In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Reads

Religious extremists in Mali are targeting women. They’ve already outlawed music and smoking; now they’re going after women, “demanding that they cover their heads, restricting their ability to work, and compiling a list of women who are pregnant or have children but are not married which has raised fears of punishment.” According to UN human rights leaders, “the Islamists have imposed an extremist form of Islamic law known as Shariah in northern Mali with drastic punishments including the stoning death of a couple accused of adultery, eight amputations, three public executions and a number of floggings.”

Malala Yousafzai, a 14-year-old Pakistani girl, was shot in the head for going to school, by grown men who realize that educated girls and women are a direct threat to their power. Today is International Day of the Girl, and it’s worth remembering that less than 10% of all foundation giving in the United States goes to women and girls. Girls around the world are out of school, physically and sexually abused, forcibly married as children, and subjected to a series of other abuses and indignities. There are also lots of women and girls around the world who are fighting to change that, on levels big and small. But no girl is an island, and they can’t do it alone. Kristof writes:

One of my greatest frustrations when I travel to Pakistan is that I routinely spot extremist madrassas, or schools, financed by medieval misogynists from Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. They provide meals, free tuition and sometimes scholarships to lure boys — because their donors understand perfectly that education shapes countries.

In contrast, American aid is mainly about supporting the Pakistani Army. We have tripled aid to Pakistani education to $170 million annually, and that’s terrific. But that’s less than one-tenth of our security aid to Pakistan.

In Malala’s most recent e-mail to a Times colleague, Adam Ellick, she wrote: “I want an access to the world of knowledge.” The Taliban clearly understands the transformative power of girls’ education.

Do we?

Religious extremists, of course, aren’t just somewhere “over there” — we’ve got a whole lot of ’em in the USA too. Amanda Marcotte writes about the right-wing war on sex, and how they are (hopefully) losing. It’s worth pointing out, though, that there are a whole lot of shared values between the people who stone women for having children out of wedlock, the people who shoot children for going to school, and the people who basically put “women should die before they should be allowed abortions” in their party platform.

Prudie addresses a woman whose husband wants her to sign a post-nup entitling her to only 20% of their assets. Why? Because, he says, the house was his before they got married, and he makes more money than she does. Ladies, here is a tip: Find out if the guy you’re marrying is a jerk before you marry him.

Mitt Romney says that no one dies in the United States because of lack of health insurance. A Harvard study says that’s not quite the case. In fact, 45,000 people die every year because they aren’t insured.

Creepy dudes on Reddit take photos of unsuspecting women and put them on the internet for masturbatory fodder, without the women’s consent. Now those same creepy dudes are just furious that someone would dare out them without their consent. Because posting the women’s photos is totally legal! they say. Well, sorry brothers, but outing your online identity is totally legal too! And if women don’t have a basic right to not be photographed and put online just because they leave their homes, you certainly don’t have the right to have your identity permanently obscured when you’re out photographing them.

When nerds turn into Nice Guys: Sioban Rosen has an excellent and hilarious piece in GQ about grown-up nerds who aren’t nearly as sweet and sensitive as we’d like to believe. Money quote: “If you suspect you might be one of the unsavory types of nerds, ask yourself a few questions: Do you see yourself as a perpetual underdog in life’s great battle to get action? Do you believe your underdog status entitles you to enact a sort of psychosexual revenge against those who have historically prevented you from getting laid (i.e., women)? Congratulations! You are probably a nerd, and also kind of a dick.”\

Tig Notaro’s stand-up is the best $5 you will spend all week
(month? year?). Even if you don’t buy, click over and read.


Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister of Australia, is pissed
. And it’s awesome.


41 thoughts on Reads

  1. The day after Julia Gillard’s speech on sexism in parliament, almost every male parliamentary press gallery journalist published a column complaining that she was a hypocrite for failing to fold to the Liberal (for overseas folks, these are the more conservative of our two major parties) stunt motion to overthrow the Speaker and proceeded to predict that no one would bother to pay attention to her speech anyway because everyone would be super focused on the Speaker’s resignation later that night (which, like *totally* wasn’t forced by a tap on the shoulder by a number of cross bench Members of Parliament or anything and came as a *complete* surprise to the Prime Minister, who doesn’t carefully monitor these kinds of thing and/or have a hand in them at all). It’s been enjoyable to watch them be so spectacularly wrong.

    Of course, now those professional trolls are out declaring that the only people watching the video are female social media users. Aren’t we glad that that demographic doesn’t overlap with “voters” then gents?

