Condoning Domestic Violence? TV, Books, & Silence - Why We All Should 'Tell Somebody'

This week Glamour magazine published the results of a national survey conducted to measure the extent of relationship violence against women. The survey concluded that 60 per cent of young women in America have been subject to some form of relationship abuse or violence. Moreover, 24 per cent have not told anyone they've been abused and 37 per cent of women who know someone in an abusive relationship never said anything to that person or law enforcement authorities about it. In lieu of these results, Glamour has kicked off a campaign called 'Tell Somebody' to raise awareness of domestic violence in America and to encourage friends to keep tabs on friends in potentially violent relationships.

Violence against women is a phenomena that transcends culture, race, and religion. If 60 per cent of women in a country that has made significant social and legal advancements on their behalf are subject to relationship violence, one can only imagine the actual statistics in countries lacking any such protections or support for women.

To make matters worse, recent publications of teen fiction are equating love to violence, not to mention certain controversial episodes of TV series based on the books that seem to highlight misogyny. Two years ago, criticisms were launched against the vampire Twilight series, noting that the protagonist Bella was engaged in an abusive romance with vampire Edward. More recently, Jezebel writer Margarett Hartmann, reported on the criticism the most recent episode of Gossip Girl garnered for equating violence as romance. Gossip Girl is another teen book series made into a TV show. In the most recent episode aired on May 2nd, a male character, Chuck, lunges a punch at his ex-girlfriend, Blair, misses and smashes the window behind her cutting her face. "Yet this isn't a story about relationship abuse," Hartmann reports, "the writers say it shows how much he loves her."

Yes, you read that right, the Executive Producer of Gossip Girl is defending the scene not as abuse but as the intensity of love. "The way we viewed it, I think it's very clear that Blair is not afraid in those moments, for herself. They have a volatile relationship, they always have, but I do not believe—or I should say we do not believe—that it is abuse when it's the two of them. Chuck does not try to hurt Blair. He punches the glass because he has rage, but he has never, and will never, hurt Blair. He knows it and she knows it, and I feel it's very important to know that she is not scared—if anything, she is scared for Chuck—and what he might do to himself, but she is never afraid of what he might do to her. Leighton and I were very clear about that." Let's backtrack for a minute and note that Chuck's character doesn't have a brilliant record. In the Season 1 pilot he attempts to rape two other female characters.

If this series is about love then love has gotten mixed up with all the wrong messages to girls and it is desensitizing them to relationship abuse and essentially 'normalizing' bad behavior as 'romantic.' To be fair, a lot of paperback adult romance novels have carried similar themes of rape and initial abuse as romantic.  However, if these shows and books are targeted to teenagers parents should engage their children in discussion drawing the line between fantasy and reality. The reality is 4 women a day die at the hands of their abusive partners in the United States, according to the 2011 Glamour survey.



Now let's consider domestic violence in countries outside the US. In 2008, NPR did a segment called Domestic Violence: A Silent Crisis in Russia. The Russian government estimates 14,000 women die at the hands of their partners each year but Russian police don't even classify abuse as a crime. Because it is culturally considered a 'private matter' no support systems exist in Russia to rehabilitate or protect women who are the victims of abusive relationships. A US Report on Human Rights Practices published in 2006 added that in Brazil domestic violence is 'widespread and underreported' although the government now appears to be taking legal steps to protect women. Spain has one of the highest rates of domestic violence in Western Europe where reportedly 73 women died at the hands of their partners in 2010. Similarly, in Portugal 15,904 complaints were registered concerning domestic violence in 2009, including 16 murders, according to Amnesty International. In 2004, Saudi broadcast journalist Rania al-Baz breached the social taboo and spoke out against domestic violence in Saudi Arabia after sustaining horrific injuries perpetrated by her husband. Her audacity and courage launched public debate in the Gulf on domestic violence.

Violence against women should cease being condoned whether by TV, books, movies, the passivity of governments, and the act of silence. Tell Somebody! Women (and enlightened men) need to fight back not just in the United States but in countries around the world.

_________________

Glamour Tell Somebody: Text TELLNOW to 85944 to make a $10 donation, and the Avon Foundation will match every dollar you donate to the National Domestic Violence Hotline. In 2010, 83,027 calls went unanswered by the hotline due to lack of funding— more than 1,590 calls per week. Glamour, in partnership with Avon, is seeking to raise $200,000.

'Body Politic': Culture Wars Unveiled

The French niqab ban has aroused a high level of controversy in Europe as well as among women everywhere. Some cheer it on as a defense of feminism and the gains of the feminist revolution, others view it as an attack on Muslims in Europe. Personally, I don't believe a government should have the right to legislate what a man or woman can or can't wear whether it's in Paris or Riyadh yet we often take for granted norms concerning clothing (i.e. you can't go out naked, it's socially unacceptable and even illegal in most countries). I would like to think the niqab ban is more of a security issue than anything having to do with sexual mores as it's far better reasoning to ban a face-veil than arguments for 'female emancipation.'

What's interesting about the debate is the ire it's rousing among different groups of feminists who frame female emancipation in entirely different terms. Personally, I believe in a woman's free will and her right and responsibility to exercise it. Yet, ironically, 'free will' may not exist at all given that we are social creatures often taking for granted the fact that one of our chief motivations is to 'fit in' with whatever group our identities are pegged. But shouldn't adult women be allowed the right to define their identities and values? It's easy for many academics to quickly tack women to a certain set of socio-cultural circumstances based on what religion, ethnicity, or family political leanings they were born into and try to neatly divide them between the 'oppressed' and the 'liberated.' I believe these generalizations, and dare I say stereotypes, underestimate the ability of humans to reshape or cast off identities at will.

