VAW Across Cultures

From the Canberra Times:

A new report suggests one in five ACT teenagers has witnessed an act of domestic violence against their mother or stepmother.

The report, which looks at the issue of family violence and the perceptions of young people, shows Canberra teenagers are among the 500,000 young people around the country to witness violence at home.

The An Assault on our Future report will be issued by the White Ribbon Foundation today .

It shows nearly a third of teenage boys nationally believe that violence against women is “not a big deal” with a similar number believing “most physical violence occurs because a partner provoked it”.

Report co-author and researcher Michael Flood said the findings echoed the experience of many people working in the field.

He said the attitudes of some young men were being negatively influenced by parents, peers, the media and pornography and the study the results showed a need for more targeted campaigns against family violence.

“It is remarkable that a substantial minority of young males thinks violence against women is OK in some circumstances when she’s led you on or she’s flirting,” he said.

The report showed a large number of girls had experienced sexual assault or attempted rape, and nearly a third of Year 10 girls reported having experienced unwanted sex.

“I was surprised just how common it is for girls and young women in particular for girls or young women to be pressured or forced into sex,” Dr Flood said.

What kind of a researcher is Dr. Michael Flood that he hasn’t heard how common it is “for girls or young women to be pressured or forced into sex”?  WTF?!  And “unwanted sex”?  Hmmmmmm.

And from The Daily Star (Bangladesh):

The UNFPA report on the state of the world population this year finds that the concept of gender-based violence, particularly domestic violence, often does not resonate within the Bangladeshi society and is not readily identified, even among many victims themselves.

The report also mentioned that those who do recognise themselves as survivors of violence often remain silent because of the dishonor associated with this taboo.

This must be due to the fact that 80% of Bangladesh’s population is Muslim.  They just have no respect for women in Islamic countries. 

Christianity & Feminism

I tend to agree with this:

Judging by the response to her Comment is free piece last week, I’m obviously not the only one who was stunned by Julie Burchill’s assertion that in her latest incarnation as a “Christian Zionist, a Christian feminist, and a Christian socialist,” she now believes “literally, in the God of the Old Testament”. As dozens of posters pointed out, the term “Christian feminist” is an oxymoron; it’s a glaring contradiction in terms on a par with “compassionate conservative” and “pro-life anti-abortionist”.

Christianity is and always has been antithetical to women’s freedom and equality, but it’s certainly not alone in this. Whether it’s one of the world’s major faiths or an off-the-wall cult, religion means one thing and one thing only for those women unfortunate enough to get caught up in it: oppression. It’s the patriarchy made manifest, male-dominated, set up by men to protect and perpetuate their power.

Since men first conceived of the notion of a single omnipotent creator, that divine being has taken the form of a man: no matter what name he answers to, be it Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or just plain God, what’s not in doubt is that he’s a he. His teachings and his various holy books reinforce the message that this life exists for men, while the best women can hope for is some kind of reward in the next one; as long as we do as we’re told of course, without questioning our lords and masters, and as long as we manage to remain pure of heart and mind while we prostrate ourselves at their feet.

Like a lot of people, I’ve dabbled with various religions over the years, but each time it was my feminism that proved my downfall: from the Rastafarian ex-boyfriend who refused to let me touch any living thing during that time of the month when I was allegedly “unclean”, to the happy-clappy church that took my purchase of a non-gender-specific Bible as evidence that I had a heritage of witchcraft in my family, and that reassured me I would one day be reunited with the foetus I’d had aborted (now there’s an encounter to look forward to!) Whatever it was I was looking for when I crossed these hallowed thresholds, I came away with no more than a growing comprehension that it was all a con: Jesus doesn’t want me for a sunbeam; indeed, there’s no room even in the stable for women like me.

