EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Muslim Women: Damsels in Distress?
The west should stop using the liberalisation of Muslim women to justify its strategy of dominance
It seems that Muslim women - particularly those living in western capitals- are destined to remain besieged by two debilitating discourses, which though different in appearance, are one in essence. The first of these is conservative and exclusionist, sentencing Muslim women to a life of childbearing and rearing, lived out in the narrow confines of their homes at the mercy of fathers, brothers, and husbands. Revolving around notions of sexual purity and family honour, it appeals to religion for justification and legitimisation. The other is a "liberation" discourse that vows to break Muslim woman's bondage and free her of the oppressive yoke of an aggressive, patriarchical, and backward society. She is a mass of powerlessness and enslavement; the embodiment of seclusion, silence, and invisibility. Her only hope of deliverance from the cave of veiling and isolation lies in the benevolent intervention of this force of emancipation. It will save her from her hellishly miserable and bleak existence, to the promised heaven of enlightenment and progress. It is a game of binaries that pits one stereotype against another: the wretched caged female Muslim victim and her ruthless jailer society against an idealised "west" that is the epitome of enlightenment, rationalism, and freedom. Those escapees who leave the herd are held up as living testimonies to the arduousness of transition from the twilights of tribe, religion and tradition, to the dawn of reason, individualism, and liberation. There is no denying the manifold injustices that cripple the lives of many Muslim women and stunt their potential. But these appear in this condescending liberation narrative as representative of the condition of the millions of Muslim women around the world and exclusive to them. There are no colours, tones, or shades here. There are no living real women, urban or rural, educated or illiterate, affluent or poor, Turkish, Malaysian, or Egyptian - differences so crucial in defining women's life chances and shaping their situations. All we know about this ghostly creature is her Muslim identity, as though she was entirely shaped and affected by religion and theology irrespective of social background, economic circumstances, political reality, or regional and local cultural traditions. Important as it is, legal and theological reform will on its own do little to improve the lot of impoverished, uneducated, or insecure women in Somalia, Iraq, or rural Bangladesh. The narrative revolves around a dehistoricised, universal "Muslim woman"; a crushing model that oppresses flesh and blood Muslim women, denies them subjectivity and singularity, and claims to sum up their lives with all their vicissitudes and details from cradle to coffin. It reserves for itself the right to speak for them exclusively, whether they like it or not. Representations of the Muslim woman serve a dual legitimising function, at once confirming and justifying the west's narrative of itself, and of the Muslim other. The victimised Muslim woman is the lens through which Islam and Muslim society are seen. In medieval times she was cast as an intimidating powerful queen or termagant (like Bramimonde in the Chanson de Roland, or Belacane in Parzival) reflecting an intimidating powerful Muslim civilisation. And when the power balance began to shift in Europe's favour in the 17th and 18th centuries, she was made to mirror her society's fallen fortunes. She turned into a harem slave, leading little more than a dumb animal existence, subjugated, inert, abject, powerless, and invisible. She is the quintessential embodiment of a despotic, deformed, and backward Islam. It is Europe, later the west, that must penetrate her iron cage and break her shackles. It must save the victim and civilise her oppressors. The more victimised "the Muslim woman", the greater the need for the liberated west to liberate her. The noble intervention is for her and in her interest, not for the west, or its interests. It was indeed no coincidence that a great many colonial officers and archivists devotedly recorded instances of barbarity among the colonised, practices like sati, the ban on widow marriage, or the practice of child marriage in India, or slavery and genital mutilation in Africa. Although these atrocities were not inventions, their chronicling had and still has a purpose: It provides the moral framework for intervention. As a couplet by Torquato Tasso puts it, And when her city and her state was lost, Then her person lov'd and honor'd most. But "love" and "honour" haven't exactly been the experience of Iraqi women when their cities fell under American occupation. Rights which took decades to secure have crumbled away in the space of months. From doctors, scientists, engineers or businesswomen, today they find themselves incarcerated in their homes unable to move around for fear of being kidnapped, raped, or assassinated. Those who escape the bombs and bullets of the occupying army, die at the hands of the Iraqi security forces and out of control extremist and sectarian militias which flourished since 2003, as Maggie O'Kane demonstrated in her moving piece on Cif yesterday. In the past three months 45 innocent women were murdered in cold blood in Basra. The truth is that just as there is a military machine of hegemony, there is a discursive machine of hegemony. When armies move on the ground to conquer and subjugate, they need moral and ideological cover. It is this that gives the dominant narrative of the "Muslim woman" its raison d'etre. No wonder then that the "Muslim woman" liberation warriors, the likes of Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens, and Pascal Bruckner, were the same people who cheered American/ British troops as they blasted their way through Kabul and Baghdad, and who will no doubt cheer and dance once more should Iran or Syria be bombed next. Soldiers shoot with their guns; they with their pens. They are hegemony's apologists. Without them the emperor stands naked. Soumaya Ghannoushi is an academic and freelance writer. She is a researcher at the University of London.
