Teen killed by father another misogynist act II
Thu, 2007-12-13 10:45
#1
remind
Teen killed by father another misogynist act II
Thu, 2007-12-13 10:45
#2
remind
Draco's absolutely pertinent words, from the now closed former thread on this topict:
quote:
Domestic violence, and all violence against women, is treated the same on this board, in the context of a feminist analysis.
[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Thu, 2007-12-13 11:53
#3
Well, it must be my mistake.
If you check out, you will realize that I am new to this forum. I am a progressive activist. I wanted to do -as in being active- things based on facts, evidence.
But I am afraid slogans are not evidence.
(FEAR=HATE), Reminder wrote.
"Fear Allah wherever you are; if you follow an evil deed with a good one you will obliterate it; and deal with people with a good disposition."
One of the cornerstones of Islam is to fear God.
I suppose Muslims hate God. According to remind.
Thu, 2007-12-13 11:58
#4
My final words.
Slogans and graffitis do not change things.
Let me go to the real world and do something instead of wasting my time with you, Remind, and those who are blindly, automatically and subserviently supporting you.
Thu, 2007-12-13 12:04
#5
remind
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]Well, it must be my mistake. [/b]
It is.
quote:
[b]If you check out, you will realize that I am new to this forum. I am a progressive activist. [/b]
Perhaps in your own mind.
As for all the rest of your nonsense, I will ask you only once, to stop putting words in my mouth that were never there and ascribing things to me that were not said, nor even implied, alluded to, or anything along such lines.
And refrain from derailing this topic further.
Thu, 2007-12-13 12:49
#6
What exactly IS the topic of this thread, anyhow? It doesn't look like it's about the teen killed by her father.
Thu, 2007-12-13 13:14
#7
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]What exactly IS the topic of this thread, anyhow? It doesn't look like it's about the teen killed by her father.[/b]
It is supposed to be actually about the misogynist nature of violence towards women as embodied by this latest murder of the female youth. I will amend the title you are quite correct.
Thu, 2007-12-13 15:08
#8
Remind said:
quote:
how many times does it have to be said, violence against women, though some want to justify as something else, is a hatred of women.
Is it not worth asking what causes this hatred of women? That's what I'm struggling with here: the idea that hatred of women is some form of original sin without any cause, something that just happens.
[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: Black Dog ]
Thu, 2007-12-13 15:37
#9
I'd like to say this quietly:
What gives anyone the right to dictate what this story is "really about"?
Especially when we don't know the story.
Thu, 2007-12-13 15:37
#10
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog:
[b]Is it not worth asking what causes this hatred of women? That's what I'm struggling with here: the idea that hatred of women is some form of original sin without any cause, something that just happens.[/b]
I welcome you to do your own investigation of violence against women, the other thread should have provided you with the information you sought, but as you chose to over look what was said there, please do feel free to take a look around the feminist forum for many many discussions regarding patriarchy and the power men weild over women's lives literally.
Thu, 2007-12-13 15:41
#11
There is nothing wrong with black_dog's question. It's not off topic and it's not anti-feminist, and it fits just fine in this thread.
Thu, 2007-12-13 15:42
#12
I agree with Blackdog to an extent, with a huge caveat. Blaming religious beliefs for this girl's murder is the easy way out and gets us nowhere.
I think the reason so many Babblers are quick to point out that this is about hatred of women and/or a patriarchal society and and/or misogyny (no need to get bogged down in semantics, pls), is that when ppl blame it on religious beliefs, it is very easy to dismiss the incident as something most of us do not need to worry about.
Violence against women happens every day. Usually the perpertrators are men. I'm honestly not sure how or even if their abusers justify their actions to themselves. Certainly some men use religion as a justification, but there are probably a multitude of other reasons men can use to justify the abuse. But the bottom line is that abuse is about power, fear, disrespect and hatred.
I linked to this article in the last thread, but I'll link again here because it's a good one!
