<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:RotisSemiSerif;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Erin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>What exactly are you objecting to in your first response to Samer’s post?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I read the paper carefully and note that you agree on exactly these issues though Samer does not repeat the block quote because it has been well covered in other works.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Samer’s investigation is into exactly you wondered about the stoves/rape meme: “</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I think it is a poor one, and I'm often surprised how it's managed to perpetuate its self, but that's not the reason that so many people build and distribute cooking stoves.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Well, I think he does a pretty complete job of showing that it is why people <i>fund</i> at least some of the stoves (or whole stove programmes – not all of course). The leaflets, at least in the West, are very specific about this and the meme is repeated in many introductions to stove project documents (including the ones I participate in – I looked to see: prevention of rape is ubiquitous).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>He too was surprised and has investigated how a well-known, clearly defined and well documented social problem (rooted in gender issues as you say and well support) turned into something that can be addressed by us collectively giving one or all women a ‘fuel efficient stove’ so they need to collect less fuel. He investigates the problematization process and how a social problem with complex and deep roots became, in the West at least, something that it is claimed can be addressed, possibly solved, with a simple putatively fuel-saving technical solution that indirectly reduces the amount of time women are ‘at risk’. The meme is in strong conflict with the reality of ordinary people, refugees or not. As you point out, the risk is continuous, not restricted to fuel collecting expeditions. Social research supports this view.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>It is the <i>misstatement</i> of the problem and the <i>inappropriate</i> claims made and the <i>misapplication</i> of ‘cause marketing’ to which he draws attention. He obviously thinks that social problems require social solutions. I think I can say that without fear of contradiction by him. He also documents the shift from a social problem to technical one which is called the ‘problematization’ or, finding a solution on one plane of existence to address a problem that exists on another.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Human health problems, which you articulated well, are real and require improved stoves. Fine. Let’s make health problems the reason people should get them. At least some health problems are directly caused by stoves. Others are made worse by stoves or have no effect. It depends.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The overriding concern I have (as is well known) is that the claims made for ‘improved’ status are in many cases unreliable, inconsistent, and only true in particular circumstances which may not prevail in the home of an intended beneficiary, let alone the international community. One size definitely does not fit all. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Who pronounced the stoves ‘fuel efficient’? What measurements were made to determine this improvement in fuel consumption? Who thinks the distributed stoves save fuel? What comparisons were made against the background where the stove will be used cooking the things they cook? As the label says, “Individual results may vary.” Darn right they do.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>There has been to date a big gap in the stove testing community: the claims made for relative ‘improvement’ have to be made against some sort of standard, a baseline if you will. Unless the test applied compares performance relative to the <i>status quo ante in situ</i>, (the existing situation where the user is) all claims are abstract. There persists in the stove community a meme which holds certain things about performance to be inalienably true. One of those is that improved stoves ‘save fuel’ and that this is somehow a universal attribute that some stoves have and other do not. This is surely, if not untrue, a pretty big stretch of what is true. Obviously the same things applies to smoke reduction.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>My private comment to Samer upon reading the article was that he never challenged the fuel saving ability of the stoves being promoted, the rejection of which (by the users) is common. There are multiple methods for making that assessment applied by various players, but the fact that stove test methods for the most part don’t predict fuel savings was not countenanced in the article. This is not a criticism of his analysis which still stands. It is a comment intended to drive home further the point that we can’t turn social problems into technically solvable ones if they are not technical problems, and if we don’t have a predictive method of assessing their performance in the first place.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Samer’s paper is about the illegitimacy of ‘cause marketing’ (for fund raising and fund-directing purposes) fuel efficient stoves as a solution to the problem of sexual violence against vulnerable women. It is not in the slightest an argument against the promotion of improved stoves to solve solvable problems.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Some NGO’s have tried redefining the problem as one of access to fuel (not stoves that burn less of it) and provided unlimited free fuel inside the refugee camps (citation were provided) which did little or nothing about violence: it simply shifted from outside the camp to inside where the majority of perpetrators also live. Both of these technical solutions (provision of fuel efficient stoves and free fuel inside the camps) were (and still are) proposed solutions to a social problem that has nothing to do with technology gaps in those societies. Not many social problems have material solutions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Best regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Pish posh Samer, I have read your paper and I find that it ignores the substantial contributions of the thinkers from the African Gender Insistute . The Feminist Africa Issue from 2010 titled "Rethinking Gender and Violence" is very good, and I think it would be a good one for you to read: <a href="http://agi.ac.za/journal/feminist-africa-issue-14-2010-rethinking-gender-and-violence">http://agi.ac.za/journal/feminist-africa-issue-14-2010-rethinking-gender-and-violence</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>One of the more cogent points is this one from </span><span lang=EN-US><a href="http://agi.ac.za/sites/agi.ac.za/files/3._fa_14_-_feature_article_eva_ayiera.pdf">Sexual Violence in Conflict: a Problematic International Discourse</a> <em> by Eve Ayiera </em><i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><blockquote><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:RotisSemiSerif'>"This problematic construction of gender and sex is the platform from which the international discussions and responses to sexual violence in conflict<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:RotisSemiSerif'>launch. The resulting conceptual framework affirms a patriarchal social order which normalises the aggressive, heterosexual, dominant behaviour associated<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:RotisSemiSerif'>with masculinity and the subjugation of females. .... Violence against women becomes an integral part of exerting power over women and maintaining a system of male hegemony. Sexual violence is feminised – it happens to women because they are female. The current discourse on sexual violence has been astute in analysing the patterns of sexual violence in conflict, but has failed to interrogate the normalisation of patriarchy as the basis for human interaction."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:RotisSemiSerif'></blockquote><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:RotisSemiSerif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>To sum up and repeat the point, rape is a form of violence against women that happens because there is already a context that it's somehow to ok to be abusive to women. This is a global problem, and is not limited to any particular country. Specific instances of the crime tend to happen in a very specific cultural context, and to be deeply dedicated to understanding that context is an investment of considerable time and energy. Also it helps to have some understanding of intersectionality - which is the startling obvious idea that people are often subject to discrimination not just because they may be wealthy or poor, of some social standing or another, of some color or another, or of some other point of contention. They may be subject to discrimination for all or none of these reasons, and there is a considerable ripple effect on their lives and world outlook and may even have an impact on how they use something simple and utilitarian, like a cooking stove. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I suggest that you read Eve Ayiera's whole paper. It is very good, and may help you with your thinking. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I don't mind you raising the issue of marketing stoves. I actually have been tracking that meme or storyline that you've been talking about very specifically. I think it is a poor one, and I'm often surprised how it's managed to perpetuate its self, but that's not the reason that so many people build and distribute cooking stoves. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Cooking and eating is a vital activity, it's really at the core of everything, and improving the well being of others is a vital, and often generous activity. Many of us work in this field for very simple reasons. Babies who grow up in households with good stoves don't die of pneumonia. Women with good stoves are less likely to die of lung problems. Children aren't marred for life by burns. Families are able to have time for other activities, often improving the economic life of the family. Children have time for school work. Children with good lighting have better opportunities to learn to reading writing and mathematics. Families with access to cell phones can communicate more effectively with far flung loved ones. Many of us have seen the impact of a good cooking stove, and it is profound, and in the best cases it has a long lasting positive change in the life of that family. In the worst cases, it does the opposite of that. I'd like to believe that we're doing our best as a community to contribute to the best case scenarios. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Erin Rasmussen<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="mailto:erin@trmiles.com">erin@trmiles.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>