© 2007 The Guardian
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
132 Comments so far
Show Allvaudree:
I doubt very much that most of you posting on this thread have spent any time in Muslim countries.
Arranged marriages: Depends on who you talk to among the Saudis. And to which generation they belong to. The Saudi MEN who have talked to me about arranged marriages--and more of them, frankly, seem to have beefs about that than the women--tend to measure a generation by 5 years, and they indicate that the men who are in their mid-thirties now were the tag end of the generations of arranged marriages, that the younger men--many of whom have studied in other countries, have been less frequently married off by arrangement.
Point of information: The MOTHERS are the arrangers of the marriages, in the great majority of cases.
Other information: There is NO ONE anywhere in the Middle East that I know who would tell you that Iraquis were anything but MUCH better off under Saddam Hussein. And especially the WOMEN, since Saddam promoted education and advancement of women in a big way (much like his Libyan counterpart, Ghaddafy).
Women are now fearful of venturing out of their houses to go to school in Iraq because it's a war zone--created by the gringo petrocriminals.
Just a quick comment about covering: I own quite a few abayas, most of which I bought in Jordan and Bahrain--and I cover when I don't feel like screwing with western clothes. I have worn them all over the Middle East--but also in the US, in France and here in Latin America.
My daughter wears hers to events at the art museum in the US that she directs.
We both ALWAYS receive compliments.
We are not Muslims.
With all the exposed flesh running around out there--most of it FAT, especially in the West--covering has become pretty attractive as an option--even sexy.
I love Soumayya Ghanouchi. Here articles are invariably well written, impeccably researched and factual. Yes, I agree with her when she says that two wrongs do not make a right and that the perceived oppression of women has been manipulated cynically and conveniently to justify some of the very worst excesses of Western poliymaking in subjugate nations.
Any religion that teaches women belong in subordinate roles is a form of oppression.
Even woman who choose to join the cult by choice are subject to the head cages and long garb.
What is wrong with this? It is almost the year 2008. Wake up people and find your own hope and path. No one needs a cult to get there.
Sorry. I don't follow your logic at all.
That's like saying that Pentecostals and Buddhists have the same traditions.
But I suppose, if you saw that on t.v. you would believe it, too.
Where do they get you guys?
colleen - I totally agree. The only Muslims I've seen on TV - a woman writer and a liberal imam - were on Bill Moyers. Thank goodness for him!
As the other article states, 70% of Iraqi girls cannot attend school for fear of violence. Someone should be speaking out against this, without fear of being called an Islamophobe.
Fine points.
Say what you will regards Saddam (essentially, with his Bathist-minority, 'our creature' from day-1), at least he was Secular.
In terms of our own-country, and everywhere we attempt to exercise our 'soft/hard-power', Secular [Separation, in Constructionist-speak] is now sounding pretty-good by comparison, no?
What enables bad-actions in Israel isn't 'terrorism' (a false-flagged and intended/most-useful 'hype'/Mythos), is its secular-Zionists allowance for a Theocracy (as opposed to a 'democracy', which none of the 4-Israels in History ever-was).
Big advantages/opportunities become 'tools for change' when religion&governance merge -- but great-dangers are inherent, also (particularly for the now-politicized Faiths-involved, as well as any hapless and 'faithless').
The US was also the great/modern-instigator&manipulator in founding these so-called 'Islamic-republics' in Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan (as the Brit's did in Pakistan/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Yemen/etc.). We made our-own Pandora's Box to open during many "Judeo-Christian"/Fundy x-mas's to come (and since that 'new Pearl Harbor').
