Search

Miriam Ticktin is an associate Anthropology professor at The New School. She graduated with a PhD from Stanford University in 2002. “Miriam works at the intersections of the anthropology of medicine and science, law, and transnational and postcolonial feminist theory. Her research has focused in the broadest sense on what it means to make political claims in the name of a universal humanity: she has been interested in what these claims tell us about universalisms and difference, about who can be a political subject, on what basis people are included and excluded from communities, and how inequalities get instituted or perpetuated in this process. She is the author of Casualties of Care: Immigration and the Politics of Immigration and Humanitarianism in France (UC Press, 2011), co-editor of In the Name of Humanity: the Government of Threat and Care (with Ilana Feldman, Duke UP 2010), and a founding co-editor of the journal Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism and Development.” (from her profile from The New School).

Emergency response is addressed in how it should respond to gender violence in crises from a global/national/organizational perspective, effecting the end result and care on the ground.

The majority of the facts originated from MSF (also known as Doctors Without Borders) essays/studies/experiences as well as several other outside works as cited.

1) “‘A confusion between humanitarianism and politics–two fundamentally different orders of activity – can only lead to a mutual weakening of both”.

2) “Approaching gender-based violence as a medical or health issue alters how violence is both approached and understood; that is, rather than understanding gender violence in the context of gendered relations of power, or as part of larger histories and expressions of inequality which are inseparable from histories of class or race or colonialism, this type of medicalisation transforms gender-based violence into an emergency illness, requiring immediate intervention.”

3) “Sexual violence elicited a particular form of moral outrage in the MSF report and debate; and the question was how to justify the willingness to condemn the perpetrators in cases of rape more than with other forms of violence or torture. Should women be !C 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Medicalising and Politicising Sexual Violence 259 treated as special categories of victim, who need more protection? Furthermore, are they the only ones recognised as subject to rape? Should sex and sexual violence be seen as crimes apart, or should they be equivalent to any type of harm or injury in times of war? What is the nature of gender-based violence, and how do we qualify the particular vulnerabilities to it?”

1) Gender violence against humanitarian workers.

2) Gender violence that exists within the humanitarian organizations themselves.

3) How gender violence is interpreted and perceived by different cultures. 

1) International courts came to agreement that gender based acts of violence, such as rape, constitute a crime against humanity.

2)  When gender is erased from the picture it removes the why, what, and how of the incident as well as ting to be uniform in care but also recognizing biological differences between men and women, gender differences and how that changes treatment, care, and outcome.

3) Human rights activists have been championing to address violence against women since the 1980s which later turned into “gender based violence” so that it would broaden the scope to include any gender. 

The majority of citations are attributed to MSF and other humanitarian organizations. This incite frames the viewpoint from which this article was made.

The main argument of the article is that humanitarian efforts are far behind progress when it comes to gender violence due to politics, stereo types, and prioritization. 

I had difficulty finding direct discussion of that particular chapter, but according to Google Scholar there are 22 citations of the larger work, some of which cite this particular chapter.