    1. They’re also claiming that it was totally sexist of Julia Gillard to point out sexism. Because apparently a woman is allowed to criticise a man without someone “playing the sexism card”, but a man isn’t allowed to criticise a woman without being called sexist. Now, apparently, we should focus on the real issues (as though sexism isn’t a real issue).

      It’s really frustrating to see how the Australian press are mostly negative about the speech, to the point that’s actually becoming part of the story – there are now a bunch of articles questioning why Gillard’s speech was received so warmly overseas but not at home.

      1. Just for a little bit of context, Australia has a massive media problem with all the major newspapers in the country being owned by two companies. In my state, both the major state based paper and the only national newspaper are owned by News Limited, which is conservative and staunchly anti-Labor.

        On Thursday morning, in the wake of that speech, every single column on the subject began with a description of Gillard which painted her as aggressive. I know that it was a bold speech, but it was not out of context for Australia’s rather raucous parliament, it just didn’t mesh with the mainstream media’s conservative ideas about how women are supposed to act.

        I think that the issues about control of the media in Australia and the lack of liberal (big L liberal, not liberal party liberal) alternatives means that Gillard’s message is not getting out to those who have not seen the video themselves. So what’s really happening is that it’s taken the internet by storm, but Australia as a whole, influenced by the mono-voiced and conservative media, has sort of shrugged and moved on.

        1. Hi, sorry to nit-pick, but I think you mean small ‘L’ liberal media is absent in this country. Small ‘L’ liberal (afaik) refers to liberal in the literal sense of the word, where capital ‘L’ liberals refers to the conservative party.

          But, nevertheless, yes, Australia lacks progressive voice in the media, with a few exceptions. The ABC does some good work, but it has its faults as well.

  2. Oh, and for those unfamiliar with the Westminster system, our Speaker is utterly unlike the US one and functions more as the impartial moderator of the house than a representative of their own party.

  3. We have tripled aid to Pakistani education to $170 million annually, and that’s terrific. But that’s less than one-tenth of our security aid to Pakistan.

    And then they wonder why India’s taken a traditionally neutral/passively hostile approach to US foreign policies.

    Not that I’m bitter or anything.

  4. compiling a list of women who are pregnant or have children but are not married which has raised fears of punishment.

    This is so horrifying I barely know what to say. I seriously hate the world today.

    Also,

    They’ve already outlawed music

    Another reason I’m glad to have apostatized. I absolutely hated Islam’s prohibition of music. On a related note, Islam forbids another harmless activity, drawing living beings. I can’t think of many people who could be happy without music and an essential category of art.

    1. I’m assuming you mean that you are formerly a Muslim, so I’ll absolutely respect that that was your experience, but otherwise this reads to me like an extremely generalizing statement about Islam and other people’s experiences with it. I can imagine people being perfectly happy being observant about their faith in that way because I do know plenty of people who enjoy things I don’t particularly enjoy. Diff’rent strokes and all that.

      Obviously this is different than pushing a religious observance on someone who doesn’t want to participate, which I am never cool with, but short of that I would rather people be left to practice their faith however they like. Even if it means always wearing pants and never eating cheese, which to me would be hell on earth.

      1. I dunno, Jadey. I see your point, yeah, but I’ve known enough devout Muslims who had to listen to music on the sly to feel sad for the strictures and what they do to people. It’s hell to have to reconcile obviously outdated/restrictive/oppressive religious strictures with personal beliefs; it’s a thing I’m going through with Hinduism right now and I don’t think its impact or the distress it causes should be underestimated.

        1. I think this comment is generalizing because there are Muslims who consider music part of their expression of faith:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvQVxrMZB18
          Not to mention Muslim communities who are/have been okay with the depiction of people in art.

          I think like any other religion Islam has different interpretations and it is going to vary from culture to culture, region to region, and sect to sect. Islam spans centuries and continents, the practices are of course going to differ from region to region.

        2. Uh, yeah, Tracey, I’m from India, I’m well aware of Muslim religious traditions that encompass music. On account of like every second musician of note in India is Muslim, either by birth or conversion, and they’re overrepresented (relative to population stats) in Indian music by virtue of being crazy awesome talented and invested in music as a community. Google A R Rehman. Or Naushad or Mohammad Rafi or Kishore Kumar. All Indian, all Muslim, all musicians, all people most Indians with even a tiny bit of exposure to Bollywood music would know. Just because I don’t feel the need to disclaim every statement I make about Muslims for sixty paragraphs doesn’t mean I don’t have background.

          Pointing out that X is true for some people, and that the effect of X shouldn’t be dismissed, is not the same as saying that X is the only gospel omg truth and that All True Sco- I mean Muslims – believe X or Y or Z about music. Some Muslims like music, some don’t. Some Muslims believe they can listen to/make music, some don’t. The group that likes music and doesn’t believe in listening to it is hurt by their beliefs, though they may choose to adapt in secret or consciously renounce it as an act of religious self-discipline. Okay?