Hard to close-those-boxes, though -- and no chance for any 'refunds' or 're-gifting' afterwards...once 'gifted', we'll have to live-with-it as much as all-involved in that 'mistake'.
Yes, whatever you can say about the fate of women in Islam (and I can say a lot) we do no favors by dropping bombs on them and their children. When the European powers scrambled for Africa in the 1880s they used the local slave trade as a pretext, part of their "civilizing mission". Next thing you know, they conscripted natives into forced labor by violence or hut taxes. The Belgians chopped arms off the unwilling. Thanks for the liberation, but no thanks.
so intentional !the leveling of the women of iraq,methinks twas done as a favor from geo.jr.- for the rich arab states.......
Oil/bases to protect oil is the papa issue here, and this article does a fine job of exposing one of the tools we use to tell ourselves otherwise: We have to give them their freedom! I think Bill Maher's very simple and head-shaking "It's Allah's land" captures what the Western world astonishingly overlooks: the people living there should (and can, given time) solve their own problems.
I will probably believe until the day I die that, had the world waited out Saddam, the Iraqi people would have found their own way ...and it might have been every bit as glorious and good as the American Revolution. Instead, our foreign empire meddled, turning a secular and potentially wonderful country into ...whatever the hell it is today. Over time, even this can be healed, but the more we meddle, the longer the delay.
bligh - that may be true, but people tend to mistake what has happen in Afghanistan for decades and to presume that it happened also under secular rule of Saddam Hussain.
Not all Muslim men are rednecks, though.
And in the west, Muslim women tend to be very outspoken whether they wear a hijab or not.
It is no accident that both Maher Arar and Abdullah Almalki married highly educated women that they met at university. Arar credits his wife, Monia Mazigh, for getting him out of prison (after the Americans put him there). Khuzaimah Kalifah ran the business she and Almalki started while he was, like Arar, an innocent man imprisoned unfairly.
Misogyny is the enemy wherever you find it - and one tends to find it most in right-wing fundamentalism.
Monia Mazigh is the Laura Secord of our time
Robert Meynell sees parallels in the stories of the two women's struggles
The best of a nation's character comes through in the actions of its heroes.
We have found inspiration in the courage of Laura Secord, Visionary Cree chief Poundmaker, World War I flying ace Billy Bishop, hockey hero Maurice "the Rocket" Richard and Marathon of Hope runner Terry Fox.
Today, we can add one more to their number: Dr. Monia Mazigh, who fought the governments of three states to rescue her husband Maher Arar from torture and possible execution.
In the course of her struggle, Mazigh became the Laura Secord of our time.
Just as Secord conveyed a message of an impending enemy invasion that might have brought about the fall of Canada in the War of 1812, so, too, did Mazigh convey the message of an attack on our citizens that might have brought the fall of the principles of justice that define Canada.
Just as Secord was thrust into an extraordinary circumstance that saw her husband wounded in battle and her home occupied by American troops, so, too, did Mazigh see her husband tortured and imprisoned and felt the power of a secret army at work against her.
Just as Secord took great risks and set out on an arduous journey to warn the British of the attack, defying the expectations that she would be too passive to foil the American invasion, so, too, did Mazigh defy expectation and indefatigably pursued justice through mobilizing the press, the public, and, eventually, the government, to rescue her husband, and foil this latest attack on all of our freedoms. (cont)
http://www.thestar.com/article/175407
To learn about the truth of a woman who falsely claimed to be a victim of perceived Islamic misogyny, take a look at these videos -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwa1-8U5w2I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqVf0TJy6sM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nirL_l3Si8s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVY6d9RmEXM&feature=related
This charming lady fabricated here entire life history and then claimed asylum in the Netherlands on the basis of her phony assertions. She subsequently became a politician and parliamentarian, a darling of the Dutch far right, vilifying Islam, Muslims, their beliefs and their way of life. When her truth was exposed on an investigative Dutch television documentary, she was unceremoniously stripped of her nationality and expelled from the country for her bogus asylum claim. Now she is a fellow for the neoconservative right wing American Enterprise Institute, that has time and again shown itself to be a cheerleader for the very worst excesses of the Bush administration.
