Somehow
Blind fingers-in-ears lalalala denial is interesting to see. It is not so because it cannot be so because it would be bad if it were so therefore it is not so; do you understand.
Violence against women is sadly a global human rights issue and occurs within all communities, regardless of race, class, culture and faith. It is troubling when this occurs in some communities because the media are quick to focus the story on “issues in the community” that have led to Aqsa’s slaying. The story becomes about how some communities have a greater tolerance for violence against women.
Funny old media, focusing on what appears to be the grim reality of what led to Aqsa’s murder; they should have ignored all that and pretended it was inexplicable and random. And how terrible that the story should become about the fact that some ‘communities’ have a greater tolerance for violence against women, even if it is in fact the case that some ‘communities’ have a greater tolerance for violence against women. Why? Well, because…because they’re communities, so they must be nice, right? (No one ever talks about the fascist community or the racist community or the Neo-Nazi community – so all communities are nice – surely.)
The discussion of this homicide as stemming from issues of a “clash of cultures, faith, the hijab” misrepresents the issue of violence against women. Violence is about the power and control of women by men.
Uh…yeah, violence is indeed about the power and control of women by men, and religion very often provides the pretext for exactly that. If the hijab were not about the power and control of women by men, then why would women get beaten up in so many places for refusing to wear it?
The assertion that this violence reflects the community and Islam is rooted in both racism and Islamophobia. Violence is not a value in any culture or faith community.
Really. Any evidence for that claim? None that’s offered, at any rate – it’s pure assertion. ‘Violence is not a value in any culture’ – well where does it come from then? Godalmighty – does Cindy Cowan think all violence is a product of epilepsy or something? The assertion that violence is not a value in any culture is rooted in a near-deranged level of denial.
Media preoccupation with this young woman’s background supports the myth that the incidence of violence and murder of women is somehow greater in these “other” communities, but this is false.
False, is it? Any evidence for that claim? No again. Which is depressing, because this Interim Place that Cindy Cowan is the executive director of is a women’s shelter. She kind of needs to know something about this subject, and she appears to know less than nothing; she appears to know minus-facts, anti-facts. She seems to think that the incidence of violence against and murder of women is exactly the same in all ‘communities’ as opposed to being ‘somehow’ (that ‘somehow’ is interesting – as if she can’t even figure out how such a thing could possibly be, even in principle) greater in some than in others. She seems to live in an alternate universe.
OB,
I seldom link to other sites, but PP has a live thread on this which is worth checking out (disregarding some tedious parisan stuff).
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1586
In this case, I can (sort of) see what she is trying to say but I don’t think she’s said it well and I’m not sure that this is the right incident to use.
I think the idea is that the focus on very specific issues (hijab) may suggest that, if that problem is solved, everything else will be okay.
Dont you just love these root cause liberals? nothing is ever any ones fault! what a steaming great pile of doody that letter is.
As a Muslim apostate let me say that the post-colonial Ciny Cowan is ignorant about coercion, violence, and suppression in Islamic societies. So much for her ranting.
But what amazes me is that she buys lock stock and barrell the fable that the Qur’an and the apostle are infalliable, because they come from god. Since when have leftists become so fundamentally religious to believe in this higwash?
She will blame everyone, including the citizens of Canada, in order to defend and apologize for Islam. But why? How does absolving an inherently primitive, unreformed, violent religion with a bloody and shoddy past help her or the cause of human or women’s rights?
It seems a remarkably odd argument for her to make – that violence against women is equally prevalent in all cultures – a very defeatist one.
If it were really true – if no culture has succeeded in reducing its incidence any more than any other – then that would suggest it is something so intrinsic to human social arrangements that absolutely nothing can be done about it.
Yet I very much doubt that this is what she really thinks. If she were to be asked whether it is necessary to effect cultural change, to tackle this issue – she would almost certainly say yes. But if you accept that culture plays a part (as I believe it does) then it would be a most odd state of affairs if there were no differences between the many existing cultures of the world.
