Society

What should I wear today?

Do I want to choose between my comfort or someone else’s comfort? If I buy this shirt, it will be a bargain for me, but it risks someone else’s life. Is that worth it? Those workers need work, so I am helping by creating demand for their products. Right?

As a college student, I want to fit in: same styles, same jewelry, same colors, same brands. However, I am also in search of a job and living off savings from my high school job. I have bought clothes from Shein as well as other questionable fast fashion brands. I justified my purchase for my bank account’s comfort and to make me feel like I fit in. I pretended to know about the environmental harm and the treatment of garment workers, but it was a selfish decision.

Fast fashion is not new.

It started in the late 1970s and rose to popularity in the 1990s as companies tried to keep up with trends (Kelleher, 2026). Companies started offering lower prices to encourage consumers to continue buying more clothes. The lower prices often came at the cost of garment workers as well as the toll on the environment. Companies like Shein, Amazon, Forever 21, H&M, Primark, Uniqlo, Fashion Nova, and many other brands worldwide are accused of working with suppliers who violate international human rights.

Gender in the garment industry.

The garment industry consists of almost 100 million people, with 75% of the workforce being employed in Asia. However, with high levels of informal employment, a true number is hard to estimate, but around 60 to 80% of the workforce is female (Amnesty International, 2025). For women, the garment industry is seen as a way to enter the workforce (Tahir, 2024). These women are predominantly young women who are internal migrants without family and support networks, making them more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation by companies (Amnesty International, 2025). Common violations are wage theft, harassment, inhumane working hours and conditions, and restrictions on speaking out (Business and Human Rights Centre, 2023).

They also face discrimination from male management, reporting a lack of access to childcare, maternity pay, and other benefits. Pregnant women are also a target because they are considered “unproductive.” When workers unionize, they face threats and retaliation from management and hostility from the government, making negotiating better conditions impossible (Amnesty International, 2025).

Who is responsible?

Big-name brands are the ones who are profiting, because they get cheap labor and fast production time, and they get to blame the suppliers for the inhumane conditions. Brands demand that suppliers respect human rights in the workplace but incentivize them to do the

opposite. In Pakistan, they force suppliers to use price-bidding systems to undercut other factories to win contracts, which leads to cutting corners in terms of safety conditions for workers (Kashyap, 2023). After brands foster these conditions, they avoid responsibility by citing lack of control over international suppliers.

While the International Labor Organization (ILO) sets out freedoms for workers, it is up to member countries to supervise, enforce, and report on the implementation of standards. Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Myanmar, and Pakistan are all member states of the ILO and should be backing up workers’ rights, but these governments often lack capacity to address these issues (Helm, 2025). This is often seen as the government overlooking the abuses as the industry benefits economic development and growth (Amnesty International, 2025).

What can I do?

Not all consumers might have bought from companies like Shein, but you probably have bought from Amazon, Gap, Walmart, Target, IKEA, and other “higher quality” brands. You should not go to your closet and throw out all brands that are unethical; that would contribute to the environmental damage from the garment sector. Students can focus on creating a wardrobe of capsule essentials rather than today’s trendy clothes. By using articles like the Fashion Transparency Index and other credible sources to inform your consumption choices, you can support ethical practices and treatment of women in the garment industry. On an international level, you can follow and sign the accord by the Clean Clothes Campaign to ensure safety in the workplace and empower workers to speak up without fear (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2026).

Now, I stare at my closet, wondering what I should wear. My clothes help express my personality, keep me comfortable, and help my confidence, but is that really worth the cost of other women suffering? These trends will be over by the time my Amazon package arrives. The women making my clothes are more than just workers and should be treated first as humans. I know I vote with my dollars, so I will vote for the protection of workers’ rights over my own comfort.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, opponents raised alarms about the severe and immediate harms that would surely occur if marriages between same-sex couples were recognized nationally. Afterward, when those harms failed to materialize, those voices grew quieter, but some have been returning with renewed vigor, in hopes that the current Supreme Court, after overturning Roe vs. Wade, may be willing to overturn the Obergefell decision as well — though the justices declined to do so in November.

To build public support for rolling back marriage rights, new campaigns have been repeating the claims that legal recognition of same-sex marriages may harm children or even the stability of different-sex marriages. These are some of the same concerns that were raised in the years prior to the Obergefell decision. They were groundless then, and, more than 10 years later, the data confirm these fears to be unfounded.

