Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
Acknowledging that doesn't mean I think the the women suffered any less, and some form of aid should have been available to them (yet another aspect that hasn't changed a century later), but it should not have been necessary to establish wrong-doing as part of getting that aid. Where does this insistence that it must be someone's fault come from? Sometimes __it happens! Without the confrontational nature of blame, some of these situations would be more quickly resolved; people could cooperate rather than ducking for cover to avoid blame.
|
I'm kind of incredulous here. Sure, one might make a case that in the beginning, the companies were acting in a certain amount of ignorance and might claim to be blameless. But once they knew, or should have known, did they offer any compensation or even a bit of compassion to the afflicted women? Did they reexamine their practices and implement changes? The women's suffering didn't just happen--it happened because the companies exploited and victimized them.