The counter-argument is that 'free will' is exceedingly limited or even perhaps an illusion. When a girl grows up and is subjected to community standards and peer pressure to 'cover up', harassed by men and threatened with 'hell fire' by right-wing preachers if they don't do so, where is 'free will'? Yet women are not powerless and voiceless. A woman can take risks to fight against anything they don't like or agree with. When a woman reaches adulthood she is neither an incapable puppet of her family or community nor is she a victim unless she chooses to be one. She is not bound by circumstance or culturally-determined. One can turn this argument around and equally say that in a hyper-sexualized liberal Western culture women face peer pressure to be thin and sexy and compete with each other in these terms. Does that make them 'victims' objectified by men?

A really interesting story came out today on the first Turkish woman to pose for Playboy in Germany. The Turkish actress and model, Sila Sahin, was raised Muslim. The author of the Die Welt article notes: "Because the legitimate debate over if or when the display of naked female bodies starts to hurt female dignity or, on the contrary, promotes it, presumes the ability of the woman to decide for herself whether she wants her naked body to be depicted or not."

In regards to her decision to pose for Playboy, she stated:

"For me, these pictures are an act of liberation from the cultural constraints of my childhood," says Sahin. "I have tried to please everybody for too long. With these images I want to show young Turkish women that it is OK to live the way they are; that it is not cheap to show skin; that you should pursue your goals instead of bowing down to others."

Some feminist groups are aghast at this statement and see Sahin's actions as an act of bowing down to please men. I see Sahin's actions as an exercise of her ability to reshape her identity. Can we identify Sahin as a Turk, a Muslim, an actress and a nude model? Or do we view her as hypocritical for having identities that are apparently inconsistent with one another? Why does a nude female body provoke such controversy? Equally, on the other end of the spectrum, why should covering up a female body arouse such controversy?

Conservative Muslims would declare Sahin no longer a Muslim by virtue of not following regulations on modesty - she's a blasphemer. She has drawn criticism not only from her own family but also from the conservative Turkish Muslim community. Yet, there are Catholics who use condoms and engage in sex before marriage, yet still identify themselves as Catholics. There are also Christians who are pro-choice and pro-gay, and still identify themselves as Christian. Identity is not a neat little box where all our beliefs need be consistent with each other. People pick and chose every day what they believe in and what defines who they are and many don't care to be pinned down by social or cultural conventions based on their birth, family origins, or religion. In regards to women, society always seeks to define her in terms of the mores framing her sexuality, whether implicitly or explicitly. 

Many arguments and laws on abortion, dress, or regulating sexual behaviour assume women are incapable of making their own adult decisions or of wielding responsibility over their own free will. Yet, our judgments concerning a woman's choices over her sexual determination are not solely culturally-defined, but the result of hard-wired by evolutionary biases. Those biases inform our cultures, social mores, and even religious regulations. They are the cause of a collective madonna/whore complex across cultures. 

Different groups have entirely opposing views as to what 'oppresses' or 'liberates' women, values seemingly at odds with one another but I would argue there is a striking similarity in the histories of double standards globally. These arguments have historically been defined by men and more recently women who believe they know what's 'right' for other women. The danger lies that if the other side is right then the social mores of one's own side is worthy of stigmatization - a flawed logic. 

When discussing 'women's liberation' fingers often point at conservative countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. Yet consider that in the United States, in Texas, up until 1974 there was a law in the books that allowed a husband the right to kill his wife if he caught her in flagrante delicto with a lover. But this law did not function the other way around. A woman did not have the right to murder her husband or his paramour if he was caught cheating on her. Sexual double standards transcend cultures. Cultures around the world are  similar in their sexual double standards, distinctions existing only in gradations.

We shouldn't rely on experts to make blanket-statements defining any one group, especially in regards to women. It's easy to forget that individuals can cast off their former identities and recreate new ones and chose to live by entirely different values that may have been anathema to the communities to which they were born. It may not be a simple matter to drop one's family values for new ones but it's not an impossible task. Women are free agents of their own destinies and not necessarily bound by culture, religion, or politics.

CNN's Freedom Project: Ending Modern-Day Slavery

CNN is hosting a special investigative blog dedicated to ending modern-day slavery. The Freedom Project contains video clips, articles, and resources to better inform the public concerning the facts of human trafficking, child, and sex slavery.

Even better, CNN has a section titled How You Can Help emphasizing the role technology plays to raise awareness and also raise money to help the organizations taking on this cause.

Rape as a Weapon of War: Women Fight Back in Libya

A terrible story came out of Libya earlier last week of a woman who was raped by government troops in Libya. Iman al-Obeidi, however, would not be silenced by shame. She stormed into a hotel in Tripoli where foreign journalists were based to openly disclose her identity and tell her story. Government minders in the hotel started a brawl with her as foreign journalists sought to protect her. She loudly declared that she had been detained at a check point, tied up, abused, and gang raped.  Hadeel Al-Shalchi of the Associated Press reported: "The woman, who appeared in her 30's, wore a black robe and a floral scarf around her neck and identified herself. She had scratches on her face and she pulled up her black robe to reveal a bloodied thigh. She said neighbors in the area where she was detained helped her escape."