In 2024, for the 20th anniversary of the first legal marriages of same-sex couples (in Massachusetts), my lab at UCLA joined with a team of researchers at Rand Corp. to review what social scientists learned over those two decades about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.

We addressed this question in two ways. First, we searched through the research literature to find every published study that had examined the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Prior to 2015, states legalized and prohibited same-sex marriage at different times, and social scientists tracked a wide range of outcomes, including the well-being of children, national trends in marriage and divorce, and the physical and mental health of same-sex couples. Opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage predicted, in the strongest terms, that people would suffer after same-sex couples were granted the right to marry.

After 20 years of legalized marriage for same-sex couples, 96 independent studies confirm there is no evidence for the harms critics predicted. Our review identified not a single study that observed significant negative consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Instead, the research literature identified many significant positive consequences.

For same-sex couples, legal recognition of their marriages was followed by more stable relationships, increased mental and physical health, greater financial stability, and stronger connections to family. For the children of those couples, our review found no documented negative outcomes, but legal recognition of their parents’ marriages did result in more children obtaining access to health insurance. And what about the rest of the country? States that recognized same-sex marriages prior to Obergefell experienced economic gains and considerable savings in healthcare costs relative to states that did not.

One of the most striking predictions of the opponents of same-sex marriage was that recognizing marriage among same-sex couples would weaken commitment to the institution of marriage among different-sex couples. That did not happen either.

To address this question, our report conducted new analyses, drawing on census data and other sources to determine whether state-level rates of marriage, cohabitation and divorce changed in the states that recognized same-sex marriage, compared with states that did not. No matter how we conducted the analyses, we could find no effects of recognizing same-sex marriage on any of these outcomes. It makes sense: When different-sex couples are making personal decisions about their own relationships, they are not paying much attention to what same-sex couples are doing.

If any harm resulted from allowing same-sex couples to marry, it ought to be well documented by now. The fact that there has been no evidence of harms despite considerable effort to find some suggests that the predictions made by opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage were unwarranted at the time. Now that we have 20 years of research and experience, those predictions remain unwarranted now.

Benjamin Karney is a professor of social psychology at UCLA.

A negative political and public reaction in Israel to the ceasefire with Iran, despite the respite it brings.

No pause for Israel’s army, however – or its victims. Hundreds have been killed in Lebanon, with more dead in Gaza.

Is Israel a society effectively on a permanent war footing?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Ilan Pappe – Historian and professor at Exeter University

Gideon Levy – Columnist at Haaretz newspaper in Tel Aviv

Haim Bresheeth – Professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

In the wake of Washington’s January 3 military attack and then problematic détente with Caracas, corporate media suggest a meaningful shift in Venezuela policy, implying relief for a country long subjected to economic coercion. However, far from dismantling the sanctions regime, the US has merely adjusted its application through licensing mechanisms, leaving the core structure of coercive measures fully intact.

Reuters reported “US lifts some Venezuela sanctions,” followed by news of sanctions being further “eased.” Both NBC News and ABC News likewise reported sanctions “eased,” while the Financial Times wrote that Washington “relaxes sanctions.” Reuters later found that “US waives many of the sanctions,” and the Los Angeles Times noted “targeted relief from sanctions.” The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) described a “huge easing of sanctions.”

Not a single sanction has been rescinded

In fact, there is no evidence of any revocation of executive orders, removal of Venezuela-related sanctions authorities, and certainly no formal termination or suspension of Washington’s sanctions regime.

At a February 21 meeting I attended in Venezuela, Anti-Blockade Vice Minister William Castillo described sanctions as a “policy of extermination.” These measures, “the most cruel aggression against our people,” had been renewed the day before by Trump. To do so, he had to certify the original mistruth first fabricated by Barack Obama in 2015: that Venezuela poses an “extraordinary threat” to US national security.

Castillo cited 1,087 measures imposed by the US and another 916 by its echo, the European Union. These unilateral coercive measures have a corrosive effect on popular support for the government, which is precisely the purpose of this form of collective punishment, illegal under international law.

In 2023, Castillo described Washington’s economic aggression as a means to destroy Venezuela without having to invade. The Bolivarian Revolution’s successful resistance, including positive GDP growth while under siege, suggests why the US felt compelled to escalate with a military incursion on January 3, killing over 100 and kidnapping the country’s lawful head of state and his wife.

