An essay by Joss Whedon

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
CMOT Dibbler
An essay by Joss Whedon

 

CMOT Dibbler

quote:


Let's Watch A Girl Get Beaten To Death. This is not my blog, but I don’t have a blog, or a space, and I’d like to be heard for a bit.

Last month seventeen year old Dua Khalil was pulled into a crowd of young men, some of them (the instigators) family, who then kicked and stoned her to death. This is an example of the breath-taking oxymoron “honor killing”, in which a family member (almost always female) is murdered for some religious or ethical transgression. Dua Khalil, who was of the Yazidi faith, had been seen in the company of a Sunni Muslim, and possibly suspected of having married him or converted. That she was torturously murdered for this is not, in fact, a particularly uncommon story. But now you can watch the action up close on CNN. Because as the girl was on the ground trying to get up, her face nothing but red, the few in the group of more than twenty men who were not busy kicking her and hurling stones at her were filming the event with their camera-phones.


[url=http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271#more]JW's essay[/url]

[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Michelle

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html]The CNN report is here.[/url] They've even got a video of those fucking goddamned barbarians killing that woman. Sorry, but this just makes me see red. I just noticed now that my teeth have been clenched for the last several minutes!

P.S. Before anyone freaks out, yes, I meant "barbarians" and I would say it about any troglodyte male who beats or kills women in any country. I'm not using the term to refer to guys "over there" who do shit like that.

There is an incredible advertising campaign going on in the TTC, which shows an extremely badly beaten, naked pregnant woman. Women get beaten to death by pissed off male relatives here, too. Lots of fucking barbarians to go around worldwide, unfortunately for us.

[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Steppenwolf Allende

From the CNN report:

quote:

Provincial officials don't think much could have been done to stop the honor killing, but at least three officers are being investigated and could be fired.

Oh well ain't that justice! they sit on their duffs and do nothing to stop this slaughter, and they get fired. the bastards should be hanged with the killers.

quote:

The killing is said to have spurred the killings of about two dozen Yazidi men by Sunni Muslims in the Mosul area two weeks later. Attackers affiliated with al Qaeda pulled 24 Yazidi men out of a bus and slaughtered them, a provincial official said.

And the fun continues. I notice how CNN, a die-hard War-on-Iraq apologist, has no problem reporting on this type of brutality. No doubt we can expect all kinds of corporate media brown-noser commentators to use this as another example of why the US should continue its bloody occupation and slaughter because them-there-Muslims-is-too-savages-ta-grovrin--theseves!

And of course, the right-wing Christian super-bigots out there will be saying this is proof the Muslims are all crazy and we should nuke em till they glow.

These "Honour killings" are the stuff of fanatical religious cults, as far as I'm concerned, and those who engage in them have no reasonable defense. Hang em.

BTW, it sort of makes the loony blow-ups that go on around here sometimes look pretty goddamn trivial, doesn't it.

God, that poor kid.

[img]http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/story.ir...

Michelle

Yeah, that's the problem, isn't it, SA? They report on this in full colour with video because they want to get across the idea that the Iraqi people are somehow "savage" in comparison to us. But you know, I'm betting that if the current population of the US or Canada lived in a war-torn, former dictatorship propped up by imperialists who then turned on the dictator, and supported that dictator's use of force and establishment of laws that allowed (or at least looked the other way) this kind of brutalization of women, you'd find an awful lot of "guys next door" pulling this sort of power trip shit on their women too.

The only reason the guys who are doing this shit to women here behind closed doors aren't doing it in the streets here in broad daylight is because they're not allowed to. But you can bet that there would be families here who would pull this shit publicly too, if they thought they could get away with it.

HeywoodFloyd

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b] The only reason the guys who are doing this shit to women here behind closed doors aren't doing it in the streets here in broad daylight is because they're not allowed to. But you can bet that there would be families here who would pull this shit publicly too, if they thought they could get away with it.[/b]

Gosh darn straight there would be. The guy across the street tried to murder his daughter for exactly the same reason. What's worse is that some of the other neighbors were fine with it.

oldgoat

Yeah, this will get a lot more air time than those US soldiers who got drunk, raped the kid and murdered her family.

Jingles

They weren't drunk. They were Marines.