At the end of the scuffle however, al-Obeidi was dragged out by the government minders who then came back and claimed to the journalists that she was drunk and mentally ill. These comments were later retracted and a government spokesman claimed it was a case of rape and it was being investigated and that al-Obeidi was "safe and well." A recent follow-up to the story by Al Jazeera today noted that al-Obeidi was still missing that that government officials were trying to bribe her family with large sums of money to convince their daughter recant the story. Her mother declared publicly that she told her daughter to "keep silent" (in regards to recanting), and her family had noted that she had been targeted after she had participated in a pro-democracy protest. Furthermore, while government spokesmen declared to journalists that al-Obeidi was a "prostitute," her family furnished Al Jazeera with photos of her receiving her law degree.

Al Jazeera reported: "Iman is rapidly become a cause célèbre in Libya. Highly unusual in a culture that traditionally secludes its women and exercises a code of honor."Moreover, the Al Jazeera reporter noted that "other women" had been detained along with al-Obeidi and their status is unknown. 

Libyan state TV, predictably, has not been kind to al-Obeidi. A friend shared with me the following link to a state TV response to the rape story. The newscaster had the gall to declare: ‎"From a psychological perspective, we know that any woman who has gone through any kind of rape it's impossible that she would have acted like this woman right after being raped" and claimed she had received this opinion from "doctors." Furthermore, today Libyan state TV aired what the claimed was 'secret footage' of al-Obeidi being interviewed by officials which appears to be some actress with her face covered up in al-Obeidi's scarf. 

Iman al-Obeidi's case is a reflection of a larger issue that often occurs in war - rape used as a weapon against women. This is not unique to Libya although certainly in a culture where rape victims shrink back in shame and silence, al-Obeidi's courage is astounding, more so in front of pro-Gaddafi minders and international journalists. She gives a voice to rape victims who have otherwise chosen to remain silent. Al Jazeera reporters talking to doctors in Libya discovered that Gaddafi soldiers had "condoms and viagra" in their pockets suggesting that they were intending to rape women on rebel territory. Doctors also noted that they were treating rape victims. 

Of course, the drama is just unfolding. In a diabolical twist, today, The New York Daily News just reported that al-Obeidi is to face criminal charges for slander, her accusations a "grave offense" to the 15 men whom she claims raped her.  British-based Telegraph further detailed that a Libyan government spokesman stated, "The boys accused of doing this are furious. They want to kill her. They have filed a case to defend their family name. In our culture these are very serious charges that will last for generations." The Libyan government response is stupefying. To blame the victim as a perpetrator against national honor after she faced horrific trauma at the hands of Gaddafi troops is appalling. There is no honor in raping and abusing a woman.

Bourzou Daragahi, writing on the LA Times Blog, stated, "Human Rights Watch, a New York-based advocacy group that has been trying unsuccessfully to gain access to Libya, demanded that her family and international media be allowed to independently verify the official claim that she is free and safe." He also added: "Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division of the rights group, said that 'Libya has a history of mistreating women who have been raped or sexually abused and often jails them for what it describes as their own protection. Libyan judges also have an unfortunate practice of arranging for rapists to marry their victim, with the consent of her family, to 'save' her from ... an otherwise tainted future,' Whitson said in an email. 'The marriage also allows the rapist to avoid jail time.'" 

Libyan women have come out onto the streets to rally in support of al-Obeidi and her family has taken a decidedly non-traditional stance in publicly supporting their daughter and seeking her release. It will be a matter of time before we find out what's become of her and the other women that have been detained with her. 

What is the Future for Women in the Middle East?

Dr. Peggy Drexler, a sex and gender specialist and contributor to The Huffington Post, wrote a thoughtful piece ruminating on the future for women in the Middle East in lieu of the changing political climate. Her assessment is not cheerful. She highlights how in Iraq, despite Nouri Al Maliki's promise for greater political representation for women, the women currently in the Iraqi parliament were placed there by male relatives and that the one appointed female minister holds a barely-funded powerless post catering to women's issues. Moreover, in Tunisia and Egypt, despite the ouster of dictators, women in both countries have to grapple with the possibility that greater conservative elements may be voted into government with the possibility of changing progressive family codes to more restrictive religious-based laws as seen in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"In Tunisia and Egypt, and possibly more countries to come, women helped win freedom from autocracy. But the next battle may be just beginning," concludes Drexler. Women in the Arab world are facing great risk and opportunity with the political changes taking place in their countries, but there is no doubt that gender equality for women in the region will require not only change in the political establishment, but indeed, an entire change in attitude of the men in their societies, a cultural and social shift that views women not simply as wives to be locked up behind closed doors but as participating and contributing members of society. That's not to say they haven't made strides in the past century. Indeed, among the middle class, many women have been educated, hold careers, and still raise families even in the most conservative of Arab countries (see Saudi Arabia). However, there's still a long way to go in the transformation of social attitudes among men in a mostly male-dominated society.

Fortunately, Egypt, in particular has a rich feminist history, Nawal El Saddawi serving as the modern face and voice of feminism in Egypt. Yanar Mohammed, the founder of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), fights on behalf of the rights of Iraqi women. We can only pray that more charismatic and courageous personalities like these two women make history in other countries where women have been traditionally subjugated to the private sphere. It will be interesting to see how women's rights develops in the Middle East into the next decade.

Bye Bye 'Broadsheet,' I will miss you!

I missed out on the fact that one of my favorite women's issues blog is about to shut down. I would like to give props to Salon.com's feminist blog, 'Broadsheet.' Salon.com is a liberal online publication and Tracy Clark-Flory has been covering controversial women's issues for Salon since 2005 with dedication and pizzazz so I've been reading her on and off since university. Unfortunately, she's moving on to bigger and better things. I will miss the Broadsheet immensely! Three cheers to a an amazing blog!