In Castillo’s words, the US escalated from “a war without gunpowder…against the civilian population” to an actual one. As grave as the direct US military aggression has been – including 157 fatalities since last September in alleged drug interdictions of small craft in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific – the body count from the coercive economic measures has been far higher. Former UN Special Rapporteur Alfred de Zayas estimated that sanctions have caused over 100,000 excess deaths.

There is even a literal playbook on how to apply sanctions to inflict “pain” on civilians for “maximum effectiveness.” The author of The Art of Sanctions is Richard Nephew, a former US State Department senior official in the Biden administration who was responsible for implementing such policies.

Licenses vs. sanctions

What has happened in practice is a much more limited form of relief under the sanctions regime. The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) has issued broad licenses allowing certain dealings primarily with Venezuela’s state oil (PDVSA) and gold (Minerven) sectors.

OFAC licenses carve out limited exceptions principally benefitting US and other foreign corporations, not necessarily the Venezuelan people. Activities are authorized that would otherwise be illegal under US law, even though such activities are lawful under international law. They come with conditions, limits, and reporting requirements and can be revoked at any time.

In practical terms, sanctions remain in place, although certain transactions are temporarily allowed under strict licensing rules. “The result is a hybrid scheme in which formal sanctions and operational licenses coexist, enabling limited flows of economic activity,” according to Misión Verdad.

This flexible arrangement of sanctions combined with licenses allows US and other foreign corporations to make a profit off of the coercive system. Under sanctions alone, the targeted people overwhelmingly suffer but, secondarily, US and other corporations are shut out. Under this hybrid system, control is maintained and money is made.

However, most foreign investors are reluctant to make important investment decisions when there is uncertainty, especially given Mr. Trump’s mercurial reputation. A temporary license does not provide the security that corporations normally require. Recuperating the Venezuelan oil industry would necessitate “a gigantic investment.” Such investments will be unlikely if Venezuela is sanctioned, the licenses notwithstanding.

Media framing and blaming

Meanwhile, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and “First Combatant” Cilia Flores remain in a New York City jail, reportedly in solitary confinement.

Regarding what happened on January 3, corporate media sources overwhelmingly use relatively anodyne terms such as “downfall,” “removal,” or “ouster,” rather than the more pointed “kidnapping” or “abduction.” When the legality of this clearly illegal act of war is questioned by either the media or by the Democrats, it is mainly confined to whether President Trump required congressional approval.

Likewise, application of international law regarding the illegality of unilateral coercive measures is largely absent from media coverage. Where legal issues appear, they tend to address mechanics (e.g., the US-controlled fund arrangement), rather than whether sanctions themselves violate international law.

When media outlets express concern about Washington’s restrictions, it is often that easing them would “reward Maduro loyalists.” While the plight of the Venezuelan people may be acknowledged, the blame is mainly attributed to corruption and economic mismanagement, with little if any opprobrium for sanctions.

As former political science professor at the Universidad de Oriente Steve Ellner (pers. comm.), notes, corruption and mismanagement do exist. But the overwhelming factor has been the sanctions regime. The blockade targeted Venezuela’s oil industry – at one point accounting for 99% of foreign-exchange earnings – forcing the country out of normal dollar-denominated markets and into black markets to survive.

What Alfred de Zayas dubs the “human rights industry” similarly exhibits a convenient blind spot regarding sanctions. WOLA, for example, advocates “addressing the complex humanitarian emergency.” Yet the NGO strongly opposes sanctions relief for the people, because the coercive measures are such an effective “pressure” tool on the leadership.

Former WOLA staffer David Smilde is preoccupied with “restoring” American-style democracy by imposing pressure on the “regime.” He argues: “The democratic transition in Venezuela…requires the support of international organizations.”

In contrast, acting President Delcy Rodríguez views ending interference by foreign actors in Venezuela’s internal affairs as a precondition for credible elections. In particular, she calls for the US “blockade and sanctions against Venezuela [to] cease.” With sanctions still in place, the US remains the biggest obstacle to free and fair elections in Venezuela.

Roger D. Harris is with the Venezuela Solidarity Network, Task Force on the Americas, and the US Peace Council. He recently visited Venezuela.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.