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071213.wcokhan13/BN...'s all about violence against women - Sheema Khan[/url]
quote:
All these cases should give us pause. All these vulnerable women, were killed by men committing the ultimate abuse of power. We do not know the details of Mr. Pickton's relationship with his victims. However, we do know that both Ms. Dupont and Ms. Parvez were struggling to break away from situations each considered suffocating. It is not easy to do so, especially in a relationship based on an imbalance of power. The courage mustered to break free is seen as a mortal threat by those who refuse to let go. In the last decade alone, more than 200 Canadian women have been murdered as a result of domestic abuse.[b] Violence against women knows no particular ethnicity, religion or class. [/b]
So by all means, let's acknowledge that it seems that this particular girl was killed in what was probably in a fit of passion by a man who had one set of beliefs that he may feel come out of the Koran. But let's not tell ourselves that this is a muslim problem or an immigrant problem etc. This is an everybody problem and the sooner we acknowledge it, the better.
Edited becase I posted before I was done!
[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]
Thu, 2007-12-13 17:08
#13
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]There is nothing wrong with black_dog's question. It's not off topic and it's not anti-feminist, and it fits just fine in this thread.[/b]
I never said there was a thing wrong with it. I welcomed him, in fact, to have a look around the feminist forum to find the answers he sought. I felt I was respectfully declining to do his research for him, in this manner, as opposed to a harsher tone, that would be derived from too many years of men asking the same thing, over and over, and of their having received the answers, over and over, but yet still refusing to get it, or at least saying they don't get it.
You know, I liken this failure to get it, to my never learning to fold my partners socks and tee shirts, the way he does, and has to have them, in 28 years. It is reasonable to expect that had I wanted to, I could've mastered the problem in the ensuing decades, no? Well, I haven't. The key to my failure to do so, is in my lack of caring about: them, or indeed about whether or not I was expected to learn how, also by the fact I was never askled/required/expected to do it and I never have. It is of no benefit to me, and thus truly a waste of MY time.
Now this is but a trivial activity, not on par of course with inequality, and thus need not be actioned by me, unless I just wanna be nice sometimes, and I am sure I could knock off a resonable facimile of the prefered folding, if a nice moment came along. However, blowing off the ramifactions and consequences of patriarchy is killing women, and much much more.
So, one could say, that men who do not get how violence against women is misogyny, are really stupid, or one could realize, that they do not care to action the fact that patriarchy = inequality = abuse.
Women have been people for 90 years, you think they would have gotten it by now had they wanted to, or cared to.
It is inexcusable.
And that is not even getting into the fact that we women, like the many others who are not white males, had to fight to actually be recognized as people and we still are NOT equal, though we are the vast majority!
So, actually, I felt I was responding reasonably to blackdog's request. I want him to understand, I just am not going to attempt to be the vehicle he wants to use to further his understanding.
And yes summer, I concur when you say:
quote:
when ppl blame it on religious beliefs, it is very easy to dismiss the incident as something most of us do not need to worry about.
Religion being used by men as a justification that it is; them, those men over there, being violent against women, is in excusable. It is many men everywhere around the world. The reason why it lasts/continues is misogyny, it is not stupidity.
[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Thu, 2007-12-13 17:14
#14
Okay, I misunderstood then. Sorry.
Thu, 2007-12-13 17:47
#15
Makwa
I think what many people have difficulty with is that a major focus of feminist analysis, at least as far as I understand it, is to expose how patricarchial institutions, belief systems and actions affect and have affected women currently and historically. Thus, any act of violence or opression aimed at any female person may fall within the purview of feminist analysis. In this case, it is specifically about the action of a father against a daughter, and the question of whether or not the specific patriarchial institution of religion was a variable in this action is still to be determined in a court of law.
Thu, 2007-12-13 18:05
#16
quote:
So, one could say, that men who do not get how violence against women is misogyny, are really stupid, or one could realize, that they do not care to action the fact that patriarchy = inequality = abuse.
It seems clear this is directed at my inquiry, so I feel compelled to respond. I never said violence against women isn't misogyiny. Please do feel free to take a look around my previous posts on this subject before breaking out your strawmen.
My question derives from the mantra that, in cases like this one, "religion is just an excuse" for women-hate. But it's not, is it? So I don't see how its possible to seperate the two as cleanly as so many are attempting to do in this case, when it's a simple fact that patriarchal religious beliefs are the mechanisms by which attitudes like those allegedly held by Aqsa Parvez 's father.
I'm quite surprised by the lengths to which people on this board have been willing to go to downplay the religious angle. The father was "mentally disturbed;" he was an "obsessive control freak". But these labels go unexamined.