From the very first days of feminism there’s been a recognition that religious doctrine is incompatible with the quest for women’s rights. As Susan B Anthony said way back in the 19th century: “The worst enemy women have is in the pulpit.” Or as Helen H Gardener put it in 1885 in Men, Women, and Gods:

This religion and the Bible require of woman everything, and give her nothing. They ask her support and her love, and repay her with contempt and oppression … Every injustice that has ever been fastened upon women in a Christian country has been ‘authorised by the Bible’ and riveted and perpetuated by the pulpit.

And so it goes on today. In any society where religion dominates it is women who pay the price: we can argue until we’re blue in the face about whether or not any particular religion sanctions so-called honour crimes for example, but what’s unarguable is that men’s interpretation of religion, and the patriarchal values that religion instils, has led to the murders of countless women. Similarly, it’s in the name of religion that girls are denied an education; in the name of religion that more than half a million women die every year because they cannot access safe abortions; in the name of religion that Aids continues its unrelenting progress across Africa, and in the name of religion that women throughout the world remain subjugated, impoverished and denied individual agency.

I try to practice tolerance of religion and religious practises but I don’t always do that easily.  Whether or not certain practises are rightly associated with any religion, nevertheless, some are associated with mainstream religions or with radical, fundamentalist versions of them.

But even if we take out things like honour killings and the notion that women should subject themselves to their husbands in all matters, I’m still not sure that there’s a mainstream religion that can pass my “feminist sniff-out-the-sexism” test.

I’ll speak of the religious cult I know best which is Roman Catholicism.  There were things I loved about my religion, though I remain unsure that any of the things I loved really had anything to do with belief in the God.

I loved the words of the Bible to the extent that they approach poetry.  I loved the liturgy for similar reasons.  I have a love of ritual – candles, incense, certain word patterns accompanying the liturgical calendar or life events like birth, marriage and death.  Well, I didn’t always love all the words, but I’m hoping you get the idea. 

I miss those things and have found them almost irreplaceable.  My own poetry and the poetry of others certainly replaces liturgy and the Bible, though I’ve not found a way to make certain words, word patterns and the traditions and rituals associated with them a part of my everyday life.  Affirmations and such just feel articial to me. 

As for ritual, I miss it the most.  The mystery invoked, the sense of belonging to a crew that’s been doing something close to the same thing for centuries, the community of people giving praise or mourning together – the rituals that many people have adapted can come close to replacing these old ways, but only close.  New ways of doing funerals or memorial services created by the gay community during the great early losses of the AIDS crisis come closest.  The fact is, though, it takes a long time to make a “tradition”.  That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing, just that it won’t fill the hole for me in my lifetime.  And it would be awfully nice if I could find something while I’m still alive!

While I don’t want to minimise the importance of words, music and ritual, what of the deeper aspects of being in touch with a community that can express some of our longing for contact with “the divine” or a transcendant sense of what it’s all about, here on earth?  Where do I connect with mystery and that which can’t be explained?

For a long time, I did that within Roman Catholicism, despite my profound reservations.  I stayed away from the fetus freaks and prayed with the women of my Church that Il Papa might be moved, one day soon, to allowing women to take their rightful places as leaders in the Church.  We were “the faithful in waiting”.  I read Rosemary Reuther and Mary Daly and I contented myself with working toward what I most wanted and with waiting.

Till I could wait no more.  That is, when they started reading shit like this from the pulpit of my parish church:

The majority of Canadians understand marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, faithful in love and open to the gift of life. Marriage and the family are the foundations of society, through which children are brought into this world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood. As such, the family is a more fundamental social institution than the state, and the strength of the family is vital for the well-being of our whole society.

Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.

It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is nobody’ s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or private.

Personal choice is exercised both in opting for the marital state and in the choice of one’s spouse. However, the future spouses are not free to alter marriage’s essential purpose or properties. These do not depend on the will or the sexual orientation of the contracting parties. They are rooted in natural law and do not change.

