A woman pours kerosene all over her body and lights a match. BOOM. She seeks death but instead emerges from unconsciousness to find herself in a hospital bed, wrapped in gauze and subject to skin grafts. The pain is constant and unyielding. A similar story is relived by different women hundreds of times a year in different regions of Afghanistan. About a quarter of these cases end in death, often after several days of torturous pain in a hospital bed.

The families of these women tell a different story. “It was an accident; there was a gas explosion; she would never do such a thing on purpose.” But the lies only highlight a searing point: often it is because of family problems that women turn to burning themselves, also called self-immolation. Common reasons behind this type of suicide are forced marriages, abusive husbands, poverty and lack of rights.

Within the country’s laws, women do have a right to file for divorce under narrow circumstances. However, women are considered so socially unequal to men, that this right is hardly respected. And though women must be at least 16 to be married off, some fathers ignore this, marrying off their daughters at ages as young as ten. Often it is the younger women who are attempting these suicides, women who have been recently married and may only be 16 years old. They have no education, don’t know their rights, and cannot see any other future for themselves.

When asked if she had advice for other women, one 20 year old victim of self-immolation told a BBC reporter, “Don’t burn yourself, if you want a way out, use a gun: it’s less painful.” Nurses tell stories of women who beg to be killed rather than sent back to their husbands.

Government officials from Kabul were sent to investigate this terrifying trend back in 2004, but this has not mitigated the situation. Since then, there is evidence even to support a rise in the trend. Conditions are even worse in southern regions of the country that are more rural and have tribal laws often outweighing those of the government. Many cases go unreported here, the cover-up stories of the families trumping those of the dying women.

The question then becomes, what do you do when you hear of such tales—of such inequality and desperation? As an American woman, I know almost innately that I have the power to change a bad situation. At the same time, I also feel absolutely no chance of helping these women living thousands of miles away, who are in such despair.

The Afghan Independent Rights Commission has worked to improve the condition of women, handing out pamphlets and talking to women, but has seen little to no results over five years of work. Though the government is aware of the problem, little is changing. With even stricter laws for women recently passed in the country, it is hard to see a brighter path for these women.

photo by phil borges

afghan independent rights commission, afghanistan, bbc, burn, education, fires, kabul, self-immolation, suicide, women's rights Hide

President Obama signed his first bill into law on January 29: The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. While this law effectively corrects former injustices, it remains to be seen whether it will work to prevent new pay discriminations against women.

Ledbetter’s story is a bittersweet one. After discovering a sizable difference in her pay from her male co-workers at Goodyear Tire, she took a stand and sued. Initially, her employer was found guilty and Ledbetter was awarded $3.2 million in damages. When her case was appealed and taken to the Supreme Court, the justices voted 5-4 against her because she had not filed her claim within 180 days of her first paycheck. However, it had been case precedent that this 180 day limit renewed with each discriminatory paycheck.

This bill cements the precedent into law. Essentially, it’s but a nod to the plight of Ledbetter. The court wronged her, did not follow precedent and used a loophole in order to rule in favor of her employer. And Ledbetter was not the first. Patricia Lorance, an Illinois factory worker in the 1970s, also lost her claim over discriminatory pay practices because of the 180 day time limit. The flaw of this new legislation is that it only looks backwards. It works to combat old strategies that employers have already used to keep from paying their employees their proper dues. But the damage has been done. Ledbetter will see none of the initial damages she was awarded or of the $200,000 she lost over the course of her career.

The opposition to this bill proves its necessity. Congressional Republicans blocked a former version of this bill and former President Bush even vowed to veto the bill if it passed. Opponents contended the law was problematic because relaxing time limits would encourage a flood of lawsuits and even encourage victims of discriminatory pay to postpone filing a claim in order to seek higher damages. These claims are empty. They are transparent efforts to shield businesses from paying their employees proper financial dues. Ledbetter’s case is evidence of employers relying on antiquated social relations to serve their own purposes of reaping larger profits. As Barbara Mikulski, the chief sponsor of the bill advised, “If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate.”

In order to truly propel the standard of equal pay, this law must only be the first step. Creating legislation to mandate transparent business practices is another powerful step to take in the future. But the legal system is slow-moving and unwieldy. While women have new tools to keep their employers in check, Ledbetter’s story demonstrates that the law will not always protect the people. We must as individuals and as women take the initiative to always speak up, even if it is not in a courtroom. The passage of this law marks winning only one battle in the war. And perhaps then, it is fitting that this is the first bill President Obama has signed into law.
photo by clarissa

equal pay, equal rights, equality, Ledbetter, obama, women's rights Hide