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

it is naive to believe this happened because of the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. Its just getting reported more because Amnesty International and the News Media have greater access to the country.

this is a world wide problem,

A woman was [url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23394793-details/'Mother-in-law+lured+wife+to+India+for+honour+killing'/article.do]murdered [/url]by her mother-in-law and husband after disgracing her Indian family by having an affair, a court has heard.

or another incident

Mrs Ali and her unborn child both died following the [url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23396148-details/Family+quest...'honour+killing'+of+pregnant+teenager/article.do]attack[/url]
at her home in Bury, Greater Manchester, on Friday.

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[QB]it is naive to believe this happened because of the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq

You are correc,t what are you going to do with sexism in your own country/community, or is it someone else's problem to do something about it?

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]
You are correct what are you going to do with sexism in your own country/community, or is it someone else's problem to do something about it?[/b]

give me 3 reasons why I must report to you and account to you about what I am doing in my community?

Why do you assume my attitude is that it is someone else's responsibility to "do something about it?"

While I teach I make it known that my classroom is a safe place for all students...
I am involved with special Olympics, an advocate for people with disabilities, and I am ally for GLBT students in my school district (Safe Places initiative). I am an ally with Muslim women that have educated me about their concerns about Sharia Law, and patriarchal attitudes. We should not legally sanction religious-based arbitration's, it infringes on the rights of Muslim women and children. I am an ally for the local Unity house. Working and coordinating information for students, families and when they need support duing crisis. I facilitate prevention programs addressing child sexual abuse.

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Oh I see, it is someone else's problem, not yours, you are to busy pretending your doing something to further the feminist cause eh, by listing those "others" out there killing women and children??[/b]

You are very poor at monitoring my behaviour and attitudes. I am sure you have other skills you can develop and focus your energy on, because you are not very good at mind reading, monitoring citizenship or profiling individuals. Again I am confused as to why I have to report to you to account for what I do in my community. What authority do you have?

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

remind remind's picture

Oh I see, it is someone else's problem, not yours, you are to busy pretending your doing something to further the feminist cause eh, by listing those "others" out there killing women and children??

Maysie Maysie's picture

Yes, this is a horrible incident, no question about that.

However, I have huge concerns when this thread is quickly turning into how sexist and misogynist those "people over there" can be. What began as a report on a recent "newsworthy" event has quickly deteriorated.

We can break this down in a number of ways.

*Why is this particular horrific story newsworthy, and when I say newsworthy I mean to the West? Atrocities happen everyday.

*Because the young woman was young and "media friendly"? (Code for "pretty"?)

*Because the story helps to reiterate racist stereotypes?

*Because the story will enrage (as it should, as all sexist violence should) AND allow the mainstream to feel, on an emotinoal level, that it's okay to be over there killing brown men, since they ultimately deserve it if they do "stuff like that"?

*Because the story didn't involve US military personnel, at least not directly?

Finally, I'm not the moderator here, but I have to say that if all we have on babble are each others' words, the "progressive cred" challenge is getting tired, and read like personal attacks.

CMOT Dibbler

quote:


Finally, I'm not the moderator here, but I have to say that if all we have on babble are each others' words, the "progressive cred" challenge is getting tired, and read like personal attacks.

Thank you for that. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 24 May 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Polly B Polly B's picture

quote:


Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]*Because the story will enrage (as it should, as all sexist violence should) AND allow the mainstream to feel, on an emotinoal level, that it's okay to be over there killing brown men, since they ultimately deserve it if they do "stuff like that"?

[/b]


I think you nailed it there, especially considering that CNN has the video up.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Remind you often have good posts but you do try to suck and blow at the same time. In this thread you are all over someone for not stating what they think needs to be done. In another thread you were all over someone for stating their opinon about what should be done because that was a disrespect of all the work that feminists have done.

quote:

You are correc,t what are you going to do with sexism in your own country/community, or is it someone else's problem to do something about it?

quote:

You know, you can fuck right off, SA. This type of shit slam is absolute BS, who do you think started the sex education programs that has brought teen age abortion rates down other than feminists, pro-choice freethinkers. It certainly was not the antichoice crowd.

Really what is with babble allowing this kind of bashing commentary, like it is the pro-choice who have been blocking sex education or something, putz!


You seem to be complaining about people not giving suggestions and when someone gave suggestions you called it nassty names.

You have me wondering WTF.

Maysie Maysie's picture

I guess I have to come back now and say that the pile-up on remind isn't nice and I don't like it.