I sat in the third pew the day they read that shit.  I cried as it was read but forced myself to stay put until it was done, making quite sure not to stifle my occasional sobs.  When the speaking was done and in the silence before the liturgy resumed, I stood up and walked very slowly down the centre aisle of my church and out the door.  When I got home, I sat down and wrote letters to the Cardinal who was overseeing the archdiocese of Toronto at that time and to the pastor of my church.  I never heard back.

I don’t regret walking out and I won’t ever go back.  Every now and then, I hope that my walk down the aisle helped a gay or lesbian church member or his/her parents.  How they stay alive in the face of such hate speech is beyond me.  Meantime, the fucking church gets all upset and pissed off and spreads fear that its refusal to welcome gays and lesbians (lets not even think about trans folk here because it just can’t be done) may make it vulnerable to human rights claims.  Oh right, the church is so oppressed!

There are mainstream churches whose stances toward abortion, homosexuality,  the ordination of women and social justice issues I admire, like the United Church and the Universalist Unitarians.  And there are people whose religious feelings I admire, like this blogger.  But I’m more inclined to feel about christianity and christians the way that apostate feels about Islam and Muslims. 

Sometimes I have to dig deep for my tolerance, sometimes not so deep.  Maybe the personal hurt I experienced at the hands of my church has fucked me up irrevocably.  Maybe the hurt just allowed me to step far back enough to see what I needed to see, what was there to be seen.  Or, maybe my faith just isn’t and wasn’t ever strong enough to withstand critical analysis.  And that, too, would be fine with me.

I have no difficulty doing my social justice work outside the church and sometimes, it’s much easier.  I have no problem at all being a feminist outside my church.  Within, I found it impossible.  Some women manage to live with the contradictions.  After all, it’s not as though life outside the mainstream churches is without contradiction.  There were just a few too many of those for me.

UPDATE:  One further thought about contradiction – if we define the cultures of the world as patriarchal, as many feminists do, me included, then we live with inordinately stressful contradiction every moment of our lives.  I don’t notice anyone jumping off the planet.  What I mean to say is, yes, the religions that I know exist on a continuum of patriarchal oppression ranging from the mild to the extreme, just like so many social institutions we live within.  We tolerate a good deal because we have no choice in many instances.  And we shout about it when we have the chance.  Why should our lives in spirit be any different?  We make choices.  I have made mine, for now, with respect to religion.  I have room for those who have made different decisions.

I’m enjoying this conversation, of sorts, with purtek.  I think because it’s real and true and respectful at the same time.  A rare thing these days …

Don’t Let Bush Off the Hook

Re: the death by apparent suicide of Bruce E. Irvins, just before he was arrested for perpetrating the anthrax attacks in the US shortly after 9/11, Glenn Greenwald has a great post which reads, in part:

… the same people responsible for perpetrating the attacks were the ones who fed the false reports to the public, through ABC News, that Saddam was behind them. What we know for certain — as a result of the letters accompanying the anthrax — is that whoever perpetrated the attacks wanted the public to believe they were sent by foreign Muslims. Feeding claims to ABC News designed to link Saddam to those attacks would, for obvious reasons, promote the goal of the anthrax attacker(s).

Seven years later, it’s difficult for many people to recall, but, as I’ve amply documented, those ABC News reports linking Saddam and anthrax penetrated very deeply — by design — into our public discourse and into the public consciousness. Those reports were absolutely vital in creating the impression during that very volatile time that Islamic terrorists generally, and Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically, were grave, existential threats to this country. As but one example: after Ross’ lead report on the October 26, 2001 edition of World News Tonight with Peter Jennings claiming that the Government had found bentonite, this is what Jennings said into the camera:

This news about bentonite as the additive being a trademark of the Iraqi biological weapons program is very significant. Partly because there’s been a lot of pressure on the Bush administration inside and out to go after Saddam Hussein. And some are going to be quick to pick up on this as a smoking gun.