        3. Tracey, I’ve replied to you but it went into mod. tl;dr yes, I know of Muslim music tyvm, I’m Indian, and saying that an overlap exists between Muslims who like music and Muslims of a religious background that don’t believe in making it is a matter of statistics not Islamophobia.

        4. My post was meant as a reply to mxe354. I don’t deny that many may feel music is prohibited, but my response was to a statement that seemed to suggest Islam itself prohibits music and depiction of people in art (whereas I maintain a religion in and of itself, independent of human action, does next to nothing as evidenced by the many ways it is adapted). Some people don’t feel the need to reconcile their practices with certain beliefs, because they may not have held to those beliefs to begin with.
          I agree others may give up something they like or avoid certain things because they think it is sinful or frowned upon, but I think the post I replied to suggested that the prohibition against music and drawing/depicting people is standard practice for just about all Muslims when that isn’t necessarily the case.

        5. Tracey,

          The prohibition of both of those things is hardly up for debate; most scholars of Islam agree that they’re un-Islamic. And anyone can verify their arguments by simply reading the Qur’an and narrations of the Prophet with a sufficient knowledge of Arabic.

          I know very well that some Muslims are fond of music, be it for religious or non-religious reasons. That doesn’t change the fact that Islam unequivocally condemns music and drawing living beings, however. It’s true that Islam is open to interpretation to some degree, but certain things are absolutely clear and are not up for debate. The prohibition of alcohol and the permissibility of spousal beatings, for instance, are teachings that can be found directly in authentic Islamic sources, such as Sahih Bukhari and, of course, the Qur’an.

        6. These aren’t set in stone strictures, nor are they universal. Most Muslim scholars would not say all music is prohibited. And this struggle isn’t just a religious one, it can be hell to have to reconcile personal desires in the context of societal laws.

        7. @Sid

          Not quite:

          Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, “The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.’ “ [Sahih Bukhari 9:93:646]

          Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle returned from a journey when I had placed a curtain of mine having pictures over (the door of) a chamber of mine. When Allah’s Apostle saw it, he tore it and said, “The people who will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of Allah’s creations.” So we turned it (i.e., the curtain) into one or two cushions. [Sahih Bukhari 7:72:838]

          “Among my ummah there will certainly be people who permit zinaa [adultery/fornication], silk [forbidden for men], alcohol and musical instruments…” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari ta’leeqan, no. 5590; narrated as mawsool by al-Tabaraani and al-Bayhaqi. See al-Silsilah al-Saheehah by al-Albaani, 91).

        8. My post was meant as a reply to mxe354.

          Ah, okay, I see. That makes more sense. Cursed nested comments!

          And this struggle isn’t just a religious one, it can be hell to have to reconcile personal desires in the context of societal laws.

          And I said otherwise where…? Religion is just one of the possible sources of strictures that feel oppressive. It’s just that most “mainstream culture” doesn’t forbid music in the way that some religions do, and we were discussing music in particular. (Hinduism afaik does not forbid it, but there might be sub-sects or fringe groups that frown upon it, I dunno. I know there are Christian groups that forbid music.)

      2. I’m assuming you mean that you are formerly a Muslim, so I’ll absolutely respect that that was your experience, but otherwise this reads to me like an extremely generalizing statement about Islam and other people’s experiences with it. I can imagine people being perfectly happy being observant about their faith in that way because I do know plenty of people who enjoy things I don’t particularly enjoy. Diff’rent strokes and all that.

        I can imagine such people as well, and surely they do exist. I didn’t mean to say that no one can possibly live without music and drawings of living beings or unfairly generalize Muslims in some other way. However, personally speaking, most of the Muslims I know who oppose music and drawing living beings do so out of the fear of their god’s punishment, not because of a mere difference in preferences. And that’s not surprising, given that many narrations from Islam’s prophet clearly reflect a whoever-does-this-will-be-doomed-to-hell attitude towards music and drawing living beings.

        1. mxe354,

          Sorry for leaving this hanging. I needed to step back and rethink what (and why) I was responding to in your comment. I think I was feeling defensive on behalf of Muslims who may feel differently, but ignoring a lot additional context and not accounting properly for my ability as an outsider with very little relevant knowledge or experience to make an informed comment here. It was a kneejerk response which might have been appropriate in response to a comment from someone with just as little knowledge as I who was perpetuating Islamophobic stereotypes, but was certainly *not* appropriate as a response to a person who is familiar with and a former practictioner of the faith they are criticizing. So I apologize.