The woman may be a dubious icon and a phony asylum seeker, but her manipulative lies prove Soumaya Ghanouchi's assertions better than anyone else.
Another Muslim woman who refuses to sit back waiting to be rescued is Malalai Joya - audio and her transcript when she spoke in Canada:
Malalai Joya is the youngest member of the Afghan National Assembly. First elected in 2005, she won the second highest number of votes to represent the Farah province.
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4322
Somewhere in the Bible this "christian" nation loves to swear by, it says something pithy about "getting the board away from your own eyes before endeavoring to correct someone else's vision." So the West may pride itself in evidence directed towards, "You've come a long way, baby," but the ERA never passed, domestic abuse is the number 1 reason American women go to hospital emergency rooms, rape is rampant, and pornography degrading women is the # 1 offering on the Internet. The pursuit of things tangible, sensations included, has made our consumer society absolutely reprobate in its quest for higher ideals. Both genders suffer. No Western power can own the conceit that it's liberating women elsewhere, until it gets its own broken house in order!
Now that there is anarchy in iraq, are'nt a percentage of the population doing what they think is right?
Saddam, the cruel dictator, who tortured his son in laws to death and crushed however he considered rebellious did have a rights for the average person.
Now all these mini-Saddam's are doing what they wish. In the name of Islam.
I think weak people are being ravaged everywhere. The degree is greater in Iraq.
So, where is the power of the women who enjoy their status in Islam?
I hope someone can shed some light on that.
I applaud the outspokeness of Muslim women in the West. The problem comes when they only feel safe to speak out in "the West".
Siouxrose - I agree with most of what you said, a lot of work needs to be done here - I help with a womens shelter here in town and have seen it all. However, to say that you cannot criticize another culture unless your own is in perfect order is a prescription to do nothing.
colleen - you should see what they have at the CBC. They have talk of how there used to be women Imams, gay Muslims, marriages between Jews and Muslims and Little Mosque on the Prairie. And whoever the guest is on The Hour.
Moonraven, I am more familiar with arrange marriages among Sikhs than Muslims because there is more information around about it both on television and in real life (ie coworkers). I can't see how the two cultural traditions of arranged marriages could be all that different. They did touch on it slightly during last Wednesday's episode of Mosque.
I have also heard of the scam of Canadian Sikh men going to India, getting married, taking all the dowry money, going back to Canada, telling the family he needs more money to bring the wife over, and after a year claiming that the wife deserted him because she is not living in Canada so he can get a divorce, and then start the process over again with another woman in India.
I am sure that if Sikh men are pulling this so are Muslim men.
The new motivation to encourage people to support war looks like it will be to free the women in these oil rich nations...
Imo the way to change the ME is to give greater rights to women, but you don't do that with war.
The way to increase the rights of women is to talk about human rights, internationally ...around the world
The rights of women have long been a problem and this new focus on women to me indicates a manipulation of the news to encourage conflict with muslim nations.
The Washington Post has some columnists who imo are hooked into this somewhat hidden group that is attempting to manipulate Americans. And today Anne Applebaum had a column on the rights of women in Saudi Arabia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121701598.html
Well Applebaum is right that these women should have greater rights.
One way that the US could have greater leaverage over its relationship with Saudi Arabia is to have greater gas mileage on our cars so that the US is not so economically dependent on the price of oil.
It seems like it all comes down at some point to oil and its economic impact.
Siouxrose December 18th, 2007 1:30 pm -- "No Western power can own the conceit that it's liberating women elsewhere, until it gets its own broken house in order!"
Oh, but it has, don'tcha know. Western women have been 'liberated' by joining the wage-slave workforce so that their families can (and practically must) now be supported by two workers where one used to suffice. The corporate masters certainly regard that as major progress and, perhaps surprisingly, many women seem to agree with being thus 'freed' from their former familial roles. Now, if only we can get rid of those pesky child labor laws, ...
Does anyone ever wonder why the 'powers that be' are so keen on spreading the US form of women's liberation as a primary goal of its so-called 'freedom and democracy' in foreign lands that it's willing to sacrifice the lives ot the country's youth in its effort -- not to mention the lives of the 'lucky' recipients.
Hmmm.
I spend a fair amount of time each year as a consultant to universities in the Middle East.