That’s exactly what happened. The Weekly Standard published two lengthy articles attacking the FBI for focusing on a domestic culprit and — relying almost exclusively on the ABC/Ross report — insisted that Saddam was one of the most likely sources for those attacks. In November, 2001, they published an article (via Lexis) which began:

On the critical issue of who sent the anthrax, it’s time to give credit to the ABC website, ABCNews.com, for reporting rings around most other news organizations. Here’s a bit from a comprehensive story filed late last week by Gary Matsumoto, lending further credence to the commonsensical theory (resisted by the White House) that al Qaeda or Iraq — and not some domestic Ted Kaczynski type — is behind the germ warfare.

read the rest

Ahh.  It would be nothing more than sad if it hadn’t all led to death, destruction and apparently sanctioned war crimes.  A good leader would have stepped back from the shock and awe to fully consider the best most constructive response.  Best for the US, best for the world.  That didn’t happen.  Nor were any more than a minority of Americans able to achieve a state of mind sufficiently objective and rational to put the boots to leaders who showed no leadership capability whatsoever and a half.  Nor, it seems, are very many people interested in getting it right now.

This makes me think of Richard Nixon.  After he was forced to resign the Presidency of the US for crimes related to overreaching his executive power, very much like George W. Bush and his merry band of criminals, President Gerald Ford extended a pardon to Nixon for any criminal wrongdoing.  At the time, some people, like me, were horrified that Nixon was to be allowed to escape punishment for the damage he’d done to his country and its best democratic principles.  What hue and cry there was died down though.  Nixon lived quietly for awhile and then set about restoring his public image.

Gerald Ford was later praised for his foresight in pardoning Nixon and allowing the country to “move on” after years of teeth ghashing about Watergate, the Vietnam and other distractions.

I was horrified that Nixon was able to rehabilitate himself.  I was, frankly, horrified at the honours bestowed upon him when he died and wondered just what it was that an American president had to do to warrant having shame heaped upon him rather than sainthood, even if it was a somewhat tarnished halo.  I think my motivation back then had to do with a pretty low but nevertheless human desire to see him suffer, to see him punished in a way that would hurt him forever.

Now I think the failure to bring Nixon to justice was a mistake for other reasons.  Like George W. Bush.  Bush and his confreres have followed a path very similar to and even more destructive than Nixon in their successful bid to concentrate power in the executive branch.  They’ve committed crimes against their own citizens with their illegal wiretapping and abridgement of civil liberties; they’ve drawn the American people into an immoral, illegal war against innocent citizens of other countries, costing American lives, bodies and minds in the process; and hell, all the rest of it.  Perhaps the biggest sin has been making America, whose democratic principles and civil values has offered hope to so many, not just in that country but around the world, the butt of justified criticism, jokes and yes, even hatred.  When democracy fails in America, the significance is profound.

I’m not big on the symbolic significance of law because, most often, the people offered up as symbolic sacrifices are the most poor, the least powerful among us.  But Richard Nixon was rich and powerful and he was the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Gerald Ford was wrong to pardon him.  The symbolic significance of putting Nixon on trial before the people of his country and the world is incalculable.  And maybe, just maybe, it would have provided a warning to people like Bush and his ilk.  Their own security and well-being, the place of the Bush in history is quite probably the only thing that politicians like this care about.  It’s possible that the trial of an American president and, hopefully if not probably, his punishment may well have been a symbolic process the result of which may have maximized benefit for the maximum number of people.  And for which America (and the rest of us) has suffered incalculable harm for  not having undertaken.

Holding George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al criminally responsible may yet be the most important thing that America must do in the next years.  Pride in America and her presidents may depend upon it.  The life and safety of Americans and citizens of the world may depend upon it.  The lives, safety and security of future generations may, indeed, depend upon not sidestepping these issues in favour of solving what certainly are critical political, economic and social problems.  Solving those problems may, in fact, depend upon it:

Let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world, we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hope for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.  And so tonight – to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans – I ask for your support.

Guess who said that.