Surely the fact that he was, assuming the reported details of this case are true, the product of a particularily vile strain of patriarchay would be relevant. But apparently not.
Thu, 2007-12-13 18:16
#17
remind
An abuser will use any mechinism to abuse, it matters not what the mechanism is. It is the motivator of the mechanism which matters.
Thu, 2007-12-13 18:58
#18
"Whoso slayeth a true believer,his recompense shall be Gehenna, to dwell therein forever."
This murder has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a misogynistic attitude that decrees women as chattels and posessions.
Thu, 2007-12-13 19:12
#19
Anyone capable of explaining what happened - before they find out exactly what happened - should I think question their belief system.
Thu, 2007-12-13 19:15
#20
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Anyone capable of explaining what happened - before they find out exactly what happened - should I think question their belief system.[/b]
Simple application of Bayesian inference using [b]guesstimated[/b] priors :-)
Fri, 2007-12-14 06:26
#21
Thanks Unionist, I think we get it. But this is a message board, not a court of law. We are not the man’s judge or jury and we do not have to wait for the evidence to come in before we can discuss the story. If it turns out the media has misrepresented what happened and the girl choked herself to death then I suppose you can come back here with a big “I told you so.”
But in the meantime, many of us would like to discuss this along with the broader issues of violence and prejudice against women. If you would prefer to wait until after the trial to discuss this stuff, then by all means, please do so. But your constant refrain of 'how do you know? Let’s wait and see' is getting tiresome.
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]
Fri, 2007-12-14 07:00
#22
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
[b]But in the meantime, many of us would like to discuss this along with the broader issues of violence and prejudice against women. [/b]
Yes, I concur, as there are many dynamics that actions like this against women bring out, or illuminate.
1. ALL men benefit from violent acts against women.
2. Violent acts against women are envariably diminished, as domestic disputes, attack on a sex trade worker, or any other such commentary, instead of being recognized for what they are, hate crimes.
3. Diminishing the violent acts against women give tacit approval of many more such acts.
4. Male responses illuminate just how far they will, or will not go, to halt discussions, actions or awareness from being disemminated. Ridicule, meta debate about something other pertained in the situation, or continuous interruption are used as a silencer.
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2007-12-14 07:23
#23
Blackdog, I'll take a shot of answering for you. Heh, not sure how well it'd answer it, but why not.
quote:
My question derives from the mantra that, in cases like this one, "religion is just an excuse" for women-hate. But it's not, is it? So I don't see how its possible to seperate the two as cleanly as so many are attempting to do in this case, when it's a simple fact that patriarchal religious beliefs are the mechanisms by which attitudes like those allegedly held by Aqsa Parvez 's father.
The 'women-hate' originates from many sources... In this event it was religious passion that triggered it. There are all sorts of sources for this behaviour, blaming it entirely on religious views is to ignore the greater link.
quote:
I'm quite surprised by the lengths to which people on this board have been willing to go to downplay the religious angle. The father was "mentally disturbed;" he was an "obsessive control freak". But these labels go unexamined.
By over examining the 'obsessive control freak' we ignore the larger picture. You'll see a similar tactic used in demonizing or labelling as 'monsters' that simply cannot be one of us used quite frequently (school shootings come to mind) that are used to distance ourselves from responsibility. By focussing on this aspect, we ignore the larger underlying fundamentals that allow this to happen.
If the patriarchy we prop up (intentionally or unintentionally) was torn down, would this still have happened? Yes, there is a religious component, but it is solely the patriarchy that allows the religious component to manifest in this manner.
Moreover... Have you thought that the Patriarchy itself is what allows the fathers in these scenarios to become an "obsessive control freak"? The statement alone is to blame a symptom while happily ignoring the root cause.
Sorry if it's come off like I'm attacking your stance, I'm only trying to present for you a different angle to see this in
remind:
quote:
1. ALL men benefit from violent acts against women
I really don't like that statement... Though I don't think I can dispute it rationally.