Greetings Mostafa! Apostates rock.
But why, indeed – I’m always wondering.
“In other words the unfortunate woman has backed herself into a corner that is completely untenable for a feminist.”
Er, surely just “untenable”, full stop.
Mostafa I also scratch my head in wonder about the way some liberals seem to ignore obvious unpleasant facts that conflict with their core beliefs,G wrote an intresting piece a while back about walled of beliefs that might explain it?
“Her letter is so formulaic, so knee-jerky, so automatic and repetitive, that it hints at a well-protected set of robotic responses.”
That it certainly does. But I’ve found that robotic responses don’t have to be internally coherent. If one was to refocus the question on whether there was a requirement to change western culture in order to combat violence against women, she would, I’m pretty sure, answer in the affirmative. (She wouldn’t be wrong either – one only has to look at studies showing a willingness to blame the victims of rape for what happens to them – such as Amnesty International’s last year)
Her problem is the ingrained “never criticise other cultures” attitude of certain parts of the left leaves her unable to contemplate that there could be – and are – entire cultures with much greater problems in this area than our own. It’s not just a male/female violence problem either. Compare, for instance, homophobia in the west, with how homosexuals are treated in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
(Mind you, there is a weird (and I would suggest ultra-conservative) strand of feminist thought that actually quite admires some aspects of islamic culture’s attitude towards women, or rather, sexuality.
Truly depressing. On the other hand, this article seems to say it a bit more like it should be said:
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2007/12/15/4725863.php
DENIAL IS SICKENING
Most Canadian Muslim leaders immediately condemned what had happened but it didn’t take very long for the usual suspects to explain on radio and television that the tragedy had nothing to do with the Muslim faith and that all religions contain extremism. Islam, we were told, is a religion of peace.
Which is probably just what the owner of a Christian bookstore in Gaza thought three months ago as he was murdered and his shop firebombed. Or Danny Pearl, shortly before the American journalist had his head cut off by Islamic terrorists — who, naturally, filmed the whole thing and made sure their chants from the Koran were loud and clear.
Or the wretched gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia sentenced to 200 lashes for daring to be in a car at the time of the crime with a man to whom she was not married or related. Or the women stoned to death for adultery. Or the Iranian men hanged because they were homosexual.
… and more, all very much to the point.
An aside, taken from B&W news section!
“The guardian is able to exercise the same absolute rights and powers and no matter how old or educated the woman is, she has to have a man who is responsible for her.”
I cannot help wondering who in actuality (when the going gets tough) looks after the women/children in Saudi Arabia. Do the guardian’s for example – bearing in mind that they have unqualified civil liberties and privileges over women and children,- cook, clothe, feed, nurture, think, hold their charges hands, do shopping, etc. In addition, when their health fails as they naturally get older and they become as is then expected – incapacitated do these guardians with the enthusiasm and guardian gusto wheel them compassionately around and lovingly care for them like babies. Are they then – I ponder, as demanding in their quest to be in charge of them or are they perhaps hidden away in back rooms of their houses (as is ordinarily wont with women). Alternatively, do men away into enclosed places (akin to that of Goldenbridge) where “men only” can devote their lives to their needs send them? “After all, according to Saudi thought, a woman with no guardian is a problem just waiting to happen.” They unquestionably would not want women & children ‘problems’ on their hands. There are far easier ways out of all that for them -that will instantaneously relieve them of their responsibilities Are there not? Say, like stoning them, crucifying them, starving them to death, beating them to a pulp until their last breathe is gone. So Arab men alone are only considered worthy of holding responsibility for women/children. Heaven help them is all I can say!
The women and children, that is – I am sure the guardian’s are quite okay and do not need any help from women. With all the divine intervention and direction they get from Allah. BTW, another passing thought – who looks after the infirm men? – Are men, as well, responsible for them?