Calling Men Out On Double Standards

Yesterday was International Women's Day, a significant day given that in three-quarters of the world women are still struggling for social, political, and economic equality. This is especially true in the traditional strongholds of macho culture: the Mediterranean, South America, the Middle East, parts of Africa, and Asia, where men are considered worth more than women on a cultural standard. Even today, in China, boys are still considered blessings and girls looked down upon or forced to work on their beauty and compete with one another to get "prize" husbands. In Portugal, Brazil, and Spain, there still remains a traditional expectation of the "good obedient Catholic wife," and ironically honor killings are still very common among the white Christians of Lusitanian and Latino cultures if a man's wife is ever caught cheating on her husband. But meanwhile many of these men believe they are entitled to be be unfaithful to their wives, to flirt and play outside of the house, while expecting their wives to be entirely faithful to them. Spain has the highest rate of domestic violence in Europe, according to the BBC: "At least one woman dies every week in Spain at the hands of her partner." 

In Egypt, yesterday, women gathered in Tahrir Square to mark International Women's Day in a protest for their equality. In a sad reminder of how far there is yet to go for women's rights in the Middle East, a group of men came out to protest against equality for women in Egypt and drowned out the women. According to Deutsche Presse: In a twist to the slogan 'Down with the regime' - widely chanted throughout the anti-government protests that led to the ouster of Hosny Mubarak as president - several men chanted 'Down with women.' There were also reports from an activist on the scene that the female protesters were sexually harassed. Shame on the men who desire freedom for Egypt but not freedom for her women. Shame on their hypocrisy.

This is the cost of the culture of machismo, cultures that do not see the value of women and equate female value solely on ideas of sexual purity and obedience. It is a culture of humiliation and double standards where respect is measured on the boundaries of sexuality, on the delusional idea that it's honorable for a man to sow his oats at the expense of a woman and that a woman's place is to be a loving and loyal wife to an unfaithful cad. Meanwhile, these men lose respect for the women that give in to his advances and charm outside of marriage but he still expects his wife to be a picture of sainthood. Men who live by this double standard are hypocrites at best.

I've touched upon the sexual double standard in previous posts. Macho culture holds to the inherent 'specialness' of the male because simply he was born male. This concept has been permeated in these cultures for thousands of years, boys are treated better than girls from the moment they're born boys. Typical of Lusitanian and Latino cultures, boys are spoiled, given the bigger morsels at the dinner table, expected to go out and play without curfews while their sisters stayed at home and had to adhere to curfews. I am not blaming men entirely for this, women themselves, mothers and grandmothers raised in such a culture, often co-opt this concept of 'male specialness.' These men grow up in environments where they are imbued with a sense of their exceptionalism vis-à-vis women and think that being 'manly' equates with their ability to do whatever they want while guarding their sexual territory: their wives, girlfriends, or any other women that are supposed to be under 'their control.' They are born and raised with a sense of undue entitlement that humiliates the women they interact with, marry, and cross in their lives because of their skewed attitudes concerning gender roles. They live like hypocrites, applying morals and standards to women which they themselves do not abide by.

In lieu of International Women's Day and on behalf of women everywhere: Gentlemen, if you expect morality from women, be moral. If you expect love, be loving. If you expect respect, be respectful. Otherwise, you have NO right to judge your wives, sisters, daughters, or female friends as to how they behave if you're incapable of acting by the standards you yourself set for them. There are no double standards.

If some men from these cultures continue to believe they are entitled to rights and allowed to engage in behaviors women can't, they need to revise their values. They are not worthy of good or loyal women if they are not going to be good upstanding men. Let's throw out the myth: it is not a woman's civilisational responsibility to make men moral, it is each individual's responsibility by his God-given reason to chose to be moral by the standards they have set for themselves. They should become the embodiment of what they want in the opposite sex otherwise they have no right to judge or seek to hold the opposite sex to a standard they won't live by.

Burlesconi's Women: On Fidelity, Monogamy, Sex, & Power

Italy's Prime Minister, Silvio Burlesconi, has been under a lot of fire over his extramarital affairs with and gift-giving to beautiful younger women, and recently for allegedly having sex with an underage prostitute. Italian women are rallying against him and accusing him of demeaning women through his "bad boy" behaviour and "bunga bunga" sex parties.  The protesting women have put up some fabulous signs such as "We Like Sex, Not Bunga Bunga!"

The Burlesconi scandals highlight fascinating contradictions of Western culture, society, assumptions about morality, and also emphasizes the dynamic of how democracy actually instituted monogamy (fact). Italian women declare they 'like sex' but view Burlesconi's conduct towards women as demeaning. Yet, sexuality is intrinsically tied to this view of 'demeaning' and Burlesconi's mistresses are portrayed as victims of his 'predatory lusts' rather than willing agents in their affairs with him. The traditional and popular view of women as the sexually passive victims of male lusts prevails. It would be funny if news stories, rather, portrayed Burlesconi as being a victim of women's overpowering beauty and unable to control himself which is probably closer to the truth.

Bill Clinton escaped his scandals by claiming to have an uncontrollable sexual addiction. I say, if that's the case, then all men must suffer this incurable fact of nature. Should we so admonish men for their natural weaknesses, and should we display women as victims of male lust? Should we curse nature with such public outcries against natural human urges, against the facts of human sexuality? True, instinct can be controlled and these men should know better given their offices, but it's the fact of their offices, of their power, that they have the option to stray outside their marriage beds. I am not condoning the practice, simply stating a fact. And I hardly view women as passive victims. I'm skeptical of the way the media paints mistresses, either publicly scorning them or viewing them as helpless. My view of feminism is that human sexuality, in all its splendour, is precisely what gives women power and plenty of it.