    2. Where does that say that all music is banned? Certain musical instruments were frowned upon, but not all of them, such as the daf. Singing was certainly not forbidden. There is a whole range of religious music composed from Morocco to Malaysia, and yet I see very few scholars who condemn that corpus. And while its comforting to compile a list of hadith to support any single position, much like ideologues tend to, hadith are interpreted in a variety of ways, in a variety of contexts. Hadith interpretation and applicability is in itself a science and art that takes years to master. Hadith prohibitions are not always interpreted literally, can be interpreted to have no modern cognate, or to have broader implications beyond the intent.

      1. Here’s a better (complete) version of the hadith on music:

        “There will be [at some future time] people from my Ummah who will seek to make lawful fornication, the wearing of silk, wine drinking and the use of musical instruments [ma’aazif]. Some people will stay at the side of the mountain and when their shepherd comes in the evening to ask them for his needs, they will say : ‘Return to us tomorrow’. Then Allaah will destroy them during the night by causing the mountain to fall upon them, while He changes others into apes and swine. They will remain in such a state until the Day of Resurrection.”

        It’s pretty clear that the explicit threat here implies that music is forbidden. Moreover, music is referenced along with other things that are impermissible. (Silk is technically allowed for women, but it’s forbidden for men until they reach heaven.)

        You’re right about the daff, however; the permissibility of the daff is definitely debatable. The prohibition of all other musical instruments, however, is unanimously agreed upon in scholarly circles. All four of the Sunni schools of thought oppose music. Of course, unanimity doesn’t necessarily imply truth, but it’s not meaningless, either, especially in this case.

        Also, you’re right about singing; singing that is semi-religious or completely religious is welcomed in Islam. By “music” I mean songs that involve musical instruments.

        As for those hadiths on drawing, I don’t think they could be any clearer. There is no alternative interpretations of them, and there are countless others hadiths like them. The picture makers referenced in those hadiths are called “musawwirin”, which, unsurprisingly, literally translates to “picture maker”. If you don’t believe me, go look up a reliable classical Arabic dictionary.

        And yes, I’m well aware of the fact that hadiths can be interpreted in different ways. However, not everything is as debatable or unclear as you seem to think. In this particular case, the hadiths I have cited make it quite clear that both music and drawing living things are prohibited in Islam. I have yet to see a compelling counterargument.

        1. As I said, hadith interpretation is not something you simply read and can come up with an absolute law from. The hadith you cite is one of many which say various things on music and instruments. Many, many other scholars have stated that certain musical instruments and types are permissible by not just various other hadiths but also examples from the seerah. Citing a single hadith and then bloviating on how clearly it prohibits something is simply cherry-picking. If we were to go by this hadith, one would believe that all silk is forbidden for men, when in fact consensus is that some is allowed. The permissibility of the daff is not debated by any serious scholar, and the prohibition of other musical instruments is most definitely not unanimously agreed upon. As for pictures, yes many do interpret the hadith to infer that all depictions of living animals are forbidden, but there are significant scholars in various madahib that consider intent and placement of these representations important into whether or not they would be forbidden.

      2. Hadith interpretation and applicability is in itself a science and art that takes years to master. Hadith prohibitions are not always interpreted literally, can be interpreted to have no modern cognate, or to have broader implications beyond the intent.

        So much effort going into “interpreting” utter bullshit pulled out of someone’s arse. “Science”…. hardly.

  5. Oh, the western men know. No poor solo woman who has been kicked out of academia (ie. pretty well every one with a PhD) has access to academic journals. That’s right. I cannot read the papers I need to read to further my knowledge, because I can’t pay someone enough for the access. Now I grew up in Australia (go Gillard!) in a time of FREE TERTIARY education. There was no internet, but knowledge was equally accessible to everyone, at least in principle. Oh, globalised misogyny, how you reek and send us backwards.

  6. Did the author just compare al-Qaeda in Mali and the Tehreek-e-Taliban to the Republican party?

    That’s embarrassing.

    1. Actually, no:

      It’s worth pointing out, though, that there are a whole lot of shared values between the people who stone women for having children out of wedlock, the people who shoot children for going to school, and the people who basically put “women should die before they should be allowed abortions” in their party platform.

      And that’s certainly not an absurd claim, given that all of those groups are expressly misogynistic.

