the rules, but it is her ability to create her own path and escape from the Underworld that allows her to triumph over the Pale Man in this situation, while he stumbled through the corridors, literally following her blindly.

The imagery of Ofelia running away from the Pale Man is repeated later in the film, the the doctor Ferriero disobeys Captain Vidal’s orders and walks away from him. Ferriero euthanizes a rebel soldier that Vidal has captured, helping the captain realize where his allegiance really lies. Vidal turns to the doctor and says, “I don’t understand, why didn’t you obey me?” Ferriero responds saying, “To obey without thinking, just like that, that’s something only people like you can do.” With that, the doctor walks away, and Vidal shoots him in the back as he walks. Before he collapses, Ferriero takes off his glasses. Ferriero’s glasses can be seen as a metaphor for his character, as they hide his eyes, and therefore his true self, as he pretends to be a loyal friend to Captain Vidal while secretly working for the rebels. As well, his glasses act as a physical barrier between Vidal and himself as well as a protector of his eyes, which Hamilton believed to be “the windows to the soul.” When Ferriero is shot, he remains calm and collected, accepting his fate and not giving into the blinding anger that Vidal and the Pale Man possess. The act of taking off his glasses symbolizes that he no longer needs to maintain the illusion of obedience, and finally everything is honest and his eyes are clear. The Captain is similarly shown wearing glasses at point, although his glasses are sunglasses, making it so they obscure rather than illuminate. His vision, just like his behavior, is disruptive and effectively self-destructive. 

When the film is nearing its end and everyone is exposing their true selves, Ofelia is given the most difficult task of all: taking blood from an innocent, her baby brother. She steals him from Captain Vidal and takes him into the labyrinth with the knife from the Pale Man’s room in the Underworld. Ofelia drugs Vidal, so as he chases her, he literally cannot see. His vision is blurred and he cannot cannot make his way through the maze; his violent behavior and obsession with rules and obedience has blinded him. This time, Ofelia is directly involved in the removal of sight. As the labyrinth twists and turns letting her through, she makes it into the center, where the Faun is waiting for her. Vidal follows her there, but he cannot see the Faun. Again it is clear that Ofelia is the only one with perfect sight, which gives her the ability to make the “right” choices. Instead of taking the blood of her brother, she sacrifices herself. Her blood spills into the Underworld portal due to the bullet that the Captains shoots her with, and she is finally made the Princess that she dreamt of being. She is rewarded for her innocent disobedience by clarity.

All the characters who disobey eventually triumph, even in their death. Ofelia becomes Princess of the Underworld, Mercedes (Vidal’s housekeeper) has the Captain killed, and the doctor Ferreiro helps the rebels and grants a peaceful death to his friend. Vidal, the man who believed in a strict following of orders, is the only man who is truly defeated. With his wife dead, child stolen by the rebels, soldiers shot, home-base bombed, and life taken, he has nothing. Ofelia, on the other hand, is the prime example of the opposite. She follows through and completes all the tasks that the Faun gives her, but what makes her different is her ability to do them in her own way. The balance that she creates in the beginning through the eyes of the statue, the harmony of logic and dreams, realism and fantasy, masculinity and femininity, stays with her through the movie, allowing her to be the only character that has the ability of true sight. She perceives everyone for who they truly are, forging her own path, and is literally the only character who sees both the violent world of war-ridden Spain and the mystical world of the Faun and the fairies. Ofelia lives up to the words inscribed above the labyrinth, “in your hands, lies your destiny,” as she refuses to follow the orders of anyone--her mother, Mercedes, Vidal, or the Faun. She creates her own destiny, something that is only possible with clear eyes, something that the anger of the other characters doesn’t make possible for themselves. 

Ophelia’s eyes allow her to see things both visible and invisible, real and unreal, which starkly contrasts with the fascist villain, Captain Vidal, one who punctures the eyes of others and believes not in what cannot be physically seen. Pan’s Labyrinth is a film of moral struggles, where each character is faced with the question of whether or not to follow orders directly, of whether or not to give into their anger and rage, of whether they can find a healthy balance of fantasy and reality. The issue that the film finds with sight is, how can one know if something is real if only they see it? Is Ofelia’s fantastical journey to becoming a Princess just in her imagination? Does it matter? Still, Guillermo del Toro demonstrates how dangerous it is to blindly follow directions, and how important it is to always be watchful, as the answers can be found by those who have the eyes to see. As the last line of the movie states, everything is visible “to those that know where to look.” (Pan’s Labyrinth, 1:52:11)

The Fight Is Not Over

Warning: this piece refers and talks about sexual harassment with some detail. Further, I refer to men nearly consistently as the aggressor in this paper and women as the victim, but would like note that this is not always the case, as men can just as easily be and often are the target of sexual assault and harassment (statistics show that 79% of victims are women, 21% are men). As well, most of my statistics solely regard the United States, due to the fact that there has been a great amount of data collected there on this topic.