Wingnut Heads

Judith Slaying Holofernes

Artemisia Gentileschi

Every day the rightwingnutters push the envelope of credibility and tolerance one (or more) step further with irrational and bigoted and racist responses to irrational acts, as Dr. Dawg notes of reactions in the rightosphere to the terrible murder of Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus on Wednesday night.  The alleged murderer, Vincent Li seems to be of Chinese descent.  Oh no, he beheaded his victim, he must be a Muslim!

May I remind any rightnut who happens to pass by here that beheading has an “honourable” history in the Judaeo-Christian world and in the West:

Judith beheaded Holofernes:

The story of Judith slaying the Assyrian general has been a theme for some of the Western world’s most famous Italian painters, including Michelangelo Caravaggio, Artemesia Gentileschi and Donatello.

Biblical hero, David, beheaded that big, nasty bully, Goliath:

Armed with a slingshot, five stones, and a belief in God, David advances toward a dismissive Goliath, and hits him between the eyes with a stone. As Goliath falls, David draws out the Philistine warrior’s own sword and beheads him. When the Philistines see their once-invincible warrior decapitated, they panic and flee. David carries Goliath’s head triumphantly to King Saul’s court in Jerusalem and keeps the sword as a spoil of war.

A Michelangelo fresco of David slaying Goliath adorns the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. Other artworks include Caravaggio’s painting of David holding Goliath’s deathly pale head by his hair while the Philistine warrior’s expression is frozen in a terrifying scream.

The New Testament features the head of John the Baptist on a platter:

Queen Herodias had first been married to Herod’s brother, and John had condemned her new marriage as incestuous. Herodias’ daughter, Salome, dances for King Herod, who is so pleased with the performance that he promises to grant the girl anything she wishes. Salome, at her mother’s urging, asks for the head of John the Baptist on a silver platter. Herod is upset, but a promise is a promise. The incident has been immortalized in paintings and plays by artists ranging from Caravaggio to Titian to Botticelli to Oscar Wilde.

That good old Muslim, William Shakespeare, immortalized one famous beheading in Richard IIIThen, of course, there was that most self-absorbed of all beheaders, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I contributed her fair share to the making of people headless.  King Charles I and Marie Antoinette are also famous victims of the human prediliction for separating people from their thoughts.

This is not a specifically Muslim “tradition”.  In fact, it may have been a faster, less painful and more humane method of execution than that currently used for state executions in the United States of America.  Check your own backyard, wingnutters, before going off about the “barbarians”.  You never know, “they” might be you.

As Lamont Cranston said, famously, “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!”

Crucifixion was most common in ancient Rome. Although it has never been legal in the United States, it is worth noting that a CIA interrogator killed Manadel al-Jamadi in Abu Ghraib Prison in 2003 by crucifixion.

here ya go

Steyn & Natalism

Max Fawcett on Mark Steyn:

More importantly, though, Steyn’s philosophy of natalism is a little more than poorly coded racism. That it glosses over the profound differences between and within different forms of Islam, which contains the same diversity of views, interpretations, and practises as Christianity, is bad enough, since over-simplifications like these are the natural precursor to more explicit forms of racism. But the linkage between Muslims and prolific rates of reproduction – one that, according to the United Nations, isn’t even true any longer – is far worse. It is, in fact, frighteningly similar to the same comparisons that were drawn by Nazi propagandists over seventy years ago, in reference to the Jews of Germany. As Swedish journalist Eva Ekselius writes, “like the Jews were depicted as the foreign, the other, onto which one could project all the traits the culture wants to deny in themselves, so the ‘muslims’ now get to take over the second-hand props of anti-semitism.”