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]
Fri, 2007-12-14 07:30
#24
Maysie
Frustrated Mess said something very relevant in another thread, so I'm going to take the liberty to repost it here:
quote:
When one father kills one daughter for abandoning cultural traditions (and I assume this one daughter is representative of hundreds of young Islamic women in Canada and thousands in the West who go on to live healthy lives free of family violence), the focus is not on the crime and societal attitudes toward women but on Islam.In the same week, a London, Ontario teacher was shot dead in yet another murder suicide by her boyfriend, and a young man went on yet another shooting rampage in an American school.
But we treat these as isolated incidents even though they happen all the time. We don't decry the backwardness of our culture and we don't criticize the way we glorify and even fetishize violence.
We don't examine how we value our own sense of being wronged and our right to vengeance as of higher value than the lives of others.
But when it is one case involving one tragedy where the victim and perpetrator both happen to be Islamic, well ... then we have all sorts of judgements and critiques of a culture most us only know through the stereotypes and grotesque caricatures presented by Western media and bigots.
Right on, FM!
My thoughts on this topic are myriad. What happened to Perez was horrifying and tremendously sad, completely preventable and deeply upsetting to me.
How this story has been taken up in the MSM has been predictable. How it's been taken up on babble, well, it's not good.
First of all, and this is no news flash (or it shouldn't be), but the MSM has an agenda. That is to contextualize ANY story in which a person or persons are Muslim, whereever they live, to become a story that FITS IN to the Islamophobic stereotypes that we all know so well.
[b]Resist[/b] the urge to agree with the MSM. Please.
This father was an abusive fuckwad asshole. He may very well get the legal justice he deserves, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. The legal system has demonstrated over and over that violence against women is not important. Period. This is borne out in stats of conviction rates vs arrest rates, lengths of sentences, who gets convicted and who doesn't (hint: class and race play a role) and how often women are killed with restraining orders in their pockets.
Stealing cars and other property crimes are more important crimes than violence against women, if we judge by conviction rates, etc. It's deplorable. And, hey, that's the Canadian justice system I'm talking about.
If this man is brought to justice it will sadly be systemic Islamophobia that brings him there, not a truly deep understanding of the horror that is violence against women in Canada.
As to the hatred of women question, Black Dog and others, it's a fairly deep question and I don't blame remind for not wanting to get into it.
Hatred isn't simply "I hate you!" like when you had a fight with your best friend in grade 3. Or like the "I hate Stephen Harper" kind of hate. Our culture, that is, Canadian secular Christian culture, deeply hates and fears and wants to control women.
Examples? Walk down the street. How many ads of naked women do you see on buses, the sides of buildings, etc? (Sorry I live in the city so this is everywhere to me). How do you respond if ads of naked men are up there?
Are women's struggles and issues valued? Working for crap wages and being sexually harassed and racially harassed on the way to, and at work, are these stories we hear and know? Which happen all the time? Are we conditioned to hear such stories and immediately sympathize? Are the skills of figuring out how to support a family, maybe complementing with items from the food bank, negotiating with friends and family, given the high level of recognition they deserve?
No.
What we hear is the cutting back of social assistance rates, the penalizing of single moms for getting part time jobs, introducing moronic bills to name the fetus a person, limiting options for women, supporting men controlling women and nothing opposing them.
Read "The Story of Jane Doe: A Book About Rape".
Read the newspaper, any newspaper, and that will tell you what's important by the MSM standards: The latest political grandstanding from the official rightwing and the not-so-official rightwing; sports; business and stocks; a father who killed his daughter because she (allegedly) defied him, refused to be controlled by him: a tragedy that is simultaneously individualized AND used for maximum political leverage to support the anti-Muslim sentiment that is getting whipped up in anticipation of getting popular approval in the U.S. to attack Iran.
I know we're all smarter than that. At least, I sincerely hope we are.
Fri, 2007-12-14 07:57
#25
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]...how often women are killed with restraining orders in their pockets. [/b]
Or conversly, if their lives are not taken literally by abusive assholes, they are destroyed, by destroying the woman's character, stalking whereby the woman loses her job, or has to move continually, or by the withholding of money/assets that are the woman's right as well.
quote:
[b]Hatred isn't simply "I hate you!" like when you had a fight with your best friend in grade 3. Or like the "I hate Stephen Harper" kind of hate. Our culture, that is, Canadian secular Christian culture, deeply hates and fears and wants to control women.[/b]
Yes, and I in fact take the creation of the new NDP party spiritual commission as an act of hate against women!
quote:
[b]....Are women's struggles and issues valued? [/b]
No they are not, and more so even than I thought, as evidenced by the NDP's failure to recognize these aspects, and to start a spiritual commission.
quote:
[b]What we hear is the cutting back of social assistance rates, the penalizing of single moms for getting part time jobs, introducing moronic bills to name the fetus a person, limiting options for women, supporting men controlling women and nothing opposing them.I know we're all smarter than that. At least, I sincerely hope we are.[/b]
Apparently we are not!