My mother raised me traveling from the second I was born, running off to Egypt, Greece, Turkey, France, England, Mexico with just a small child and a backpack. I was always so happy when traveling with my mom, constantly receiving free food with strangers acting out of generosity and kindness; but never truly noticed the constant harassment that my mother faced as a white, unmarried American women. She was expected to provide something in exchange for all the hospitality (unwanted attention) from strange men in markets and on the streets and in the places where we stayed, leading us to have to hop from hotel to hotel, escaping the men who would touch her inappropriately during Turkish baths, appear at our door in the middle of the night, talk to her as if she was an item to be purchased. “You are a woman and therefore they believe they have access,” she once explained to me, teaching me that as a woman I will not receive the same opportunities or treatment or safety as men in an identical situation.

When I moved to Jordan after high school, I was warned by my family for my safety, with strict instructions not to walk around at night or talk to strangers, or really any men in general. I barely left my apartment except to go to work for the first month of my trip, out of pure fear. The first time I walked to the office, a three miles journey mostly along the highway, I was met with cars honking at me every ten seconds in attempt to scare me or get my attention, and stares that bore into my skull by every man I passed by. Every time I go traveling alone, I know I have to be careful. I hear stories about people hitchhiking through the countryside in the Caucuses and Western Africa and as much as I want to do that, I know that I will never be able to, at least not by myself. I do not believe that women should stay at home and hide from any potential conflict (I write while traveling through Asia by myself) but I’m also so naïve as to go into small villages where rape is common and women are treated as inferior. This is not about a lack of bravery, it is about safety.

I am lucky. Actually, no I’m not, but the fact that I believe that nothing “too bad” has happened to me yet shows the mindset instilled in women now; that unless you’re brutally raped or murdered, you are essentially lucky. We say that things are improving for women because people are becoming more aware, with Anita Hill, Monica Lewinsky, the #MeToo movement and the general recent onslaught of prominent men being ousted for their behavior. But the fact that the women who came out against these men are still being called liars and publicity whores, that when I told my friend about sexual harassment statistics he said “but you don’t know how many of those are made up,” and that men still do not understand that they are not owed sex in any context, demonstrates that things are not that much better than before – just better hidden.

Things may be getting better, but that doesn’t mean they are good.

We have become apologists for male behavior, blaming ourselves for putting out the wrong signals, or saying that they just didn’t know that what they were doing was wrong. Me, my mother, and women and general, have become so accustomed to harassment, that we excuse it now as a part of life. Men reaching up my skirt in my apartment elevator in New York, employers inappropriately touching me, older men utilizing unequal power dynamics to create sexual situations, waking up with bruises in somebody’s bed after drinking a little too much, boys holding me down with threats of “telling” if I don’t comply, being fingered while asleep, having boys beg for sexual attention because they believe they deserved it, tongues being stuck down my throat at hostels as I begged “please stop” – and those are just some of my personal experiences, not including any of the horror stories that I have heard from so many friends and family. According to RAINN, there are 321,500 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault on average each year in the United States. One in three women ages 18 to 34 has been sexually harassed at work, and one in six women will experience attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. At this point, when talking to a woman about sexual assault, it’s more surprising to me if they don’t have a similar story to share.