Everyone who knows me here knows that I have *ahem* strong opinions. I know, I know, I get the Understatement of the Year Award for that one.

I try, most of the time, to get people on what they are actually saying and claiming. And yeah I've gotten on about people's opinions when I don't agree with them. That's all fine. I don't even think we HAVE to be all nice and polite all the time, I sure as shit am not always that way. [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]

And I've never been a fan of the pile-up either, and not just because I'm so often the lone or one of two or three voices either. I don't think it's fair, or in "good faith" or anything like the at least veneer of social intercourse that I like to think we try to do here.

So, someone, please save this and throw this in my face the next time I get all ornery about some lefty being inadvertently racist, 'kay?
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

jas

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]... but you do try to suck and blow at the same time. [/b]

What does this mean? Why would you use deliberately sexualized language in the context of this argument?

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]You have me wondering WTF.[/b]

Hmmm, let's see now what temporal provided for us to read, absorb and internalize. Once something is internalized, with very little critical thought given, a reactionary position has been created, the pump is primed so to speak.

So, here we are being primed with:

quote:

it is naive to believe this happened because of the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. Its just getting reported more because Amnesty International and the News Media have greater access to the country.

[b]this is a world wide problem,[/b]


*bolding mine

Starts off all good eh, provides a scenario that this didn't happen because of the US occupation of Iraq. Does not provide proof, just makes a blanket statement, in face of the utter destruction, chaos and insanity currently in Iraq, that the USA has caused by their invasion and occupation. First off, it minimizes US cupability, and then it distorts the truth, but it is accepted, because the reading audience have moved along already to the next sentence of:

"this is a world wide problem"

It was made separate and short, and it actually has truth to it. Ergo, the first premise is also either forgoten about, or accepted as correct too. Iraqis bad USA good.

Now, it also has a 'get on board appeal, because it is something we all can agree with. Of course, we all know, or should know, that there men are harming women, while others in society look on doing nothing, all around the world, all the time. As of yet, it really does not appear that bad in your internal dialogue, nor in your cognative thought processes. Even though it is a truth lie of the worst sort.

Now, we have bounced along with our truth, and false fact, that has been accepted as truth, to the examples given to support this stated premise of; it happens all around the world.

There has been no mention really of religion, culture, or race, other than Iraq/USA to this point.

Then come the examples, have a look at them.

Clearly present, when one has finished reading them, is religious/racial/cultural fanaticism, and bias against it being presented, even though it has not been said.

Nonetheless, it is present and it has been internalized to a reactional awareness of those "others" over there. You know, those "others" who are now living in countries they, or their ancestors, are NOT from. Those "others" who are doing things like this, against the dominent culture's laws and ideology, say nothing of how it is actually tarnishing ALL within those example dictates as being capable of doing this.

So, now we have a whole mentally constructed scenario that has been internalized.

Many do not see the subtle slanting of bias towards topics being discussed and bandied about in the "after 911" world which are: halting multi-culturism initiatives, halting immigration form countries where those "others" are from, and perhaps even a hint that there should be some stopping religious freedom of those "others".

As below:

quote:

A woman was murdered by her mother-in-law and husband after disgracing her [b]Indian family[/b] by having an affair, a court has heard.

And so here we have the "others" being "Indian", no real specified Indian, just that implication and broad brush. Catches them all, so people just insert their own image of Indian. And now we have anothetr emotional description, further slanting towards an internalized bias, against the "others", only now the "others" have a name.

What comes next? An example of a white man that has hunted down and murdered his wife, for no damn reason other than control based upon objectification? And frankly, that is actually what the other, so called "religious" murderous actions are. It has little to do with religion, and everything to do with controlling women by fear and violence.

But no, what comes next, is NOT an example of a white man murdering his wife, while others failed her, and there are plenty available out there to use. I mean, if "it"--being women murdered by those who profess to love them-- and it is happening "world wide" one would think there should be a white fe/male example, eh?

By failing to be inclusive to ALL cultures and races? And presenting a targeted segment of society, there is now an internalized scenario of, white good, brown bad.

Because as we can see below, it is not a white person exanmple, it is another example about another "brown" family, living in a country where they are not originally from, who murder someone they have professed to care about...

quote:

or another incident

Mrs Ali and her unborn child both died following the attack
at her home in Bury, Greater Manchester, on Friday.


