Sexism in All Shapes and Forms – US Allies Edition
May 24th, 2008 by SocProf and tagged Education, Gender, Human Rights, Mass Violence, Patriarchy, Religious Fundamentalism, Sexism, Structural Violence, Symbolic Violence
The great news this week come out of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, all countries that are either allies of the United States in the war on terror or countries that the United States were going to turn into enlightened democracies.
So, first stop, Pakistan, starting with the BBC ,
"Militants in north-western Pakistan have destroyed a girls’ primary school in the second attack of its kind since Sunday, officials say. The wooden building was burned to the ground during an overnight raid in the Sherpalam area of Swat district. No group has claimed responsibility. Another girls school had petrol bombs thrown at it on Sunday. Attacks in the region have increased in recent days after militants suspended peace talks with the government."
The militants would be the Taliban, who, in their infinite courage, attack girls schools, because to them, there is nothing worse than an educated girl.
"Swat was a prominent destination for tourists until a Taleban-style insurgency last year. Pakistan’s new government has said it will deal with Islamic militancy through dialogue and development. US officials and Nato say previous attempts to reach accords with militants have created "safe havens" for the Taleban and al-Qaeda to launch attacks across the border in Afghanistan. Pakistan also saw militants attacks soar within its own borders during 2007."
Right, "dialogue and development". I’m not sure what the development part means but the dialogue thing is pretty appalling. After all, we know the Taliban are not known for their flexibility and willingness to negotiate and compromise. And let me reiterate: they have a problem with the Pakistani government, so they choose girls as their targets: cowards.
As to why the Pakistani government puts up with the Taliban may have to do with support for the movement and its methods of administering justice in the form of mob violence among the general population. Take this item Intology (via Jonathan Turley ),
"An angry mob severely beat up and then set on fire two robbers in Karachi, the largest city of Pakistan. One of the victims died after reaching hospital while the other is stated to be in critical condition. This is the second incident with in a week in Karachi when four days back three robbers were set on fire who later died. Witnesses said the robbers were looting a bus when they were caught while fleeing. The mob then fell upon the robbers and after giving them a severe beating, set them on fire. This brutal episode took place in broad daylight."
Why does this happen? Because of a breakdown in law and order, apparently. But the authorities are concerned that now, people might get torched not because of alleged criminal acts but just out of enmity disguised as criminality. And as in all cases of mob violence, people trying to stop it are pushed to the side, if not assaulted themselves, as were older people and an ambulance driver. Nice country.
Next stop, Saudi Arabia with two items both from Jonathan Turley (who’s trying to get me on Prozac). The first one gives us a glimpse of male gender socialization there:
"Michael Slackman received an insight in how both women and rape is viewed by some Saudi men on a recent trip. Recently, he went out into the desert where many Saudi youths go. He was traveling with a female Egyptian journalist to meet with six Saudi men in the military, ages 19 to 26. One of the men immediately observed that it was “reckless” to travel with a female who was not a relative. One of the men said that it was only because he was friends with one of the people in the group that he did not “try something.” When pressed on what he would do, by the woman, he had the following exchange about first trying to get rid of her companion:
“I would get rid of him and try something with you,’’ he replied. “Not rape, I would try to do something, to get you to do something.”
“And if I said no?” she asked.
“Then I would rape you.”
That was it. None of the other young men seemed surprised, or sounded an objection."
Nice. Because, of course, a woman who is already perceived as breaking the norms (traveling unaccompanied by a male relative) should automatically consider herself available, whether she wants it or not, to any man who feels like it and entitled to it. This is the perfect illustration of both objectification and stigmatization ("you broke the norm, therefore, whatever happens to you is all your fault… just be grateful I’m a nice guy").
The second item would be funny if it weren’t such a serious issue:
"In a moment that seems out of a Fellini film, Saudi Arabia held a major conference on women in the workplace. The conference attended by religious, government, and business leaders would have been viewed as something of a breakthrough on the issue except for the one group excluded: women. Women were forced to sit in a separate room where they could not be seen out of respect for Wahhabi rule."
Except it’s not funny or absurd, as indicated by the Fellini reference, it’s exclusionary and discriminatory. Let’s just keep in mind that, yes, no one was hurt by having to sit in another room (can we say Rosa Parks was not hurt by having to sit at the back of the bus? Yeah, I didn’t think so).
Now let’s turn our attention to the countries the United States liberated from oppression to turn them into enlightened democracies based on the Western model… you know, the whole idea that one Western democracy in the region would have a cascading effect and then POOF! the Middle East would become all democratic and peaceful. How did that turn out? Let’s start with Afghanistan :
"Our Afghan ally continues to impose strict Islamic laws against woman in shocking abuses. In this case, Rukhma was taken across the border from Pakistan, raped and abused and then forced to watch as her 3-year-old son was beaten to death. The result: prosecutor put her in jail for adultery and “escaping her house” in Pakistan."
And so the woman receives a four-year sentence for adultery (!!) and escaping her house. And what was the prosecutor thinking?
"The chief prosecutor of eastern Nangarhar province, Abdul Qayum, reportedly became very upset to be even questioned about the case and said that she got of “lightly.” Now, here is an insight into our Afghan allies. He went on to note that “If my wife goes to the bazaar without my permission, I will kill her. This is our culture.” This is their chief prosecutor. Qayum helpfully noted “This is Afghanistan, not America.” Good point."
Let me reiterate a point I have made many times. Any time someone invokes culture or traditions as a joker card, it means they’re doing something oppressive, especially against women and girls, but they don’t want to be questioned about it or held accountable. To hear the culturally relativist argument invoked that way should raise a red flag every time.
Now let’s turn to the grand achievement of the Bush administration: Iraq. In this case, we get two stories out of Basra that should make everybody happy we spend so much money on that occupation. First, nothing says progress in a country more than the return of honorable murders :
"Abdel-Qader Ali killed his daughter after he learned that she had fallen in love with a British solider, even though she was still a virgin and did little more than admit infatuation. Her brothers helped him kill her. According to father, police congratulated and released him. His only regret? That he did not kill Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, as a baby."
How wonderful that the coalition replaced the murderous and tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein with theocratic and misogynystic totalitarianism. When it comes to honor, there is a double standard in these countries. Men have a capital of honor attached to their family and themselves. That capital can increase or stay the same. A girl, on the other hand, has an amount of honor capital that can only decrease. So, a girl has to live her life walking on a tightrope, hoping not to fall. There is no way she can increase her "honor" capital. And of course, any action that reduces her honor, also reduces the honor of the family and that’s something that needs to be repaired, with the death of the girl.
The second story is in the same line and raises the same issue of the status of women in the new and not-improved Iraq:
"After the pullout by the British, groups meted out their own justice according to their own perverse understanding of Islam. Rape of women and killings were common. In one case, a woman was executed for living without her husband.
In the story, one woman named Sabriya details how her sons were killed one after another for being found drinking or simply for their cars. Her sister’s offense against Islam was living without a husband. “They said [to her], ‘Why don’t you have a husband?’ ” Sabriya says. “They came in at night and put a pillow on her face and shot her in the head.”"
I wish there were an international court specifically for crimes against women because they are women but I guess the backlog would be horrendous and there wouldn’t be enough prisons to contain all the perpetrators of gender-based hateful violence. And all the religious leaders who promote misogyny (that would be all of them) would be the first in line for crime against humanity.
Posted in Education, Gender, Human Rights, Mass Violence, Patriarchy, Religious Fundamentalism, Sexism, Social Exclusion, Structural Violence, Symbolic Violence | No Comments »