Most of the time, I hear about men using coercive or manipulative tactics for sex, believing that they are owed something, not understanding that this is a form of sexual harassment in itself. In fact, 13.3% of college women indicate that they have been forced to have sex in a dating situation, which is often not immediately thought of as assault. Rather than getting angry with men for actions that they aren’t aware of as harassment or assault, we should instead teach them. Next time somebody shames you or manipulates you or guilts you into sex, explain to them why this is unacceptable. This isn’t easy, and I admit that I don’t usually do this. It’s not easy to tell somebody that you don’t want to have sex, maybe because you don’t want to offend them, or because you think they’ll like you less, or because you don’t think you have a choice in the matter, or because you feel unsafe. But if we do not speak out in these situations then it will continue to happen and the cycle will never cease. Of course it’s not just up to the women; men, please be aware that you are not entitled to sex because you bought us dinner or a drink, or smiled at you affectionately, or touched your arm. And don’t resort to “negging” if rejected; bullying women out of insecurity will not fix anything and instead reinforces the belief that we can’t say no. In many ways, being aware of what you are doing is more difficult, as you may not know necessarily what behavior you are looking for. This is why we need better education systems in regards to sexual conduct. And while I appreciate that at least in the US there have been substantive changes in schools from elementary to college in order to prevent sexual harassment, there is so much more still to be done.

Sexual harassment often stems from gender roles instilled at a societal level, as women are socialized to be submissive in sexual situations. We are taught that we shouldn’t say no, that it’s unattractive to be aggressive or outspoken, and that while women should and can be leaders, they need to maintain their femininity and subservience in order to be successful. If you disagree, look at the 2016 election and the fact that our very own President encourages half the population to just “grab ‘em by the pussy.”

Most men are also taught from birth that they need to be aggressive and take charge, that women like a “bad boy,” and that you’re a “cuck” if you ask for consent. There needs to be a change in how we raise our children in regards to these gender roles, or else nothing will change. In schools, women are still taught not to be overly flirty, or else you will give men the wrong idea, taught that if you dress too provocatively you’re “asking” for assault, and that it’s only strangers to be weary of, when in eight out of ten rape cases the victim knows the perpetrator. A more open dialogue and a change in the language used is necessary or else these issues will continue to arise, no matter how many more men are exposed for sexually inappropriate behavior.

Let’s talk about Woody Allen. The concept of separating men’s sexual behavior from the work they have done or people they are otherwise confuses me; yes, we should not write off everything somebody has accomplished because they groped a woman, or masturbated in front of her, but we need to take it into account when evaluating them as a person. I remember the first time I told my (male) friends about being harassed by a mutual friend, and them defending this behavior by saying, “yeah, but he tells a different story, plus he’s never done anything to me so I still think he’s a great guy.” “He’s just joking around,” “it’s a different culture,” “he just had a little too much to drink,” “he’s not usually like this,” – too often, accounts of assault are met with doubt and defensiveness, justification and oftentimes anger. Women are not prone to telling stories of sexual assault just for the fun of it, for the attention; we know the skepticism with which it will be received. In 2016, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 12,860 receipts of sexual harassment in the workplace, 54.1% of which were dismissed as “no reasonable cause,” meaning that enough proof was not found to prove that discrimination occurred.

The American system of “innocent until proven guilty” can be problematic here, as sexual harassment is on occasion nearly impossible to verify. Even though every 98 seconds an American is sexually assaulted, only 6 out of every 1,000 perpetrators will end up in prison. This is exactly why is it so necessary for the mindset to change on this issue; instead of immediately doubting women and attempting to discredit them (such as calling Anita Hill “a little bit slutty and a little bit nutty” after her testimony against Clarence Thomas), we must genuinely attempt to find the truth. This does not entail always believing the accuser, as of course there are outliers, but we need to address the systemic disbelief and accusation that disincentivizes so many women from speaking out.

As Rhe-Anne Tan perfectly explained, “There is a deep complexity in defining a movement that is so personal and so tied to individual hurt – it’s both systemic and also deeply personal, and this prevents people from engaging with the usual detachment that they afford other issues. This is also what makes reconciling different branches all the more difficult, since positions are held so viscerally and strongly. To disagree with someone’s position is almost equated to invalidating their lived experience, their own existence as a female. Whether or not that’s valid is up for debate, but in the interim it’s clear that we need to respond with compassion and openness to change (which is easier said than done), because the temptation is to talk over the experiences of others.”

I had a hesitancy to write this and especially to use personal examples, as there is an inherent fear in not only opening up, but to being called a liar or too aggressive or that I am just looking for attention. The reason I’m writing this is because these are issues that need to be more publicly and openly talked about, and I want people to understand that sexually inappropriate behavior is not limited to just rape, but a whole list of other more subtle and often confusing experiences. Not all men are guilty of sexual harassment, but instead of getting defensive and saying that you’re one of the “good ones,” perhaps looks back at your actions and re-evaluate, and see if “#you too” were ever slightly too pushy, or could have handled a sexual situation with a little more consideration.