The past two years I have gone to Bahrain. Which is at the other end of a 26 kilometer bridge the Saudis built to connect them with the island.
I have had a number of very sharp, outspoken Saudi women as students--both as undergrads and grad students. Many of them wear the full cover in classes--others wear the same navel-baring tights jeans and tiny tops as other young women. The ones in full cover also wear them--but under the abaya.
Weekends for many young Saudi women include a day in Bahrain.
This is how it goes:
1. A driver (male) takes them across the bridge in a big car--frequently a Mercedes or a Hummer (fine for Saudi, but not for a small congested island nation such as Bahrain--where I watched a guy try to park a Hummer in the souk--where there was barely room to walk before he somehow angled his big vehicle down there and got hopelessly stuck--while trapping all other vehicles).
2. First stop: a bar. Here the driver gets out, and one of the women takes over the wheel.
3. Next stop: Seef Mall. Here if the women have not already taken off their hijab and abaya in the car, they take them off in the bathroom.
4. They shop till they drop.
5. Final stop before picking up the driver: Starbucks, where they fill a big thermos with coffee.
6. They pick up the driver, pour the contents of the thermos down him, walk him around the parking lot until he can see straight.
7. The driver takes the women back to Saudi.
I can assure you that no Muslim women that I know would trade their lives for the lives of women in the West.
(Admittedly, I don't know any really POOR Muslim women).
They love having their cake and eating it too--and are masters at beating the system!
Siouxrose, I find your logic strange, to say the least. Are you saying that only PERFECT countries can criticize others? Since there are no perfect countries, or perfect people, in existance, and never will be, that would seem to invalidate all the criticism one finds here directed at the United States.
And, in the meantime, Muslim women continue to be whipped for the ¨crime¨ of being gang raped, continue to get their genitals removed, and suffer a level of casual violence that makes any domestic violence in the US look like kindergarden play. But I guess they will just have to suck it up, because, hey, AmeriKKKa sucks, and that justifies any barbarity on the part of non Americans, right?
The question is whether anything can possibly justify the ongoing American barbarism under the false pretense of liberation. If Iraqi women (or men, or children) feel liberated thereby, it's not readily apparent in their responses.
in afganistan there is RAWA.....check it out
bligh, what happened in France was more about preserving French culture from foreign influences than about religion versus secularism or about feminism or safety or any other sweet face you wish to put on xenophobia.
Sadly, Quebec is acting an awful lot like France. Sort of makes me feel a bit ashamed to be half French Canadian.
From The National see
Reasonable Accommodation / Identity Crisis? / Quebec Towns and New Religions
http://www.cbc.ca/national/archive/category.html?immigrationdiversity
Vaundree- then I guess the similar Turkish ban is based on xenophobia too. Once again, total moral relativism. The fact remains that wearing a head covering in France does not invite physical attacks. NOT wearing one in many middle eastern and other countries (ie Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran) DOES invite physical attacks or worse. Go ahead and put a sweet face on the fact that in many places women cannot go out uncovered without fear for their lives.
say a little prayer for the women of the middle east next week,as bush makes his rounds amongst his old pal's in dubai..the emirates and i am sure george( the gouging gorger),.will be singing in bahrain,as well....
bligh - Malalai Joya is just as outspoken at home in Afghanistan.
But is misogyny and spousal abuse a cultural religious or something false prophets spout to make insecure men feel more powerful.
Though, as Fatima shows, women (Muslim or otherwise) can be quite violent:
Fatima clobbers Fred (not on line any more so you are out of luck)
Fatima says what she would do to a husband who even suggests she wears a veil:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nQK2J1gWbdw
colleen says: The new motivation to encourage people to support war looks like it will be to free the women in these oil rich nations…
I think that motivation has been used for a while now. You would be surprised how many people insist that Saddam Hussain forced women to wear the Burka. And what kinds of rights do women have in Saudi Arabia - heard that the women protested by, as a group, going out and driving by themselves. The US gets more oil from Alberta than Saudi Arabia, though, but Saudi oil tends to be more profitable.
moonraven - their lives sound like they came out of a Fulla commercial. But if wealth and privilege is all that counts, Paris Hilton would be happy. There are good and bad parents at all SES levels and I think Saudi is big on arranged marriages.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6WqmCAzxUxI
Greaseman says: And, in the meantime, Muslim women continue to be whipped for the ¨crime¨ of being gang raped, continue to get their genitals removed, and suffer a level of casual violence that makes any domestic violence in the US look like kindergarden play.