Consider the following hypocrisy: Burlesconi's current wife Veronica Lario was formerly one of Burlesconi's mistresses back in the 80s before marrying him after his subsequent divorce in 1990. Truly, hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn and Lario has incited a serious public shaming of her husband for his flirtations, affairs, and mixing and mingling with underage minors. I truly admire Lario's candor, courage, and lack of mincing words although part of me finds it difficult to be sympathetic to her given that she began her relationship with Burlesconi under dubious circumstances. She knew what she was signing up for, a man with an obvious weakness for women. I am not supporting Burlesconi in crap behavior but I think deeper issues of sexual evolution, politics, religious morality, need to be considered before sending him to the scaffold.

It is a fact of nature that a man who has money and power, essentially resources, will have access to many women and women will willingly gamble their hearts (and sex) for a powerful man, married or not, than for a weak one. Polygamy was the status quo of ancient societies because powerful men would have a monopoly over beautiful young women who would bear their offspring in exchange for his resources and protection. The moral impetus to monogamy was first seen with the establishment of modern democracies. Matt Ridley writes the following in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - 

... the long interlude of human polygamy, which began in Babylon nearly four thousand years ago, has largely come to an end in the West. Official concubines became unofficial mistresses, and mistresses became secrets kept from wives. In 1988, political power far from being a ticket to polygamy, was jeopardized by any suggestion of infidelity. Whereas the Chinese emperor Fei-Ti once kept ten thousand women in his harem. Gary Hart, running for the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth, could not even get away with two. 

What happened? Christianity? Hardly. It coexisted with polygamy for centuries and its strictures were as cynically self-interested as any lay man's. Women's rights? They came too late. A Victorian woman had as much or as little say in her husband's affairs as a medieval one. No historian can yet explain what changed, but guesses include the idea that kings came to need internal allies enough that they had to surrender despotic power. Democracy, of a sort, was born. Once monogamous men had a vote against polygamists (and who doesn't want to tear down a competitor, however much he might also want to emulate him?), their fate was sealed.

My Chinese grandmother once told me that when a woman picks a man she should do so wisely. She was frank in noting that if a man is too handsome and has too much money he's "no good" for the fact that he'll have many women on the side. A woman who marries a man of this calibre will have to spend a lifetime defending her prize or be willing to look the other way to his extramarital affairs in order to maintain her marriage. Power and monogamy are rarely bedfellows.

If anyone should nail Burlesconi on anything, corruption is a more substantial place to start, but his affairs with women, similar to the Clinton scandals, are rather trifling. If you're going to send Burlesconi to the scaffold for sex, then send all heterosexual men with him because as one old wise cabbie noted to me earlier this week quite frankly: "My dear, men don't stop looking [at and for women], if they stop looking they're dead. Sex is the most powerful force in the world, my dear. If you are a beautiful woman with a brain you can take down the most powerful men in the world." Fact. Women are not the victims of powerful men, powerful men are victims of beautiful women.

Women's Rights in Iraq: Before and After Saddam

As a follow-up to a previous post concerning the status of women in Iraq, in particular the issue of the prevalence of sex trafficking of refugees and rape victims, I would like to write a bit concerning the context of women's rights in Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion, the deterioration of their rights under the current Iraqi government, and increased discrimination and even targeted killings women in Iraq face today. One can tie the changing rights of women not simply to changes in political ideology and government, but also to the stricter interpretation of Islam more conservative elements of different sects in Iraq who are trying to push their agenda to limit womens' freedom of expression, education, civic participation, employment, and enforce conservative dress codes.

A certain myth has been circulating that women's rights under Saddam Hussein were greater than what's currently happening in Iraq today and this generalisation is often taken for granted. In reality, women's rights under Saddam had a mixed track record and was based primarily on political and economic expediency. According to a report by Codepink Women for Peace:

Although a great deal of policy and law continued to women’s advantage when Saddam Hussein became president, his voracious appetite for dictatorial power over the entire population could not but undermine women’s gains. Women, like men, were jailed, tortured, raped, and murdered. To extract information from dissidents, suspected dissidents, and opposition members abroad, Hussein was fond of sending them video tapes showing their female relatives raped by members of the secret police. The war with Iran subjected Iraqis not only to the deprivations of war but also to gross human rights violations inflicted by their own government. Women were targets for rape and sex trafficking because of their relationship to male oppositionist activists; thousands of women, children and men were expelled because of their actual or alleged Iranian descent; tens of thousands of Kurds disappeared, and the Iraqi government used chemical weapons against thousands of Kurds.

In 1959, Iraq passed a Personal Status Law whereby Sha'ria courts were replaced by government-run 'personal status' courts that passed judgment based on then-new codified state law.  These laws restricted child marriage, banned forced marriages, restricted polygamy, curtailed men's prerogatives in divorce, expanded women’s rights in divorce, extended child custody to mothers, and improved inheritance rights for women (Heinrich Böll Foundation). The Heinrich Böll Foundation notes: "It remains one of the most liberal laws in the Arab world with respect to women’s rights. Moreover, by eliminating the differential treatment of Sunnis and Shiites under the law, it does not differentiate between the various religious communities and thus sustains social and communal coexistence."

