Angolan mothers clearing mines

[ArabellaScott]

The HALO Trust works worldwide training people to clear mines.

This article is about their work in Angola:

'In Angola, opportunities of formal long-term employment for women are often scarce, leaving many families struggling to survive. HALO Angola is committed to creating accessible employment opportunities for women, addressing the unique barriers that make it difficult for women to join or remain in employment.

Today, 45 per cent of HALO’s staff in Angola are women, rising to 56 per cent for our operational staff. The number being recruited and trained continues to grow to meet our aim of achieving gender parity in a previously male-dominated sector

Thanks to the generous support of a long-term family foundation HALO is able to create more accessible employment opportunities for women, enabling them to take charge of their economic circumstances and serve as leaders in conflict-affected communities.

Childcare commitments and costs have been reported as creating a barrier to female employees remaining in work, therefore through this initiative HALO is supporting female staff by:

Subsidising childcare costs through a monthly stipend and the provision of a ‘baby box’ for expectant mothers and those with very young children (male and female staff) —ensuring they have the vital necessities to support their infants'

www.halotrust.org/latest/halo-updates/stories/equality-of-opportunity-in-angola/

That is excellent. The HALO Trust do seem to have women's interests at heart, going from this and the report about the online courses for women in Afghanistan(?). All power to those women in Angola.

Has clearing mines suddenly become a safe job?

It's not as safe as a desk job, but I'm sure they make it as safe as possible. Read the article. Not to be ghoulish, but the women interviewed have been doing the job for several years and are still in one piece. Also bear in mind the circumstances - the jobs landscape is very different in Angola and there are societal barriers to all sorts of employment, even where it exists. I wouldn't want to do it, but women become soldiers and police officers, don't they? They work on offshore oil rigs, in mines, etc. It's not as if they are funnelling women specifically rather than men into a dangerous job - just making working easier and more practicable for them.

It's not entirely, safe, no, of course not. Risks are managed very carefully, and its very very slow, painstaking work.

The work is of course making the country safer for everyone who lives there.

Thank you for sharing OP.

My concern is that they are mothers and what happens to the orphans. Sorry, I just do not believe that this is the solution. It's not even like other jobs where the risk is worth it for the fun involved. And yes, mines have to be cleared but some people are more disposable than others.

Some people are not more disposable than others.

If a mother decides that the risk of the job has to be balanced with being able to feed her children and help keep them safe from mines, that’s her decision. Because she’s an adult, with agency. Same as the fathers doing this job.

If you say ‘what about the orphans?’ you take that agency from her. Now she’s not able to decide to do anything risky because she’s a mother.

And other people get to make the decisions on how she can protect her own children.

Given that mines often injure children, I can completely understand why mothers might want to be involved in clearance.

There is absolutely nothing fun about clearing minefields. It's essential work.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/197009

(Afghanistan, but I imagine the issues are similar wherever there are minefields/unexploded ordinance).

Mines Advisory Group is a UK based group doing the same work and they also recruit and train women. They say almost half of the people injured by mines are children, so its not surprising women get involved.

www.maginternational.org/what-we-do/clear-landmines-clusterbombs/

Clearing mines also restores agricultural land.

The choice is likely to be between mines remaining hidden around a village, a danger to all, or being cleared with local people being trained properly and being paid.

You always find such interesting, grassroots groups and campaigns OP.

Thanks for sharing this, I do get a great sense of how it's all worth it when I read things like this.

If a mother decides that the risk of the job has to be balanced with being able to feed her children and help keep them safe from mines, that’s her decision

No, it is the decision of the NGO offering this work to mothers. Unfortunately your argument works for all kinds of things, such as prostitution, surrogacy and donating organs.

And I'm sorry, if I offended anyone saying that some people are more disposable than others, I was thinking of people like myself, who do not have dependents.

Yes, it does work for 'all kinds of things'. That's what 'agency' means. It means an adult human female (mother or not) should be able to have control over her actions and be able to judge the possible consequences for herself.

Interestingly, you're comparing a 'good' (clearing landmines is a good thing) with three 'bads'. Agency, according to your argument, is bad because it can potentially lead to bad things. Mothers should be saved from bad things. They should be saved from agency, from control over their own actions and making their own decisions about possible consequences.

The other interesting thing is that you seem to be arguing that mothers not only shouldn't make decisions that might be 'risky', but that they can't. Your post suggests that choosing a risky job is not 'their' decision; it's the decision of the NGO that's offering this job to mothers. Apparently the mothers have no capacity to choose whether they should take the risk or not; they are automatons who can only respond to other people's choices.

Again, this is an argument that 'mothers' do not have agency. They have dependents. Having dependents removes any agency from them. Choices should not be offered to mothers; they may choose the wrong ones and their dependents must be protected from this at all costs.