And there we have it, the Muslim family, are now playing the role of "others" who do this around the world.

The tone/message for the flight or fight response is set, men only murder their wives if they are NOT white.

That is a dangerous message to spread.

Violence against women, occurs no matter the colour of the skin, or religion. It is about dis-empowering women and controlling them.

Presenting men, or families murdering, a women as a religious and racial problem of the "others" is ugly IMV, and truly should not be accepted.

Which is why I asked temporal what he was doing in his society to stop violence against women by other men. Because it seemed as though he was in denial, at minimum, about who murders wives and why "aroubnd the world". I wanted to see if he acknowledged "white" men murdered their wives, and if he knew about violence against women causes and facts. I wanted to point out that this is not an "others" problem.

There was no purpose, or acknowledgement given, in response. Defensive posturing occured instead of presenting a clear reason of why it was slanted, or even acknowledging is was slatted.

That leads one has think; "was there a purposeful, and subtle racial and religious slanting against the "others"?

Or is that how insidious it is now in our society, having being placed there prior and people just say this type of slanted bigotry without understanding the actual implications.

This type of commentary is setting the tone for other little indoctrinational goodies, where all of a sudden people are wrongly becoming fearful and want; multiculturalism stopped, immigration of the "others" from "those" countries is halted, and freedom of conscious/religion is halted or curtailed, for secuity reasons.

Now, I am not saying it was done on purpose, but it does not matter, this type of thing fosters sub-conscious bigotry, so that when an emotional event happens, people are primed to react accordingly.

And it is almost exactly the same type of thing, just a different pile, as to what I took exception to, prior.

It is what is infered, and clearly stated, yet not stated, and this is most damaging to society,and destroys any ability for cooperation and diplomacy.

When emotions are high, reactions will occur and they will be based upon subconscious presumptions, that trigger fight or flight responses And they will, or could be, wrongly applied.

In this case, it is NOT just the "others" who do terrible things to women, including pregnant women, it is ALL peoples.

It is important to slowdown and actually see what exactly is being said. Especially when it is commentary about where we are at geo-politically and foreign policy wise.

There does not need to be tolerant discourse, over absolutely intolerant commentary, be it subconsciously said, or not. That type of slanted and essentially bigoted view/commentary needs to be aggressively taken exception to. Each and every time.

[ 24 May 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

I agree, I do have prejudices about all religions, and it probably does show in my writing. I do not think the original post was about faith or peoples religious practices. This violent act was about patriarchy, violence, fear and power.

What I find remind, is you play a cryptic game with words and phrases and then when someone doesn't get your cryptic approach you get self-righteous. I failed your cryptic test, so I am defensive.

Why not just ask.. "do you think white men murder women in your community". but instead you go the cryptic route waiting for me not to get it so you can pounce when i can not decode your rhetoric.

On top of that you create a strawman, and if anyone responds to your strawman characterisations, they are labelled as being defensive, and then we are told we are piling up on you when we respond to your strawmen arguments.

You accuse me of being racist: ... I could be. I have admitted that I could be before... It is a matter of record that I have recognized my attitudes in the past on babble... so you outing of me is not revealing any thing new. Am I a bigot? I have admitted on babble about my attitudes (again a matter of public record) so ditto on that..

While I don;t think the OP was about religion, my prejudices against religions in general probably taints anything I write on any related, or peripherily related subjects.

[ 25 May 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by jas:
[b]

What does this mean? Why would you use deliberately sexualized language in the context of this argument?[/b]


It is a term that means you can't play two notes similutaneously or by analogy you can't make two contradictory arguments at the same time. My understanding is it not a sexual reference but a harmonica reference. On a harmonica you get a different note depending on whether you suck or blow and you can't do both at once.

But thanks for wading in with a presumption and not a request for clarification. That IMO is the biggest problem on this forum.

jas

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]
It is a term that means you can't play two notes similutaneously or by analogy you can't make two contradictory arguments at the same time. My understanding is it not a sexual reference but a harmonica reference. On a harmonica you get a different note depending on whether you suck or blow and you can't do both at once.

But thanks for wading in with a presumption and not a request for clarification. That IMO is the biggest problem on this forum.[/b]


Okey-dokey then.

[edited because this is major thread drift - sorry.]