The Iraqi Provisional Constitution of 1970 guaranteed equal rights to women and, according to Human Rights Watch, other laws specifically ensured women's rights to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property. The new post-Saddam constitution ratified in 2005 guarantees the same equal rights to women, however, a significant problem exists in Article 2 where "First: Islam is the official religion and foundation for legislation. (a) No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam. (b) No law may be enacted that contradicts the principals of democracy. (c) No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms as stipulated in this Constitution" (Global Justice Project: Iraq).

The problem with this specific article is that interpretations of Islam run the gamut from liberal to conservative, from metaphorical to literal. Additionally, who speaks for Islam? Unlike, for example Catholicism, where a hierarchical religious body exists to hand down judgments on interpretations for moral codes of behavior and religious issues no such unified hierarchy exists in Islam given the division of views by various sects. It would be like attempting to unite various sects of Christianity that originally broke off from the papacy and having them agree to moral regulations concerning, say, marriage for the priesthood or the issue of making women priests. To make Islam the "foundation for legislation" was a huge constitutional mishap, especially in regards to the norms (and potentially laws) regulating the behavior of women in society. Sections B and C of the Constitution appear to have been remedial points to the Article, however, since the ratification of the 2005 constitution the original 1959 Personal Status laws which granted women a lot more legal guarantees than they would have normally had in an Islamic society are now in jeopardy.

As an aside, I am not critiquing Islam as a backwards religion. When Muhammad first recited the Quran in the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century AD what the Quran provided was considered revolutionary, radical, and far ahead of its time. Consider that Muhammad provided rights to women that never existed before, made female infanticide a sin, provided divorced women with maintenance, widows and children with protections, and declared that men and women are equal before God. What I am critiquing is making any religion the foundation for state legislation for the reason that what religious texts provide as moral and social guidance are in danger of skewed or politically-interested interpretation depending on who is making and interpreting the law. I am not in contention with the following point: Muhammad was a feminist. The feminism of the 7th century AD, however, is not the feminism of 21st century. Moreover, depending on how enlightened or literalist Sha'ria judges will be, what sect, region, or the varying levels of conservatism in different communities in Iraq, matters for women could take a downturn since judgments and interpretations of religious law are unlikely to be consistent across the country. Faced with more conservative judges women could meet obstacles going to the courts to get judgments in their favour.

Today, women in Iraq currently are constantly under threat of being targeted for killings, rape, or kidnappings to be sold into sex trafficking rings. An article by CNN published in 2007 states:

According to a United Nations report, the kidnapping, rape and murder of women is on the rise. Honor killings, or the killing of a woman who brought perceived dishonor to her family, is up also. Women -- Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- are warned to adhere to the strict dress code, the United Nations said.

"You go to the Baghdad morgue, and you find a big number of women who are headless; they have been beheaded, they have been tortured and killed, and this is usually the case in honor killing," [Iraqi feminist Yanar] Mohammed said. "Nobody can speak about democracy if women are being killed for honor." She added that the current laws in Iraq do not punish the men who carry out honor killings.

More conservative and ignorant elements in Iraqi society are also lending to violence against women to enforce 'morality.' CNN published another article in 2008 highlighting that in Basra 79 women were targeted for killings due to violations of Islamic teachings.

One glance through the police file is enough to understand the consequences. Basra's police chief, Gen. Abdul Jalil Khalaf, flips through the file, pointing to one unsolved case after another.

"I think so far, we have been unable to tackle this problem properly," he says. "There are many motives for these crimes and parties involved in killing women, by strangling, beheading, chopping off their hands, legs, heads."

"When I came to Basra a year ago," he says, "two women were killed in front of their kids. Their blood was flowing in front of their kids, they were crying. Another woman was killed in front of her 6-year-old son, another in front of her 11-year-old child, and yet another who was pregnant."

The killers enforcing their own version of Islamic justice are rarely caught, while women live in fear.

Boldly splattered in red paint just outside the main downtown market, a chilling sign reads: "We warn against not wearing a headscarf and wearing makeup. Those who do not abide by this will be punished. God is our witness, we have notified you."

The attacks on the women of Basra have intensified since British forces withdrew to their base at the airport back in September, police say. Iraqi security forces took over after British troops pulled back, but are heavily infiltrated by militias.

And tracking the perpetrators of these crimes is nearly impossible, Khalaf says, adding that he doesn't have control of the thousands of policemen and officers.

BBC News went on to label the situation for women in Iraq as a 'National Crisis.' More recently, Al-Jazeera reported that women's rights in Iraq are 'in danger', and detailed the daily struggle women faced to protect themselves from violence, especially the most vulnerable being those whose husbands were arrested by occupation forces: "...many women also fled their homes because their husbands were arbitrarily arrested by occupation forces or government security personnel. A household without a male figure became far more vulnerable since 2003. Women sought refuge with relatives and failing to do so fled to Syria or Jordan." In Syria and Jordan, these women having no alternative work become the victims of local pimps and faced with the shame of their reality are unable to return home lest they may become victims of honor killings due to cultural pressures if their families are conservative.

Of course, time will tell how women's rights in Iraq will unfold. High levels of insecurity and instability throughout the country is currently making it difficult for women to even organize or consider these issues. However, some women, such as Iraqi feminist Yanar Mohammed, are outspoken in regards to the status of women in Iraq post-US invasion. Mohammed founded the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq. As mentioned in a previous blog post, Mohammed's organisation and international women's rights NGO, MADRE, are operating underground safehouses to protect women from sex trafficking and violence in Iraq.