Some Muslim men are good, kind and gentle and some are violent assholes. I can say the same thing about political and religious leaders.
But, think of it, by making it sound as if all Muslim men are brutish misogynist beasts, it makes it seem that whatever atrocity we perpetrate against Muslim men is justified. It's like - let's waterboard him, he's Muslim so he's probably a wife beater and a rapist!
How would you feel if they portrayed all American men as being like Paul Bernardo or Robert Pickton?
How would you feel if you were make and your birthday was December 6th?
December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
I agree with Siouxrose - the US should get its own house in order before attempting to meddle in other cultures (if then). Although anyone may have the right to criticize - perfect or not - one culture does not have the right to violently impose its values on another. It is a different thing to attempt to bring about human rights through negotiation or diplomacy. Or example!
But to wage war on other countries, killing, terrorizing, and ravaging an entire civilization and then to rationalize it as a way of liberating the women of those countries is abhorent.
Christians like Huckabee, for example, are quick to point out that women should be subservient to their men at the same time they are denouncing Islam for its treatment of women. It's different in degree, but not in kind. In any culture that marginalizes women, women will be abused. as they often are in America.
The abuse of women may be more overt and sanctioned by the government in some Muslim countries, but until very, very recently, US police looked the other way when women reported their husbands for domestic violence. That is probably changing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that this situation still continues in many places in America.
It's just amazing to me that the three Abrahamic religions continue to wage war, both literal and cultural, among themselves when they have essentially the same religious structure. They all believe in a vengeful, jealous, demanding god; the devil; to one degree or another the evils of overindulgence; and a whole host of other similarities. The more fundamentalist they are, it seems the more alike they are. It's the hardcore Christians and Muslims, for example, who are opposed to drinking, promiscuity, and other forms of wordly pleasure; are more likely to impose strict standards of dress; attempt to keep their women under control in a wide variety of ways; see heaven as a reward for reverence for god and living a "clean" life; believe in converting the nonbelievers or waging war against them; and who most fervently condemn other dogmas for being heresy.
As far as I am concerned, all religion consists of made up stories that attempt to explain the unexplainable. They all have some merits in their connection to spirituality, the ability to inspire great art and music, and guidelines for living well. They mostly all have their downside in so many ways, it's impossible to chronicle them in a few sentences. But one of the negatives is often the denigration of women and their relegation to second class status.
Christians are quick to condemn Islam for its treatment of women, but they need to get the plank out of their own eye and take a look at their own attitudes before assuming a posture of superiority.
I want to cry but what good will it do? So much bad news here at CommonDreams. This place is getting very depressing. Sometimes it seems self-fulfilling.
LeeAnnG - I would not go that far - we should fight oppression wherever it is but killing innocent men, women and children is not the way to go. Demonizing a whole group of people (which is illegal btw) is also not the way to go.
1drees - it was Afghanistan where the boys could go to school but the boys could not. I think that with Iraq it was a little more equally distributed. Otherwise agree - we are getting half truths that play on our emotions. Yes, things are worse for women now than when the war in Iraq started because toppling the government created a power vacuum.
buffalo ken - both good and bad happens in the world. Did you hear the story yet about how a man was going to go on a shooting rampage and a friendly dog changed his mind? After the chance meeting with the friendly dog, the guy turned himself in to police.
Think of all the bad things that could have happened but didn't.
Hi vaudree,
Yes that motivation for war (to liberate the women) was always in the back round..especially with the Taliban..but it seems to be increasing now, with the story of the Saudi woman who was gang raped and sentenced to be lashed.
Meanwhile we have an attorney general who refuses to acknowledge that a midieval torture method (water boarding) is torture and a legal system that refuses to address the issue that some people have been tortured who were innocent of any crime at all. Most Americans are clueless that some of these innocent people, tortured by Americans, have died.