In this New Year, reconsider your resolutions. Women need to continue to lead the change for a different power dynamic, but men also need to make an enormous effort to create a different future, one where women do not need to be afraid.  

North Korea: Part Four

North Korea is a strangely idyllic world. Pyongyang, looking like a 1960’s film depicting the future with it’s space-age skyscrapers peppered with neon lights, is filled with bikes, pastel colored buildings, and a focus on the collective goals rather than that of the individual. People are careful and avoid eye contact with foreigners at all costs, and the streets are clean with not a speck of litter visible anywhere. People are seemingly happy, immersed in pride and adoration for their country and leader, but it is only due to their constant busyness, complete ignorance of the rest of the world, and the intense regime of propaganda imposed on them daily. Locals are severely limited, having to gain travel permits to enter or exit any city in the country, and must provide rationale for any internal movement. However, things are somewhat less restricted than I previously assumed, with people out ice-skating, children exploring playgrounds, and locals even playing beer-pong with us. Resources are limited, with lack of power forcing people to carry around flashlights in order to make their way through the pitch-black streets and underground tunnels at night, and I am confident that food is much more scarce than my tour would lead me to believe. There is a vast oversupply of labor and a lack of genuine work to do so people are overworked with menial jobs to make up for the difference, rewarded with food rations instead of wages, only to be awarded actually money as a potential bonus.

There is a stark lack of factual knowledge in the country, but as one of my guides explained, “what locals lack in information, they make up for with life experience. While they may at times seem naïve, they have lived long and difficult lives.” North Korea is the optimal example of a dystopian society, and I am extremely interested in seeing the progress of one of the mostly unusually ran countries in the world. From hotels to museums to any old teahouse, everything seemed to open up just for us; it is bizarre how much heating and energy is used in order to keep up appearances for the tiny amount of tourists that visit in winter. While I am more than confident that my experience was a highly curated façade of the true country, I am happy to have seen it for myself, if only to know that it was the wrong thing to do.

The amount of money I spent on this tour contributing to the economy and in turn the regime is menial in comparison to the destructive impact that the tourists have on the local community and way that the society is formed. I understand that it would only hurt the locals if the tourism industry disappeared as it employs so many people, but I genuinely believe that the exploitation of DPRK residents and general havoc that foreigners have. From taking pictures as if they were in a zoo to playing music and being loud and often quite disrespectful at monuments and public buildings (even libraries) to forcing restaurants and shops to open up solely for tourists, foreigners create an incredibly destructive environment, perpetuating the government’s child labor and ability to force people to create a fake society for visitors. I admit that I am a complete hypocrite, that I took photos and bought souvenirs and supported this entire tourism industry, but I cannot express the vast amount of shame that I now feel.

My overall advice: don’t go to North Korea, at least not for a simple tour. I am considering returning for a school program, after discussing it at length with Ms. Kim, but I am met with intense hesitancy. The country is amazing, beautiful, interesting to see – but you will not answer any questions; rather, you will just perpetuate a long lasting cycle of tourism and exploitation of the local communities, and if you’re anything like me, be overcome with an intense sense of guilt.

North Korea: Part Three

The next day, half our group hung-over from drinking too much snake vodka, we arrived at the highly anticipated mausoleum. We had received strict instructions for this event – no jeans, no sneakers (I had to pick up a pair of flats in Beijing as my normal Adidas were apparently not acceptable), men must wear ties, skirts and dresses must be at or below the knee, shoulders must be covered, no smiling, no laughing, no speaking, no photography (they confiscated our phones and electronics), bowing three times at each leader’s tomb, etcetera, etcetera. As soon as I entered the mausoleum, I knew I would not be able to follow all the rules; two wax figures of Kim Il Sun and Kim Jong Il, each 3 meters tall immediately brought a grin to my face. I would love to describe the room but the only thing I can recall was how bizarre and excessive the entire experience was, but that was only the beginning. Walking in lines of 4, we entered the rooms holding the bodies of the 'great' leaders; it would have been a strange experience in itself just bowing to the huge leaders in glass boxes illuminated by red light from the ceiling, but the sobbing Korean women in traditional colorful dresses added whole other element. Crowds of women and soldiers accompanied us into the museum, visibly upset at the lives of their past leaders. I smile a lot when I’m uncomfortable, so viewing this made me so close to laughing that I thought I was going to get deported, or worse. The women looked genuinely distraught, but I am convinced that they are taught to cry at events and monuments such as this, essentially dishonoring their leader if they do not. We silently shuttled past all the medals, honorary degrees, and awards that Kim Il Sun and Kim Jung Il received from different countries during their years in office, shocked at the mere amount. It was overall a very surreal experience, being immersed in such a sense of national pride.