If the status of women is the indicator of a country's political and economic stability, Iraq is doing poorly.   Hopefully, in the future, more women like Mohammed will have the courage to express their views openly, fight for their rights, keep the Personal Status laws in place, and pressure the government into providing women greater protections. The future of Iraq will depend on its women.

The Girl Effect

Having finished reading Half the Sky earlier this year, I've become a great supporter and advocate for the Girl Effect. Half the Sky covers the the concept of the "girl effect" in its introduction. In essence, empowering women and children through the provision of education and healthcare transforms economies, saves lives, and reforms political institutions, cultures, and entire societies. The fight on behalf of women if not just a 'feminist' issue, it is a fight to reduce poverty, fight domestic and political abuses, increase the availability of healthcare to men, women, and children, and prevent disease pandemics through knowledge which is passed down generation to generation. Empowering women and children, girls in particular, is a solution that will impact the world on a grand scale. It will not be easy, it will not be 100 per cent effective all of the time, but over time it will have an impact.

I challenge everyone to support the campaign, either through advocacy, spreading the word, donations or involvement in campaigns that strive to empower women and children. Read Half the Sky for more details about what you can do to contribute to the 'girl effect.'

Addressing a black hole in history: where are the women philosophers?

In the words of Friedrich Nietzche, aphorisms and quips concerning women:

Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.

A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy.

In the last analysis, even the best man is evil: in the last analysis, even the best woman is bad.

If you go to see the woman, don't forget the whip.

In the words of Arthur Schopenhauer, from his essay "On Women":

One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion... Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

G.W.F. Hegel on women from The Philosophy of Right:

Women can, of course, be educated, but their minds are not adapted to the higher sciences, philosophy, or certain of the arts. Women may have happy inspirations, taste, elegance, but they have not the ideal. The difference between man and woman is the same as between animal and plant. The animal corresponds more closely to the character of the man, the plant to that of the woman. In woman there is a more peaceful unfolding of nature, a process, whose principle is the less clearly determined unity of feeling. If woman were to control the government, the state would be in danger, for they do not act according to the dictates of universality, but are in influenced by accidental inclinations and opinions. The education of woman goes on one only knows how, in the atmosphere of picture thinking, as it were, more through life than through the acquisition of knowledge. Man attains his position only through stress of thought and much specialized effort.

Now, let us add to the above that Immanuel Kant believed a woman is complicit in her own rape; Hobbes barely touched upon the status of women in his Leviathan although he seemed to suggest that in the state of nature mothers have dominion over families, but with the establishment of the commonwealth, which in consequence of its being founded by men, places women under the dominion of men; and Aristotle believed a woman is "an inferior being" and that the courage of a man lies in commanding and woman in obeying. When one reviews the history of Western philosophy one quickly sees that all the great names and contributors are men and, interestingly, their disparaging views on women is rooted in Judeo-Christian values or in the cultures of societies that are generally patriarchal.

Of course, one could also argue that many of these lionized philosophical figureheads just couldn't get laid and their bitterness reflected over onto their writings. Such was the case of Nietszche and Lou Andrea Salomé, a writer and intellectual in her own right, who refused to marry him and thwarted his advances. Schopenhauer also appears to have had "mommy issues" and spent most of his adult life alone with the exception of refusing marriage at 19 and having been rejected by another woman he pursued at age 43. Kant, for whatever reason, never married. Certainly, we can't discount that many a male philosophers' experience of women may well have been bitter.

But where are women in the great discourses of philosophy? They certainly existed but they are only footnotes in history. One of the reasons for this may have been the widespread denial of literacy and education to women historically. Only with literacy and education did women become interested in joining men in philosophizing and engaging in political debate and moral arguments. Albeit, over time they were often overshadowed by men who wrote the history and created a narrative devoid of women in intellectual discourse.

15th-century writer Christine De Pizan, one of those rare exceptions to the rule, wrote a staunch defense against contemporary theories of female inferiority with her publication of The Book of City Ladies in 1405. Francois Poullain de la Barre, a 17th century French writer, rejected the notion that women's intellects were inferior to that of men and championed the existence of an equality of reason in both men and women. Juana Inez de la Cruz, a Mexican nun and contemporary of de la Barre, also challenged the right of a woman to pursue education, albeit, she was later silenced.

Among writers and thinkers of centuries past were often the financially independent courtesans and salon hostesses in France. Ninon de Lenclos, a 17th-century epicurean and a writer, defended the possibility of living a good life sans religion, a scandalous proposition in her day. She also wrote prolifically concerning the relations between men and women and nobility sent their sons to her for advice on courtship. Madame de Staël, an 18th century salon hostess, also published her own opinions on political transformations of her age and involved herself in revolutionary activities during Napoleon's reign.

Women's later involvement in philosophical treatises and arguments concerned overturning notions of their own inferiority as well as existing assumptions on the value of their political existence. These writers included Mary Wollstonecraft, considered by many the first modern feminist; and with the suffragist movement Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Soujourner Truth, Harriet Taylor Mill, and Susan B. Anthony; then among the existentialists Simone de Beauvoir, and among political theorists, Hanah Arendt. With education and political participation women have become members of philosophical and political discourses in academia, albeit, feminism stands out as the thread that takes into account both philosophy and politics.

It will be interesting to see, in the future, women rise in prominence as philosophers, theorists, and scientists that their names should become as cliche as Nietszche, Schopenhauer, and Hegel. A pity that male philosophers in the past, despite all their brilliance, lacked the foresight to understand the causes and consequences of a woman's condition in their time or, perhaps, pity the bitterness these men probably never had the love of a woman or love for a woman.