 

VAW and Islam

The empirical research done by Elizabeth R. Sheeley to form the basis of her book, Reclaiming Honor in Jordan, is re-capped here, in her open letter to King Abdullah II of Jordan.  Another step towards a more accurate view of the Muslim world:

I … traveled to 21 cities, towns, villages, and refugee camps throughout the country conducting in-depth, face-to-face personal interviews with Jordanian citizens age 18 and older. People from all segments of society participated and were represented-male and female, employed and unemployed, educated and uneducated, young and old, rich and poor, Muslim and Christian, East Bank Jordanian and West Bank Jordanian, nomadic and sedentary, urban and rural. To all, I continue to be deeply grateful for the cooperation, the honesty, and, in many cases, the almost heart-breaking hospitality and kindness.

When I finished gathering and analyzing the data, I found that the people in the sample overwhelmingly support overturning Articles 97, 98, and 340 of the Jordanian penal code. It is not even a close call. It appears that the people are far ahead of the legislation and (dare I say?) the leadership on this issue. The news is good-most people do know right from wrong.

When asked if “honor” killings are morally just, 94.5% of the survey respondents said no (3% were neutral and 2.5% said yes). One respondent went so far as to equate “honor” killings with terrorism. Even among the few respondents who replied affirmatively to this question, there was strong support for codifying into law the specific behaviors that a victim must engage in before a successful “honor” killings defense can be had (80% agreement) and for clearly placing the onus of proof on the defendant that one or more of these behaviors was engaged in (100% consensus).

When asked whether “honor” killings should be punished the same as other murders, 87% said yes (3.5% were neutral and 9.5% said no). If anything, the extent to which the survey respondents agreed with this statement is understated. About 25% of the way through the administration of the survey, one of the respondents who replied negatively to this question added that he did so because he believes “honor” killings should be punished more harshly than other murders. Up until then, it had not occurred to me that respondents might reply negatively for that reason and not because they favor leniency. So, thereafter, each respondent who initially disagreed with this question was probed for his/her reasons. Many of the respondents who were surveyed after that expressed a desire to see the perpetrators of “honor” killings receive the death penalty. One respondent even went so far as to say, “”Honor” killers should be decapitated at Hadrian’s Arch [in Jerash, Jordan], in front of people. I will personally oversee the event.”

When asked if the perpetrators of “honor” killings deserve to be treated with leniency, 95.5% said no (2% were neutral and 2.5% said yes). Again, many of the survey respondents favor the death penalty for perpetrators of “honor” killings.

When asked if the victims of “honor” killings deserve what they get, 86% said no (7.5% were neutral and 6.5% said yes). A number of the survey respondents who either were neutral or responded affirmatively had quite nuanced explanations for their reply to this question. A recurring one was some variation of “yes, if the victim is married; no, if s/he is single, but then s/he should receive [variously] 80 or 100 lashes.”

When asked whether there is any honor in “honor” killings, 89.5% said no (8% were neutral and 2.5% said yes). One male survey respondent added, a woman’s “honor does not reside in the lower body.”

When asked if the penal code articles that offer leniency for “honor” killings will ever be overturned, 66.5% said yes (11.5% were neutral and 22% said no). Many who responded negatively to this question added that they hoped they were wrong. A number of the survey respondents even speculated as to what the time frame will be for overturning the three penal code articles, and it ranged from “Queen Rania [already] overturned them” to “it will take centuries.”

And when asked whether they support stiffening the penalties for “honor” killings, 89% said yes (3.5% were neutral and 7.5% said no). One respondent stated, “If I were king, I’d execute every person who murders.” Others noted that, if the relevant penal code articles were overturned, even the people who purport to believe in “honor” killings would be relieved because finally the peer and the social pressures would be removed.

And should you wonder whether my results might be statistical flukes, even though they were attained using standard scientific methodology, there is corroborating regional data. In an online referendum on “honor” killings conducted by Dubai-based Al Arabiya News Channel (www.alarabiya.net), 63.0% of the respondents stated that they believe these crimes are not justified, that they are unsupportable by any religion or law (24.7% were neutral and 12.3% indicated that they are sometimes warranted to eradicate bad influences and people from society).

Full text of the letter at Red.eVolution