This sense of patriotism transferred over quite seamlessly into our next big visit, to the War Museum. Filled with captured US tanks, fighter jets, spy ships, bombs that “the United States Aggressive Forces attempted to exterminate Korea with,” and pretty much anything that could be used to humiliate and discredit the United States, the museum had a very clear version of history and a message to spread. We were seated in a small theatre to watch a film called, “What Divided Korea?” the answer to which, if you were wondering, is the United States. In the exhibit called “Atrocities Committed by US Imperialists,” the guides explained how America used chemical and biological warfare in conflict, dropping poisonous insects and napalm in order to exterminate their enemies and “kill as many Asians as possible.” To be honest, most of the information they were offering about the United States is most likely true or at least based in fact, although I believe they greatly exaggerated some aspects of American influence and demonized intention that were perhaps not as malicious as initially intended, while also minimizing other countries’ influence. We watched a panorama (the largest panorama in Asia, apparently) version of war and conflict with the United States, filled with dead US soldiers and burnt American flags, overlaid with propaganda and eerie traditional music. I purchased a book called “US Imperialists Started the Korean War” on my way out, to delve more into this version of history. Our tour guide gushed over the exhibit back in the bus, speaking of how important it is in order for school children to learn about the past conflicts using such proof as the museum provides (how reliable that proof is, I am not entirely convinced).

We followed up the war museum appropriately with a trip to the shooting range, where I shot my first gun (an AK47). Most fascinating part was how there were absolutely no regulations for the guns, as they were being tossed pretty much anywhere, and I’m a little cautious of any place that allows me to shoot a gun.

My opinion of the country and feeling towards this trip changed dramatically on the fourth day, and now I feel uncomfortable being here and sharing any of the pictures I have taken so far. We visited an elementary school, which I was vastly looking forward to, as I absolutely love talking to children. However, as soon as we arrived it was like nothing I had ever experienced; the children were waiting for us in the courtyard holding on to silks, ready to dance for us in an elaborate weaving ceremony. After they finished we were hustled into a room with a group of children in ballet costumes who immediately broke into absurd acrobatic tricks that made their small bodies look like spaghetti; definitely not things I believed eight year olds could do. A string of performances followed, including singing, instruments, Ping-Pong, more dance, English language skills, and even jump rope.

I believe I started crying at about Ping-Pong. What I was watching was not school, rather an exhibition. Putting aside the anti-America propaganda lining the walls with imagery of rockets and “satellites,” it was the optimum example of exploitation, with these children putting on full on performances with complete costumes for random tourists coming in 1-2 times per month in non-tourists seasons and 1-2 times per week in warmer months. I knew that people were not able to choose their careers, that the government chose it for them, but it was horrifying to see how forced it was at such a young age. It makes economic sense for careers to be determined by skill, but makes for horrendous human rights conditions. People were in awe at the performances, wondering how long it took for the children to achieve this level of talent, but to be honest I do not want to know the conditions that brought this about. I was genuinely afraid for any student who played a wrong note or forgot a single step, I could see the flash of fear run across their face with a quick look to their teacher every time it happened. It was the most forced and disingenuous show of education that I could imagine – especially as it was winter break and school is not currently in session, meaning that the students literally came in specifically to entertain us. Even the language classes were a performance with the children singing, “I like English, this is my classroom, I love it here;” it was as if I was watching a cult in the midst of brainwashing the youth. It was child labor, a way to remind foreigners of how impressive their society is when in fact it just reminded me of how horribly messed up it was; it was a factory, churning out talented workers from the time they are born against their own will for the improvement of the nation. It is a perfect demonstration of community over the individual, with complete disregard for decisions or human rights.