[ 25 May 2007: Message edited by: jas ]

Phrillie

I was unable to watch the video. Just wondering, though, how does our outrage fit in with respecting other cultures? I don't respect any culture that would allow such an atrocity. Am I thus a racist? Probably.

CMOT Dibbler

quote:


Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]I was unable to watch the video. Just wondering, though, how does our outrage fit in with respecting other cultures? I don't respect any culture that would allow such an atrocity. Am I thus a racist? Probably.[/b]

If a cultural tradition dosen't harm people, it should be tolerated. If a cultural tradition kills or damages people, as is the case here, it should be condemned. Quite simple really.

Condemning a culture as a whole, without focusing on individual traditions is a racist practice and should be avoided at all costs.

[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Phrillie

quote:


Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]If a cultural dosen't harm people, it should be tolerated. If a cultural tradition kills or damages people, as is the case here, it should be condemned. Quite simple really.[/b]

But it's not simple, not at all. For these men involved, perhaps having a "tainted" woman in the family was a fate worse than being killers. If another culture follows that line of thinking, who am I to condemn it? (I do condemn it, btw, I'm just wondering how that fits in with cultural tolerance. Surely, we're not going to say that we're only tolerant of cultures that accord with ours. That would be, you know, imperialistic, no??

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]I was unable to watch the video. Just wondering, though, how does our outrage fit in with respecting other cultures? I don't respect any culture that would allow such an atrocity. Am I thus a racist? Probably.[/b]

I would have to agree.

Phrillie

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I would have to agree.[/b]

So do you support the stoning of women, then? Great, good to know.

Unionist

My God, even when I agree with her, she seems to get upset.

I think we're misunderstanding each other rather severely.

Here's a simple communications test. How would you react, for example, if I said:

[b]"You must be stoned."[/b]

Phrillie

[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]

Maysie Maysie's picture

quote:


Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[QB]

If a cultural tradition dosen't harm people, it should be tolerated.


Really? What's a cultural tradition? Getting drunk and going downtown to beat up homos? Raping young women with your buddies at parties? I know that's not what you meant, but many of "our" cultural traditions harm people. And don't get me started on the issue of "tolerance".

quote:

If a cultural tradition kills or damages people, as is the case here, it should be condemned. Quite simple really.

As I stated earlier, yes this was an atrocious event, that may happen more often than any of us knows about.

However.

Before jumping on our First World "We condemn your cultural tradition" soapbox, how about we do some research into what women's groups [b]in those communities[/b] have been doing [b]for years[/b] about these practices, or the threat of these practices? Anybody know?

*crickets*

quote:

Condemning a culture as a whole, without focusing on individual traditions is a racist practice and should be avoided at all costs.

I think it's time we looked at WTF is meant when we talk about "cultural traditions". The phrase simply oozes "otherness" and "strangeness" and is hugely problematic.

You're damn right certain cultures have histories and practices of despicable violent acts that are either performed by agents of the state, or condoned by same. Does Canada come to mind when I say this? It's the first country that pops into my head, because I'm Canadian.

For example, violence against women. I know no country or "culture" that condemns it, anywhere. And by "condemns" I mean a culture that strictly prohibits and severely punishes (I don't necessarily mean jail, btw) those who transgress. I mean laws are in place, social norms are in place, education takes place at all levels, to teach and demonstrate how unacceptable it is.

I won't hold my breath.

CMOT Dibbler

quote:


For example, violence against women. I know no country or "culture" that condemns it, anywhere. And by "condemns" I mean a culture that strictly prohibits and severely punishes (I don't necessarily mean jail, btw) those who transgress. I mean laws are in place, social norms are in place, education takes place at all levels, to teach and demonstrate how unacceptable it is.

Even in places like Germany and France?

Steppenwolf Allende

OK, hang on a second, Big City Gal. Most of the time, as you know, I'm flying BCG flags in agreement with you on many things (especially when the "don't-get-its" show up and start talking about racism), and I also appreciate the thankless work you do moderating these threads trying to keep us headache-makers on the path of civility.

But it seems you're coming up short on this one.

quote:

For example, violence against women. I know no country or "culture" that condemns it, anywhere. And by "condemns" I mean a culture that strictly prohibits and severely punishes (I don't necessarily mean jail, btw) those who transgress. I mean laws are in place, social norms are in place, education takes place at all levels, to teach and demonstrate how unacceptable it is.