ETD, to take out an inappropriate word.
[ 15 December 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2007-12-14 08:28
#26
quote:
Yes, and I in fact take the creation of the new NDP party spiritual commission as an act of hate against women!
The NDP must surely hate women !!
Remind, do you keep sight on your credibility and on the value of the message you wish to get across ?
Fri, 2007-12-14 09:00
#27
quote:
I'm quite surprised by the lengths to which people on this board have been willing to go to downplay the religious angle.
It isn't a matter of "downplaying" the religious angle. It is reinforcing the concept that the religious angle is not central to the premise that all acts of violence against women are misogynistic.
Whether it is a woman abused for disobeying a Muslim dress code ordered by a controlling Muslim male or a teen forced into a polygamous marriage to a much older male [b]by a controlling Christian cultist male[/b], the abuse is the result of misogynist males controlling women with violence.
Religion has nothing to do with abuse. It is merely an excuse to control women.
Fri, 2007-12-14 09:11
#28
quote:
Hatred isn't simply "I hate you!" like when you had a fight with your best friend in grade 3. Or like the "I hate Stephen Harper" kind of hate. Our culture, that is, Canadian secular Christian culture, deeply hates and fears and wants to control women.
Hatred is an overused word that,to me, has lost its meaning.
I was seriously pissed off over the aftermath of the WP conviction.The relish with which all the suits concerned discussed their and "society's" tribulations during the trial ordeal while simultaniously ignoring the sad demise of the victims and the ongoing effects of the marginalisation of vulnerable women was nauseating.
Nevertheless,I don't see the "hatred" of women angle. I see indifference and a total lack of concern for the present women at risk or for solutions to their plight but I don't see hatred.
Fri, 2007-12-14 09:12
#29
Maysie
quote:
Our Collective Dreams: Muslim Women in Conversation about Violence against Women. Dec 17th & 19thDiscussion Groups Locations and Dates:
December 17th Malvern Family Resource Centre (1371 Neilson Rd, Suite 219) 5-7pm
December 19th The Centre for Women and Trans people ( 563 Spadina Ave. Room 100 North Borden Building) 5-7 pm
Join us in discussion groups on violence against women across the GTA organized by Muslim women for Muslim women.You are invited to come yell, grieve, cry, mourn, shout, resist, talk, about violence against women.
We are deeply saddened and angered by the murder of Aqsa Parvez. At these discussion groups we hope to begin a dialogue about violence against women. We want the chance to talk about how we feel and what we want to do about it in a safe, supportive environment.
We hope that these discussion groups will happen across the city and will be opportunities for us to collectively address our concerns and hopes for safety. Contact us if you plan to organize a discussion group in your community so we can help spread the word. We also would be happy to support you in putting one together in your area.
For email and phone contact information, please PM me.
Fri, 2007-12-14 09:20
#30
quote:
Religion has nothing to do with abuse. It is merely an excuse to control women.
Little bit of a blanket statement that we should clarify... Not all religion fits this excuse, just the relgions that originate in Agrarian times (ya, thats pretty much all dominent religion of today so the point is moot). We can find religion that is not tied to this pattern (I think it's important to differentiate religion and patriarchy rather than entirely blame religion for patriarchy).
That said, Patriarchy is propped up by the majority of todays religion, But I'm won't persue this line of thought any further and go back to listening as per Remind's exceedingly true statement:
quote:
4. Male responses illuminate just how far they will, or will not go, to halt discussions, actions or awareness from being disemminated. Ridicule, meta debate about something other pertained in the situation, or continuous interruption are used as a silencer.
I'd encourage a few others to do the same [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]
Fri, 2007-12-14 09:26
#31
Thanks for the response, Noise:
quote:
The 'women-hate' originates from many sources... In this event it was religious passion that triggered it. There are all sorts of sources for this behaviour, blaming it entirely on [religious views is to ignore the greater link.