The heaviest burden of war and extreme poverty falls on women: sex trafficking and other brutal consequences

This issue is at the top of my hit list: sex trafficking.

I write the following on behalf of Iraqi girls and women who have suffered terribly at the hands of sex-traffickers. They have been kidnapped, raped or gang-raped, ransomed against their families, forced into prostitution even as refugees, and due to social and cultural pressures have become the victims of honor killings for sexual crimes they could not protect themselves against.

Every time I read stories of rape, kidnappings and sexual slavery of Iraqi women by criminal gangs my blood boils and then cools to a sad and unsettling sense of sadness. I am unsettled and disturbed. Whether man or woman, you should be too. The stories are heartbreaking. Not only women, but girls as young as 11 years old have become victims of sex trafficking as a consequence of the insecurity in Iraq. Probably young boys too. Add that in addition to the suffering of thousands upon thousands of Iraqi women who have fled into Syria and other neighboring countries and have been forced into prostitution because they have no other means to feed their children. Or worse, women and girls that have been sold off as prostitutes by their own families. These women are socially stigmatized, ignored, and abandoned with the exception of humanitarian organizations, such as Women for Women International, and underground shelters, run by Iraqi feminist groups in cooperation with MADRE, who are making great efforts to help them though underfunded and underhanded. Even so, many of the victims remain silent over their ordeals weighed by a great sense of shame and trauma.

The war in Iraq should have never happened and under the Bush administration it was terribly mismanaged. The greatest toll has been on women and children. As per usual, they remain the invisible victims of the war.

In 2007, international women's rights group, MADRE, lashed out at the Bush administration for allowing for the erosion of women's rights in Iraq. According to a story published by We News, a women's e-news network:

After banning Iraq's secular Baath regime in June, 2003, the U.S. government set a tight deadline to establish a new Iraqi democracy to justify its military action in the country. To meet that self-imposed deadline, the U.S. government compromised its stated commitment to gender equality and negotiated with Islamic religious fundamentalists, who see women's subordination as a precondition to a traditional social order, according to the report. Since gaining power, those Islamist officials have cracked down on women's rights, leading to a wave of kidnappings, abductions, public beatings, death threats, sexual assaults, domestic abuse and so-called honor killings, again according to the report.

In regards to the recent developments little has changed since 2007 concerning the security of women in the country even as some political pressures against them are easing. As of 2010, NPR has gone as far as to label Iraq's women as 'forgotten.' According to NPR:

Girls have a high rate of illiteracy and often drop out of schools due to economic and security reasons. Domestic violence is increasing, as is trafficking in women, and the Iraqi government estimates there are up to 3 million widows in Iraq today.

Sex trafficking, in particular, has been a heavy consequence of war and insecurity in Iraq. Videos on Youtube and reports from 2006 onwards detailed the fate of many jobless Iraqi refugees to Syria and Jordan. Foreign Policy magazine stated in an article this past March: "Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of the Iraqi exiles in Syria had turned to the sex trade for survival. In Damascus, refugees were not permitted to hold jobs. As resources dwindled, many were led into the underground economy. Female-headed households accounted for almost a quarter of the refugees registered with the U.N. refugee agency. Widowed, divorced, or separated from husbands by the war, many women had children or elderly parents to support. Sex was often their only marketable asset."

Even as recently as August 19th, Sebastian Swett and Cameron Webster wrote a scathing criticism in The New Republic of the US government for not having taken steps to secure and help women who have become victims of sex trafficking in Iraq and the State Department lagging in its efforts to protect women. The US government isn't the only accomplice in the problem according to Swett and Webster. Syria and Jordan have done little in terms or policy-making to protect Iraqi women and children who are refugees within their borders. "In fact, rather than finding shelter in Syria or Jordan, some Iraqi prostitutes find themselves arrested and deported to Iraq as criminals, where they are killed to preserve their family's honor." And let's not forget the other accomplices in the sex-trafficking issue: the men who exploit these women. The consumers. The men who pay to go to brothels and clubs and fund the pimps who run the business. They should be publicly shamed, arrested, and tried for participating in modern-day slavery.

The crisis facing Iraqi women in lieu of the Iraq war is a reflection of the greater crisis facing women and children around the world. Sex-trafficking and sex-tourism is big business. It is, in fact, slavery. Men who consume it are funding slavery and encouraging it. Globally, extreme poverty, corrupt government, and poor rule of law in addition to conflict fuel the illicit trade of human beings. This is a massive issue. So massive it should not go ignored and we should not be silent about it.

In Iraq, MADRE along with the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), have set up underground safe houses for women who have been victims of sexual crimes or are fleeing violence. "The Safe Houses project and the Underground Railroad for Iraqi Women provide emergency shelter for women in danger of 'honor killings', and other forms of domestic violence and sex trafficking," writes Dr. Judith Rich in The Huffington Post.

A new book by advocates against the sex trade, Half The Sky: How to Change the World, details ways in which individuals can get involved in the anti-slavery campaign and help rehabilitate the victims. One amazing woman, Sunitha Krishnan, a former victim of the sex trade herself, by the force of her own personality and sense of justice founded Prajwala and has succeeded in rescuing and rehabilitating more than five thousand women back into society in India.

The following is an impassioned appeal by Krishnan to people globally to stop sex trafficking and to stop the slavery of women and children as featured on TED. I urge you all to watch this clip of Krishnan's talk. Doing nothing is unacceptable.