    1. Yeah, I think people underestimate Pakistanis and the level of their social awareness. I honestly feel just really sad for them – between the US, China and their own massively fucked-up government, none of which are remotely interested in liberalising Pakistan, most ordinary Pakistanis are pretty much hamstrung before they even get started, when it comes to social reform. That they’re doing as well as they are with how much they can do is a pretty huge achievement IMO. And the desire for reform is hardly a minority thing, though I imagine support would dwindle the more radical the proposed reform (which is pretty much a universal constant, no? look at the US healthcare debate, oi).

  7. There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. You made a dumb comparison and I called you out on it.

    Also, if you ever do get out of your bubble, I recommend you visit Afghanistan and actually see the successful developmental aid programs for women in education President Bush initiated after liberating the country. Maybe you won’t be a reflexive ideologue.

    1. Nothing wrong with your reading comprehension?

      So… do you know what “reply” means?

      PS, I’m really interested in what you know about Jill’s world travels and what she has/has not seen. You sound like quite the authority, and totally not at all like a pompous asshat.

    2. Gosh I’m glad Bush liberated the country all the way into the hands of that great democrat Hamid Karzai.

      Don’t get me wrong, the Taliban were and are fucking awful but militarily forced regime change =/= liberation. Women in Afghanistan have not suddenly been freed by the Great White Hope swooping in and handing the reins to a new set of autocrats.

  8. The problem really isn’t Islam but the culture in which it is embedded. This varies widely across the MENA region and in Europe.

    Here in the UK, we have had a huge problem with Pakistani culture, because it is so regressive. Many British Pakistanis have a real problem with western values and many young British-born but cultural Pakistanis have fought in violent jihad in Afghanisan and elsewhere. Yet my Muslim Palestinian friends in London educate their daughters the same as their sons and have no difficulty in working with women in law, medicine and engineering. Many Palestinian women in London don’t even bother to cover their hair, yet Pakistani-origin women mostly wear the face veil.

    Indian Muslims on the contrary tend to be much more pragmatic and share much of the Hindu culture, so they have no problem for instance in serving in the Indian Army. There are many more Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan.

    What is happening in Mali and Egypt, Sudan and Yemen shows how radical Islamics impose a culture that is at complete odds with original local values.

    We should not consider ourselves at war with Islam but with a backward culture that hides behind Islam and perverts it, much the same way that Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans followed a fundamentalist version of Christianity that perverted the original teachings to make England a regressive Theocracy in the 1640s.

    1. Indian Muslims on the contrary tend to be much more pragmatic and share much of the Hindu culture, so they have no problem for instance in serving in the Indian Army.

      I…just wanna point out that there’s plenty that’s problematic about Hindu culture and that attributing Indian Muslims’ attitudes to good Hindu influences is a bit dismissive of Indian Muslims’ ability to think for themselves. I agree completely with your larger point, though! Particularly Cromwell, lol, I was about to mention him upthread wrt banning music.

    2. We should not consider ourselves at war with Islam but with a backward culture that hides behind Islam and perverts it

      But this just begs the question. If you are saying that this is a perversion of Islam, then you are implying that you know what “true Islam” is and perhaps even that it is a morally good teaching. How can you do this unless you are a Muslim yourself?

      Ie. A Muslim will have an answer to what “true Islam” is – it is whatever version they believe in. But from a non-Muslim perspective it is much harder to answer. What criteria should you use to decide this?

      (NB: I am not defending “War against Islam” as a term. It is very problematic term, since Islam is not a monolithic teaching shared by all Muslims. And also because it is a “war” against an idea – a rhetorical flair – which is a very poor choice of words while the US is in an actual state of war against some Muslim countries and threatening war against others)

  9. I wanted to plug a wonderful little book that’s come out, called The Knitting Circle Rapist Annihilation Squad. It’s by Derrick Jensen and Stephanie McMillan. How about it?

    It’s really sad that a fourteen year old girl has to become an activist just to live, has to fight for her right to live. So many others should be doing the fighting for her. And the cowardice of stopping a bus of school-age girls and shooting her! I suppose all those girls were the right age for rape, too, so why not. What I mean by that is I don’t think you can see someone as a child and do something like this. Or maybe you do. It really doesn’t matter how these men rationalize their atrocities. And by these men I don’t mean simply Pakistani men, but the homegrown rapist and child abuser too. Girls and women are always the right age to be abused for someone, until those guys are stopped that is. 😉

  10. Saudi Arabia fears competition in the middle east. They educate their own well. In Mecca they bulldoze mosques to make way for progress amidst. Sponsoring religious extremism is a way to keep the competition in the dark ages.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites

    If they would act out of their own believes, at least one could argue they do what they think is best. But what Saudi Arabia does is a form of warfare, sponsoring the dark ages abroad to keep the competition down and bulldozing mosques at home to make room for their progress and their business.

Comments are currently closed.