The rest of the day seems like an angry blur now, including a trip to a library where the guide blasted Beatles in a reading room in order to impress us with their technology, completely disregarding the people actually working in there. In fact, they turned on the lights in a different reading room specifically for us; I genuinely cannot fathom the amount of special treatment tourists get in order to make the country seem so much better from afar. We visited a large tower, some museums, historical sites, the metro system. The most interesting occurrence that happened was when we arrived at some museum a couple minutes too early and watched as the people scrambled to turn on the lights and look busy, opening up solely for our arrival and most likely closing as soon as we left. This seems to be a common occurrence. I asked our guide about feminism during this time, if women desired more power in society. She told me that men and women were equal in the DPRK, women are respected and given the same rights, especially if the woman have lots of children. Like most questions I ask here, I was left unsatisfied with the mostly defensive and vague answers possible. 

The night continued with bowling, beer, and karaoke – a very strange capitalist American-esque experience in a very anti-American society. The next morning we arose at an early 5:30am to board our flights and trains. I was supposed to take the 23-hour train back to Beijing, but I apparently misread the information and realized that you can only use the 72-hour China visa if arriving by international flight, so at the last minute we had to squeeze me onto an already full flight. It was very chaotic and at times I thought I was going to be stuck in North Korea for quite a bit longer (the next flight was days away). As Kim, my incredibly sweet DPRK guide, sat with me, she asked me how I liked the trip. I responded with vague compliments, knowing that I couldn’t give my true opinions. She smiled, “Please tell your friends back home that we are not the same as western media portrays us, we are just like all of you. I hope you come back soon."

North Korea: Part Two

We were woken up the following morning with a power outage, lasting long enough for us to scramble to get ready for the day in the dark. Following a traditional Korean breakfast of spicy soup and rice, we embarked on the three-hour bus journey to the DMZ. Our ride was filled with the information about reunification from our guide Ms. Kim, who explained that “reunification is the greatest desire of all the Korean people” as we rode down Tongil (reunification) Street. “Who is the leader of aggression war, and who is really working for reunification?” she posed.

Outside Pyongyang, the land flatted out leading to absolute nothingness covered in snow, with the sun peeking out of the mountains in the distance. Every so often we would emerge from our cozy bus into the frigid -11 degrees cold to look at monuments or stop at teahouses and souvenir shops, during which all the tourists swarmed around hand painted propaganda posters depicting the destruction of the United States, promising a future with a united Korea. On the bus, our guides spoke of nuclear war, saying that they only add to their arsenal for protection and would never threaten countries without proper provocation. “We welcome foreign friends, but will give no mercy to the enemy,” our ex-military host warned us. He told us that everyone wants to serve the army in the DPRK in order to serve their country, but the government refuses people and forces them to go to university for the advancement of the economy.

Eventually, we were in the demilitarized zone, the DMZ. A DPRK solider patrolled us around, instructing us about the history of the division between the Koreas and stressing the desire for reunification. With maps behind him, he recounted tales of the North invading South Korea when they were different dynasties, as the South was too heavily influenced by Japan in what the North considers the 'Japanese occupation'. The USSR and China came to defend the North, while the US and other Western nations defended the South. The DPRK soldier proudly spoke of how they captured the American ships and massacred their military, leading to the “shameful defeat of the United States.” He gestured at the tables holding the armistice text, with a North Korean flag as well as a UN flag, proclaiming that “the US was so ashamed that instead of using their own flag they used that of the United Nation.” It was incredibly interesting to see how proud they were of this US defeat, which I am sure Americans would not necessarily agree with.

Looking over the border, we saw South Korean soldiers manning the area, which is apparently extremely rare as both sides usually trade off days to welcome tourists. There seemed to be a United Nations delegation visiting the site, potentially because of the talks that occurred the previous day between South Korea and North Korea regarding the Olympics. Our hosts were hopeful about the talks and what kind of agreement the sides would reach, not only for the Summer Games but for future relations and potential reunification.

We left, after taking a considerable amount of photos of and with any willing soldier, off to our next stop: lunch. We stopped at a little house, where 13 different dishes were ready for every guest; I would love to describe what each one was, but I genuinely have no idea. The only thing I am confident of was the Sweet Meat Soup – otherwise known as dog meat. Surprisingly tender! After lunch and finishing our delicious dog soup, we embarked on another journey to a factory which produced ginseng products, with propaganda lining the walls telling the women to keep up production in order to help 'the best country in the world'. The factory was eerie, with the sense that they started production as soon as we stepped in the door and were already finishing by the time we left, as they hurried us out the door to prevent seeing the stopping of conveyer belts. Women guided bottles down the line, ensuring to look busy and happy although I am not sure what exactly they were doing; it was as if we were watching a play.