No but ignoring or downplaying the role religion plays in reinforcing these attitudes is, IMV, impractical. I'll expand below:
quote:
If the patriarchy we prop up (intentionally or unintentionally) was torn down, would this still have happened? Yes, there is a religious component, but it is solely the patriarchy that allows the religious component to manifest in this manner.
The patriarchy is all encompassing and nebulous: you can't tear it down without knocking down the pillars that prop it up., ie. religious beliefs that mandate the oppression of women.
Jester:
quote:
It isn't a matter of "downplaying" the religious angle. It is reinforcing the concept that the religious angle is not central to the premise that all acts of violence against women are misogynistic.
And that premise, while useful from an analytical standpoint, does little to provide a way forward. And again, it divorces the concept of the patriarchy from those institutions that reinforce it. The patriarchy and religious beliefs that mandate violent punishment of religion are the same thing.
quote:
Religion has nothing to do with abuse. It is merely an excuse to control women.
Religion, even if it is "just an excuse," has plenty to do with abuse.
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: Black Dog ]
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: Black Dog ]
Fri, 2007-12-14 09:33
#32
quote:
Little bit of a blanket statement that we should clarify... Not all religion fits this excuse, just the relgions that originate in Agrarian times (ya, thats pretty much all dominent religion of today so the point is moot). We can find religion that is not tied to this pattern (I think it's important to differentiate religion and patriarchy rather than entirely blame religion for patriarchy).
I would like to clarify that while I have great respect for an individual's spiritual beliefs and their religion, that respect does not extend to the various predators, pedophiles and misogynists that utilise religion to hide from prosecution while they prey upon and control others.
Fri, 2007-12-14 09:41
#33
I agree with your statement Blackdog, and I think most others would too:
quote:
The patriarchy is all encompassing and nebulous: you can't tear it down without knocking down the pillars that prop it up., ie. religious beliefs that mandate the oppression of women.
The trouble is, as I tried to explain above, that so often, people identify the problem as religion and so ends the analysis. I don’t think anyone here is denying that religion was likely a factor in the abuse in this particular case, but so is a deep-seated belief that women are not equal, that women are dangerous, than women are temptresses, that women are supposed to be subservient and if they aren’t they deserve to be punished, that women need to be controlled and that it is a man’s right (or even responsibility) to do so. One or more of these latter beliefs are probably present in every case of assault against women. More often than not, the belief probably has nothing to do with religion.
So let me say it again, the trouble with chalking this up to religion is that it becomes so easy to dismiss it as an isolated problem, just as people dismissed Pickton’s victims because they were prostitutes. The media is all over this story because the victim was young and there’s a religious angle, but please don’t be so naпve to think that women aren’t assaulted every day in Canada. We just don’t hear about it every time because the stories would get boring, as sad as that it to say.
Fri, 2007-12-14 09:55
#34
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
[b]...but so is a deep-seated belief that women are not equal, that women are dangerous, than women are temptresses, that women are supposed to be subservient and if they aren’t they deserve to be punished, that women need to be controlled and that it is a man’s right (or even responsibility) to do so. One or more of these latter beliefs are probably present in every case of assault against women. More often than not, the belief probably has nothing to do with religion.[/b]
We also need to move discussion into the area of control = power, and addictions to power, or what is perceived as personal empowerment of the male controlling the woman and that somehow this loss of power mens to some men, perhaps all, a loss of their personal empowerment.
quote:
[b]So let me say it again, the trouble with chalking this up to religion is that it becomes so easy to dismiss it as an isolated problem,[/b]
Exactly, religion can only be seen as the mechanism through which such actions are justified, it is the person(s) utilizing the mechanism which are the issue, as well as those who remain silent/inactive towards eliminating systemic patriarchy, and thus too reap the "power" benefits from violent actions against women.
Fri, 2007-12-14 10:03
#35
Blackdog, well put. Though I think we're into the cycle of saying don't ignore the religion and don't ignore the patriarchy. Edited to add this: I'm not sure if religion props up patriarchy, or if it simply operates within the bounds/contexts of patriarchy.