Your post suggests that choosing a risky job is not 'their' decision; it's the decision of the NGO that's offering this job to mothers

If I understand correctly, this NGO is being praised for offering jobs to mothers who are dirt poor. How much agency does anyone, let alone a mother, have when they are dirt poor?

Yes, clearing mines is a wonderful and essential job, but could it not be offered to people who do not have dependents?

It's not a 'wonderful' job; it has to be done.

As I understand it, part of the NGO's remit is to help train and employ people in the countries it works in.

This is an alternative to helicoptering in Western experts - it's a very long standing and well respected organisation that has very carefully considered methodology.

Of course there are lots of difficult and complicated situations in many if not most countries affected by mines.

Globally, landmines are an absolutely enormous problem. Here's the scale:

'Our global staff headcount changes every month but during 2022 we employed from 10,000 to 13,000 men and women worldwide.'

I think what worries me about “How much agency does anyone, let alone a mother, have when they are dirt poor?” is that there’s a very strong subtext of ‘of course they can’t make decisions for themselves.’

The other thing that worries me is that you seem completely convinced that only mothers have dependents. Not a peep for the dirt poor fathers. It’s only the mothers who need to be saved from their incapacity to make decisions.

Incidentally, the first British female bomb disposal officer was appointed in 1989 and the first female RN mine clearance diver passed her training in 2010.

And there are still people arguing that women shouldn’t do this job “because mothers”.

I think it's fair enough to question methodology. I also think it's worth reading up more on the HALO site - this is a very well respected organisation that has been doing this amazing work for many, many years.

To be fair, it does sound as if the women featured in the article are single mothers, at least in practice. But they need to feed and clothe their children, so I expect they have weighed up the risks against the benefits. And concluded that this is better than prostitution or surrogacy or working as a maid in a hotel, or any other of their limited options. The first two come with a degree of risk as well. @Coyoacan, I understand your concern, but I think you're overthinking it. Women need financial independence. This is a job that needs doing. NGOs can't magic employment out of nothing. Women are able, willing to do it. It pays reasonably well, it's valued and respectable work and they get benefits that help them be better mothers. No-one is going to be more careful and sensible than a mum with a couple of kids depending on her.

@BellaAmorosa
Maybe I am overthinking it.

@Anactor
The other thing that worries me is that you seem completely convinced that only mothers have dependents. Not a peep for the dirt poor fathers

Should I have listed every category of people who could have dependents when I said that I didn't think it was a job for people with dependents?

@Coyoacan
Well mentioning the fathers at least once would have been nice, yes. But maybe I’m overthinking that.

My main problem, I think, is the idea that having children means you should be prevented from taking a risky job - that somehow it disqualifies you from being able to make your own risk assessment.

And in practice it is, always, the mothers who are prevented from taking the job. Because the fathers have been doing bomb disposal and mine clearance since it was a job. Or working on high risk building sites. Or buggering off to the Antarctic on an expedition. Or…

Employing a mother is an argument for maternity leave, childcare benefits, higher wages. And, in the case of a de mining job, employing anyone requires proper training, good safety procedures, the right equipment, healthcare benefits if injured and financial support for your dependents if killed. Questioning whether those are provided is perfectly reasonable.

But the parents need to make their own decisions about risk. Being dirt poor is risky. Having a steady job makes things less risky. Having unexploded mines in your area is risky (and is more likely to make you dirt poor, because you can’t access all your land). Having the skills and equipment to remove them makes things less risky.

It’s about letting people make their own decisions and not thinking that we know their situation better than they do.

A firefighter is one of the most dangerous jobs in the UK

Are people suggesting we shouldnt have any women firefighters?

If you read other articles on the website all sorts of women are working for them clearing landmines, not just mothers. That article was just highlighting the ways they support the women (and men) who work for them who are parents.

So to the poster who thinks the mother's shouldn't be doing this job, are you actually advocating for pregnant women being forced to give up their job in an area where jobs are scarce and this would force them into poverty. Because that feels regressive and even a bit first world saviourish.

As a side note I've had some pretty appalling things said to me on this site as someone who cant have children, but reading that my life is more disposable is definitely up there. Besides which children aren't the only people who can be dependants, childless women also have dependants too.

Are people suggesting we shouldnt have any women firefighters?

In the UK, there are at least the remnants of a social security system and I presume the fire brigade pays a pension to widows, widowers and orphans.

The sad thing is that the people who laid those land mines are probably reaping wealthy profits from Angola's oil, gas and diamonds etc, but while women are the sole providers for their families are being given hand outs to clean up the mess.

But I'm not really here to be conflictive, maybe I am wrong.

The sad thing is that Angola is a tremendous rich country

I attended a talk by a lady from Medicins Sans Frontieres who said that fields of uncleared landmines meant refugees couldn't return to their old villages, because the landmines physically blocked their passage back.

That doesn't mean desperate people don't try to get through, killing them or leaving them with permanent disabilities.