On the bus, I asked our guide as to why there were so many bicycles on the road rather than cars, “it’s strange here,” he responded, “owning a car here is like owning a private jet in your country, and mostly reserved for companies and foreigners. Same thing with the phone lines – we have two cellphone carriers, one for foreigners and one for locals, and they are completely mutually exclusive.” Soldiers shoveled snow on the road to make way for cars; I had been thinking about this a lot since the airport, considering whether this was just because labor was cheaper than machinery. I came to the conclusion that it was to keep the people of the country busy with their work, distracted from other national issues and with the quality of life that they may otherwise be unhappy with. It was similar in our hotel: our rooms were cleaned twice a day, not because they particularly valued cleanliness, but because nobody was allowed to work for only half a day.

Next stop was the super market: a capitalist wonderland filled with Korean rip-offs of European candies, washing machines, flat screen televisions, live fish, chewing gum, and even an authentic American waffle stand. It was as if we stepped into a different world, created only for the richest of the citizens and to impress curious visiting foreigners. Suddenly, people had phones, and were using Chinese chat apps and debit cards; you would have never known you were in North Korea. The market is the only place where you can get local DPRK currency, but it’s illegal to take any with you out of the country. With what I thought was chocolate (actually rice candies), Soju, some authentic DPRK chewing gum, and 15000 smuggled North Korean Yuan, we went to dinner.

DPRK typically meals start with appetizers, such as kimchi and salad, followed by a number of main meat dishes – also appetizers, followed by bi bim bap, the actual entrée, followed by rice or fruit or yogurt for dessert. It’s a lot. At our dinner, our waitresses sang happy birthday to one of the members of our tour and presented him with an enormous cake (which I assisted in devouring, as if there wasn’t already enough food for us). It was definitely an interesting experience, as people sipped rice wine or poured ginseng vodka into their teacups. We were all excited for the next event, a showing of the first European-North Korean film in the DPRK international theatre – Comrade Kim Goes Flying.

Best. Movie. Ever. The movie was about a young North Korean construction worker, passionate about her job and about helping her nation. Always enamored with acrobatics and the circus, Comrade Kim moves to Pyongyang for a new construction project, and auditions for the circus even though she is scared of heights. Although she horribly fails and gets made fun of by the judges (“miners should stay underground”), she trains, teaching her fellow workers tricks along the way. The movie heavily focused on the unity of the working class, needing to work together to improve the nation and show their power. After eventually leaving her job to pursue acrobatics (with the permission and encouragement of her father, grandmother, and supervisors, of course), and doing tenuous training to accomplish the quadruple flip trapeze act, she quits! She gives up, she misses doing construction and being a part of the working class. However, her mentor tells her that she has to continue for “Our Leader,” as he wants Korea to have the best acrobatics team in the world. She returns to the circus, accomplishes the trick, and it is hinted that she gets married to her trapeze partner (after his mother gives full permission/arranges it).

So. Lots to process. It was exactly what I assumed it would be in terms of promoting equality amongst citizens, necessity for unity, power of the working class, the love for work and extreme productivity, the need to please the leaders, and the desire to improve the country. As well, constant happiness and kindness! Comrade Kim had a rough time in this movie, but with the help and permission of literally everyone around her (nearly all men), she was able to accomplish her dream. Everyone was just so helpful, from random men on the bus, security guards, supervisors at work, workers at different firms – everyone. And in response, she Never. Stopped. Smiling. Even when crying. Never. I never knew how happy North Korea was! I was not expecting some elements in the movie, such as the slight romantic overtones, lying to supervisors and workers in order to get around the rules (in order to help the greater good, but still strange), the tints of humor (possibly not on purpose), and the joining of the circus. Both in terms of its cinematography and screenplay, it had a little ways to go, as most scenes were filmed in front of an obvious photo backdrop and the writing was a little too to the point, at times making very little logical sense. But, it all made for fantastic entertainment, genuinely recommend it to every person who may possibly have the opportunity to watch it.

At night, we visited the rotating restaurant at the top of the hotel where Otto Warmbier was staying when he allegedly stole a propaganda poster and was arrested, terrorized, and returned to the United States, where he died. It is said that he went exploring into the forbidden fifth floor; on the elevator, there was no button for floor 5.