Jester:
quote:
I would like to clarify that while I have great respect for an individual's spiritual beliefs and their religion, that respect does not extend to the various predators, pedophiles and misogynists that utilise religion to hide from prosecution while they prey upon and control others.
Oh of course... I think this goes without saying really. I don't think religion and patriarchy are intrinsically linked, it's just most mainstream religion (along with most the rest of our society) operates entirely within the patriarchal setup.
Summer:
quote:
The trouble is, as I tried to explain above, that so often, people identify the problem as religion and so ends the analysis.
And just to expand... There is also the urge to demonize the person, distancing that person from us to the point where it's obviously something that was unique, a 'demon' within our society that had nothing to do with us ("mentally disturbed" or "obsessive control freak" fall into that category). Same trap that ends analysis and needs to be avoided.
Remind:
quote:
We also need to move discussion into the area of control = power, and addictions to power, or what is perceived as personal empowerment of the male controlling the woman and that somehow this loss of power mens to some men, perhaps all, a loss of their personal empowerment.
Can we apply that view pint to this topic? Would the loss of control to the father of being able to dictate his daughters behaviour fit this?
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]
Fri, 2007-12-14 10:25
#36
Good points all. A couple of final thoughts.
quote:
So let me say it again, the trouble with chalking this up to religion is that it becomes so easy to dismiss it as an isolated problem, just as people dismissed Pickton’s victims because they were prostitutes.
I agree there's that danger. But even if one does recognize violence against women is not strictly a Muslim problem, is there harm in identifying problems within specific communities? I think it's possible, and indeed desirable, to acknowledge the illiberal and anti-women beliefs and practices that are manifested within Islam without tarring the entire community of believers with the same brush. in otehr words: violence against women is a universal problem, but the particular manifestation of that problem we're talking about is not.
Fri, 2007-12-14 10:48
#37
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog:
[b]is there harm in identifying problems within specific communities?[/b]
Yes, because it is NOT in just "specific" communities, it is in EVERY community.
Fri, 2007-12-14 13:42
#38
quote:
1. ALL men benefit from violent acts against women.
Does a disabled man benefit when his nurse is beaten so badly by her husband or lover or father that she can't go into work?
Does a gay man benefit when his female best friend is killed by her lover or father or husband?
This board can be a great place, but their are times when the members(including myself) become so entranced by theories of patriarchal opression, imperialism, heterosexism etc. that we end up loosing our compassion.
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 15 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Fri, 2007-12-14 14:00
#39
TemporalHominid
while I am in agreement that linking this murder to religion is wrong, I am just as concerned that this murder appears to be placed on the shoulders of the teen murdered, what with various groups stating in the media releases about "the way teenagers are today" . She had it coming because she is a teenager that challenges the authority of her parents?
Also, we don't know that a misogynous perspective is involved. Is this assumption made because of the faith of the family? The faith of the family may or may not have been a factor, we just do not know.
We don't know the full story yet.
Was there was a history of mental illness on the part of the father? A history of past abusive and threatening behaviour does appear to be present, but what was the context?
Admittedly I do not know anything about the family of the individuals in this family, so I am speculating what may have been contributing factors.
[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
Fri, 2007-12-14 14:35
#40
quote:
Yes, because it is NOT in just "specific" communities, it is in EVERY community.
Yes it's in every community, as I've clearly stated already. However, some communities have specific problems over others. An analogy would be the issue of drug and alcohol abuse. These are social problems that transcend cultural, racial and religious backgrounds, yet some groups, many first nations communities for example, have their own specific struggles with the issue.
Context matters and even if Asqa Parvez's father and Robert Pickton acted based on a shared hatred of women, they came to it from different places. How they got there is always worth examining, not dismissing.
Fri, 2007-12-14 23:49
#41
[url=http://tinyurl.com/2f2axg]http://tinyurl.com/2f2axg[/url]
quote:
Leaders in the Muslim community held a news conference on Thursday to say the tragic death had nothing to do with Islam.The religious figures said Islam in no way condones acts of violence, and the death shouldn't reflect badly on their faith.
"The bottom line is, it's a domestic violence issue,'' Sheik Alaa El-Sayyed, imam at Mississauga's Islamic Society of North America.
"We, as Muslims, are Canadians and we should be dealt with just like everyone else. We have rights, duties ... pros and cons just like all other human beings.''