Although the US gets its oil from Alberta the price of oil is determined still by Saudi Arabia. (Incidentally I've heard that Mexico will soon run out of oil..which means more pressure on getting oil from Canada)
The answer in my mind is to emphasize human rights for people around the world..rather than attempting to export a specific political system like western democracy with war.
And the growth of human rights will imo occur with nations, people and NGOs and religious groups coming together to give us all our rights.
......................
Link to RAWA
http://www.rawa.org/index.php
"RAWA is the oldest political/social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan since 1977."
Speaking of "damsels in distress", read this article and, whether you are man, woman or child, tell us how liberated you yourself feel within the police state that purports to be liberating others elsewhere.[L]aws are in place that end constitutional protections, militarize the country, repress dissent, and our government is empowered to crush freedom and defend privilege from beneficial social change it won't tolerate. It's the price of imperial arrogance we the people are paying, and that won't end until the spirit of resistance gets aroused enough to stop it in our own self-defense. We better hope that happens in time with potentially little of it left.
It appears to me that there's a large amount of liberation at home to be accomplished that might have priority precedence over the alleged rescue crusade for "damsels in distress" in foreign lands -- but that domestic mission would also require much more courage than dropping cluster bombs from a great height and torturing helpless prisoners.
vaudree - thanks. Just the other day I met two huge boisterous and happy and friendly dogs with pink collars on. One was black and one was white and they seemed to have come from nowhere. Meeting them made my day and I will not forget.
My heart goes out to all who have been suffering so much all because of a few who are so disconnected. It has got to stop. You know women who are being killed just for trying to express their beauty. Why can't we just appreciate the beauty (rhetorical question).
colleen, thanks for the link to RAWA - in my opinion true "Damsels in Distress" would not organize and fight for their rights. Maybe we should be listening to them rather than dictating to them (like we in the West tend to do). ;)
It is a long tough fight, but they are not waiting around for us to do it. They do need our support, though, which is why I vote NDP. I can always count on the NDP to advocate for human rights.
vaudree,
Do you think Canadians would support torture? In polls 60% of Republicans say they think its all right to use torture.
I am hoping you will say no they would not support torture and that the Republicans in the US are unusual for a western nation.
I knew some Muslim women in a community in New Mexico twenty years ago. They wore modern clothes but covered everything except their faces and hands. They were intelligent, happy, active women. They did not want anyone to save them or tell them how to dress. They had chosen their lives freely and were free to leave if they wished. They had their own money. They were modest, took good care of their husbands and children; they would probably be considered old-fashioned like the Amish.
They shared their feelings about their religion - the poetry of the Koran, the special time of Ramadan, the very private and sensual relationships within the marriage that balanced the rather prudish public image.
It makes me mad for anyone to tell a woman how to dress - or who to be. I think it is such a disgrace that supposedly advanced European societies ban head scarves. Where is the freedom in that?
People who are being oppressed need help to get to a space where they are free to be themselves - whatever they choose to be.
I couldn't stay away. I would try not to read the comments so I wouldn't be compelled to respond.
Yes, women are often oppressed in the Arab/Muslim world/culture.
But is American/Western culture's record in that regard spotless?
There are lots of bad things about EVERY culture, including ours.
If things are to change for women in the countries in which they are being persecuted, it has to come from within. America cannot and should not go into that part of the world and clean house, especially when her house still has a lot of dirt and clutter lying about. I think most American feminists realize that.
I think they also realize that the focus on wanting to save Muslim women is merely a ploy and excuse used by the neo-cons to demonize and raze Arab countries for their own gain. And who here, regardless of how hard or soft a leftie you are, truly thinks that the neo-cons actually give a flying fig about the rights of women?
The East and The West need at the very least to leave each other the hell alone.
goodwordswan
You know the way we watch relgious shows on tv in the US ? and how they are usually Christian? Well in Canada they have been making an attempt to bring the muslim community into the Canadian fold by having programming about the muslim religion
Look at an example of what they have on tv in Canada:
http://www.jafry.com/tv.htm
People can watch on weekly tv muslim relgious leaders talk about their faith. When has a muslim gone on weekly American tv and talked about the muslim religion? My understanding is that there are many different groups within Islam and there is freedom given to the religious leaders to develop their own group's religious values. So I believe there is a great deal of diversity within the religion depending upon where they are located and who is the religious leader.