Sadly, you are right that this type of culture exists in most places and is pretty deep-rooted in many instances (it seems part of the whole use-your-strengths/talents-to-take-by-force-and-subject-all-to-your-interests-first culture out there). But it’s also not the whole story.

The fact is most, or at least a big majority, of countries and cultures do condemn violence against women. The United Nations has conventions against it. Amnesty International campaigns against it. Labour unions and social justice organizations around the world have repeatedly called for the elimination of it. And many countries have some pretty good laws and education programs to deal with it.

Now people can debate how effective or sufficient these are. But it’s obvious these didn’t just arise out of nowhere. While the horrid culture of encouraging, or at least tolerating, men taking advantage of women by force is out there big time, there are clearly other cultures out there opposing this as an injustice—including even here in Canada.

quote:

Before jumping on our First World "We condemn your cultural tradition" soapbox, how about we do some research into what women's groups in those communities have been doing for years about these practices, or the threat of these practices? Anybody know?

Now this is more like the Big City Gal I’m familiar with. I don’t know how or to what degree the culture of opposing violence against women, including the brutality of these types of rituals or practices, has mitigated the culture of tolerating this type of violent oppression in these countries.

I do know, from progressive Muslims I have worked with, that the larger, or “main stream,” Islamic denominations do don’t tolerate this type of brutality, as it is the domain of extremist sects and cults, and apparently in most Middle Eastern countries these types of religious violence are illegal and considered murder. But I don’t know to what degree that using a defense of “cultural or religious tradition” in a trial allows charges or sentences to be reduced or for perps to get off free.

I did some quick checking on the net and skimmed through some organizations. Again, I don’t know how effective these people are, but they certainly are doing some good work in their communities and countries.

[url=http://www.pucl.org/reports/International/womensrights.htm]Women's Movement in Islamic Countries[/url]

[url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/women_17_4.html]A Declaration of Women's Rights in Islamic Societies [/url]

[url=http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm]Women in Islam[/url](they actually claim Islam is about equality between men and women, and the rest is heresy).

[url=http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/250472.htm]Prominent International Islamic Organization Argues for Women's Equality[/url]

CMOT Dibbler

quote:


If a cultural tradition dosen't harm people, it should be tolerated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? What's a cultural tradition? Getting drunk and going downtown to beat up homos? Raping young women with your buddies at parties? I know that's not what you meant, but many of "our" cultural traditions harm people. And don't get me started on the issue of "tolerance".


When I was talking about cultural traditions(and the term cultural tradition [i]is[/i] kind of nebulous) that don't harm people I was talking about things like religious feasts, wearing traditional clothing etc.

We certainly do have violence against women and misogyny in this society, and it should be condemned too. it isn't condemned, but it should be.

Yes,

[ 28 May 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

jas

Your original statment is fine. You said if a cultural tradition [i]doesn't HARM[/i] people. If it [i]does[/i] harm people, then it's not so fine.

CMOT Dibbler

quote:


I do know, from progressive Muslims I have worked with, that the larger, or “main stream,” Islamic denominations do don’t tolerate this type of brutality, as it is the domain of extremist sects and cults, and apparently in most Middle Eastern countries these types of religious violence are illegal and considered murder.

Are those laws well enforced? It's all very well saying there are laws against discrimination, but if no but if steps aren't taken to address the problem of violence against women on a social level, women will still end up being assaulted.

[ 28 May 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Maysie Maysie's picture

quote:


CMOT: It's all very well saying there are laws against discrimination, but if no but if steps aren't taken to address the problem of violence against women on a social level, women will still end up being assaulted.

Yup, that's my point exactly when I wrote:

quote:

I know no country or "culture" that condemns it, anywhere. And by "condemns" I mean a culture that strictly prohibits and severely punishes (I don't necessarily mean jail, btw) those who transgress. I mean laws are in place, social norms are in place, education takes place at all levels, to teach and demonstrate how unacceptable it is.

Sorry, but legislation and laws, and the UN declaring various decrees regarding VAW are pieces of paper, not unlike restraining orders. Completely useless unless followed up with multilayers of resources and societal buy-in. Yeah, yeah, we're better off having such legislation than not having it, but it means SFA on the ground.

Doesn't the UN have a decree against homelessness? That having adequate housing is a human right? Sorry to be so cynical, but there ain't nobody housed because of that piece of paper either.