El-Sayyed said Islam teaches that women have the right to choose whether or not they want to wear the hijab.
But the Muslim leaders admitted a child who didn't wear the hijab could bring shame to a family, and the parents could be viewed as failures in the community.
Sat, 2007-12-15 09:21
#42
Aqsa's last days: Father, teenager had tried to reconcile, friends say
[url=http://tinyurl.com/2r76ob]http://tinyurl.com/2r76ob[/url]
quote:
... Aqsa, it seemed, was still searching for independence.A few days after that first meeting, over coffee in Tim Hortons, Aqsa told her father that she wanted to live on her own, she wanted to go to school in the mornings and work in the evenings. Mr. Parvez offered to let her take over the basement. Aqsa said she would think about it.
"She was satisfied, she was relaxed that somehow her parents understood that this is what she wanted to do, and they didn't push her to come home," said Ms. Tahir, who wanted to be an impartial third party to broker peace.
She pressed Aqsa many times to tell her why she had run away. The girl claimed repeatedly that she had never been abused. When one Imam suggested at a press conference this week that boy issues may have been behind Aqsa's family troubles, the Tahir women, who were in the audience, raised their voices in protest.
Aqsa did not have a boyfriend, said Ms. Tahir, who expressed dismay at the "rumours" in the press, including speculation that it was conflict over wearing the hijab that triggered the alleged murder.
The Tahirs did not know of any dispute over Aqsa wearing a hijab and said that the older Parvez sisters did not always wear the head scarf ...
Sat, 2007-12-15 09:30
#43
Those articles are almost complete 360 from everything I've seen, including our opening article:
quote:
At Aqsa's high school, friends gathered in groups yesterday, struggling to come to grips with what happened and lamenting how she had quarrelled with her father to the point that she recently moved out to live with a friend."She said she was always scared of her dad, she was always scared of her brother ... and she's not scared of nobody," said classmate Ashley Garbutt, 16.
"She didn't want to go home ... to the point where she actually wanted to go to shelters."
Sat, 2007-12-15 09:48
#44
remind
I cannot say it strong enough, this is not about the Muslim faith, please refrain from trying to make it so. It is about violence against women.
Sat, 2007-12-15 10:02
#45
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]I cannot say it strong enough, this is not about the Muslim faith, please refrain from trying to make it so. It is about violence against women.[/b]
Depends whether or not you analyze the situation from the question of cause or of effect. Certainly the end result is violence against women, but it didn't occur in a vacuum. The agents involved had specific value systems which led them to behave as they did.
In my own case, one of the things that led me away from religion were what the Talmud had written about women, specifically what happens to a woman suspected of adultery. I was 19 and interested in going back to religion, and then some "scholars" explained to me why it's wrong for a woman to be suspected of adultery, et cetera. That was the end of that experiment.
If your religion is misogynistic (as many are), and you believe it is the word of God, then you will be misogynistic as well. Divine command trumps any social norms, especially when those social norms are those of the heathens, heretics and infidels and not those of true believers.
Sat, 2007-12-15 10:10
#46
remind
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Depends whether or not you analyze the situation from the question of cause or of effect. Certainly the end result is violence against women, but it didn't occur in a vacuum. [/b]
Cause and effect are the same because the result is always the same, violence against women is an entrenched global system.
Sat, 2007-12-15 10:23
#47
Apples, did you read the rest of the thread? I'm not sure if your post has brought anything that pretty much was gone over already.
Remind... Might start having to add a 1B of men also being disadvatanged by violent acts against women, but that might be a different thread.
Sat, 2007-12-15 10:48
#48
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
[b]Remind... Might start having to add a 1B of men also being disadvatanged by violent acts against women, but that might be a different thread.[/b]
1. Why do men always want to make it about them too?
2. Most defefinitely a different thread and not in the feminist forum.
Sat, 2007-12-15 10:54
#49
quote:
Why do men always want to make it about them too?
BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT IS ABOUT US TOO!
[ 15 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Sat, 2007-12-15 11:08
#50
Men loose sisters, mothers and female friends to domestic violence too.
Sat, 2007-12-15 11:11
#51
remind
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT IS ABOUT US TOO!
[ 15 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ][/b]
Yelling?