As far a covering goes, I don't think that anyone gives a damn what women want to wear. The problem comes in when they are COMPELLED to wear something for fear of physical attack. If a women is truly free to wear western style, eastern style, or middleastern style clothing- then she could wear whatever she wants.
Then raise hell with France--where women are not allowed to wear the hijab!
There are always people who will pull scams no matter what system you use...its the nature of humanity...There are always people who will break the rules...
There are men who illegally marry several women at one time..and men who will kill a wife for the insurance and then remarry...
The problem is that for some people the exception is seen as the rule when it is a non western culture ..while when something goes wrong in the western system..that is considered unusual.
On a flight over to Thailand I saw a film from India that was critical of a western woman who opposed arranged marriages. It was a musical comedy and I'm afraid the western woman seemed a bit like a prude...
It isn't only beauty that is in the eye of the beholder.
........................
vaudree
I'm in Canada now and just spent a week in the US. The tv is soooo different. I really miss Canadian tv when I'm in the US.
I believe that Americans are seeing a lot of propaganda on tv. and its because there are large corporations in control of the media. They tell people all they need in order for them to think they are well informed. But imo most Americans are very poorly informed about issues that will directly impact on their own lives.
With the availability of non-US perspectives on internet, there is very little excuse for being poorly informed.
Most folks in the US are poorly informed because they choose to be.
None of George Bush's and the Neo-Fascists' petrocriminal wars of agression have anything to do with liberation of women or freeing people from dictators. While the acronym for the illegal Iraq war and occupation is "OIF" (Operation Iraqi Freedom), it was changed from its original "OIL" (Operation Iraqi Liberation), for obvious reasons, it was way to close to the truth. The only things being liberated are over a million souls from their earthly bodies and OIL from middle east countries. Saddam was in the process of changing from dollars to euros as payment for Iraqi oil, just as Iran is now. George Bush and his ilk could give a shit less about the rights of anybody here in the US, and much less about any womens rights half way around the world.
Mike,
I could not possibly agree more!
Let us be honest: the Koran sanctions rape. Mohammed himself raped many women and had a sexual relationship with his 6 year old cousin wife. Female captives and unbelievers are fair game, according to Allah, as are prepubescent girls. The Koran, which all Muslims believe is directly from Allah, says "the woman is your field, to plow her as pleases you."
The Bible contains its share of misogyny and violence, too.
Religious literalism, taking texts from barbaric bronze-age tribes as divine revelation, is always and everywhere dangerous.
Islamic fundamentalists are no more dangerous than the
Christian fundamentalists running the show in the US.
For one thing, they have far fewer and far less lethal weapons!
Turning their plowshares into missiles, how antediluvian?
Colleen, it is not as if Americans can't watch Canadian TV on line - both CBC and CTV show their news shows on line in their entirity.
Son kicking me off, but Avi Lewis (Naomi Klein's husband) also interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali (link works - just click on the lavender):
http://www.cbc.ca/onthemap/fullpage.php?id=87
Avi seems to accept that Hirsi Ali came from a privileged background but did undergo female circumcision and did leave the family rather than submit to an arranged marriage.
My guess is that she got her right-winged beliefs from her family, but is very pissed off at them.
I remember when my eldest son was a teenager and had just finished reading an article on the topic. He demanded financial compensation for ruining his future sex life by getting him circumcized.
You ask him, he would say that male and female circumcision is the same issue, but a lot of people have completely different opinions on the two.
In Canada it is illegal to send one's daughter out of the country to get that operation done.
On the other hand, Stephen Lewis (Naomi Klein's father-in-law) is promoting male circumcision (along with greater rights for women) as means of controling the AIDs pandamic in Africa. Lewis expressed a wish that he be replaced by a Black woman.
Did anyone here see Zarqa Nawaz's "Me and the Mosque" yet?
Seems that Mohammed had nothing against female Imams.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MPgQtDB318Y
Moonraven- "Then raise hell with France, where woman can't wear the hajib" Nice little bit of moral relativism.
Having the hajib banned from PUBLIC schools (same as in Turkey)along with the jewish and sikh head covering, is in no way comparable to having to fear for your life based on what you are or are not wearing. How many women have been beaten up,raped, or killed for wearing the clothing in spite of the ban?