*A quick disclaimer: this post is NOT about sexual violence and assault, as that is a whole different ball game in which someone has no control of the situation at hand. This is in rebuff to the mentioned articles which, in a large part, have to do with other forms of violence and crime. I am bummed I have to put a disclaimer, but a recent blog post by First Response Action (which has a noble cause) kind of painted me as quite naive about cultural differences where gender is concerned and the risks of sexual assault.
I have done my fair share of reading up on the Peace Corps and feel like I have a good idea of what it may or may not entail and I don't have any illusions about the risks of serving in an underdeveloped/impoverished/corrupt nation. That is, afterall, the name of the game. The website states it clearly "...because Volunteers serve worldwide, sometimes in very remote areas, health and safety risks are an inherent part of Volunteer service."
Where is all of this coming from? I recently encountered a series of
articles from 2003 that are insistent on highlighting the dangers of Peace Corps service by reporting on murders, assaults, rapes, robberies, and sicknesses that have happened in the Peace Corps without acknowledging that it is small fraction of PCVs it has happened to, without also mentioning volunteers that such bad things didn't happen to. But who wants to throw some positive into stories designed to sensationalize the possible downsides of service?
It seems that a failed realization on the part of the reporters is that crime happens EVERYWHERE! Even in the United States. Surprising right? Living in Las Vegas, I have a less than 1 in 50 chance of being the victim of a violent crime ( I am unsure of the exact number as I cannot find a recent crime index for LV, but the ones from previous years are anywhere from 1 in 37 to 1 in 42!). This fact does not stop me from walking to my car after work in a not-so-great area of town after dark.
My question is: why make it a point to try and scare the crap out of potential volunteers or families and friends of current volunteers by filling their heads with what is likely to
not happen? Why not hold some of the people in the stories told accountable for not following PC recommendations for safety (granted, I am aware that it is not always a victims fault, but some of the accounts do show negligence on the PCVs part)? Why the insistance from reporters and family that the PC play babysitter to adults who signed up for job with risks? I understand the PC should be responsible for basic safety and training, but I don't think it is their responsibility to watch after the day to day life of volunteers.I don't have a babysitter now in the real-world, why would I deem it a requirement as a volunteer?
Just a few thoughts. I recommend checking out the articles as well as letters to the editor because I while I do find the writing sensationalized and redundant of itself, it is important to learn about the scary part of service, even if it is famed as "PC hating". Keep in mind the articles are from seven years ago, so quite a few developments (such as wider use of cell phones and internet) have been made in many places.
Overall, to all applicants, PCTs, and PCVs: Only you can be accountable for your actions and how you present yourselves! Safety is your responibility and there are risks involved in everyday life, especially underdeveloped countries, but if all we ever did was focus on the bad that could happen, would we ever enjoy life? One of my favorite quotes is "There is more to living than being alive." It seems to me after reading blog after blog of volunteers, it couldn't be more true.
