Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Katha Pollitt to France: we are so over

    You should listen to yourself sometime: smug, paunchy, powerful middle-aged men going on about how DSK was just engaging in some typically Gallic flirtation.

  • Sean Carroll on the physics of the immortal soul

    If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

  • A system designed to maim women into submission

    Last year, at a women’s community centre in Kabul I met Hamida.* A Herati, she was staying with relatives in the teeming capital, after her husband left her destitute when he left to go work in Iran, where she suspected he maintained another family. She had been married to him for seven years before divorcing him three years ago. In her married life, she had experienced extraordinary abuse at the hands of both her husband and her in-laws, with whom she lived. After making the courageous decision to leave her husband, she tried to return to her father’s household but was turned away, hence the reason she was boarding with an aunt and an uncle in Kabul, far away from her native Herat. A survivor of domestic violence, a divorcee, illiterate and uneducated, Hamida had lived a tumultuous life and bore the scars of years of drudgery in a joyless marriage.

    Here’s the thing about Hamida: she’s 17. Sixteen when I met her last spring.

    After her mother died, her father sold her in marriage at the age of seven, in exchange for another family’s seven-year-old girl who became her father’s bride. When the abuse became too much to endure, Hamida fled from her bridal home. She was 14 and had already been a wife for seven years.

    Shunned by all her relatives in Herat, including her own father, she made her way to Kabul where she was taken in by an aunt and uncle who are kind to her but too poor to keep her under their roof indefinitely. But neither can she return to Herat, where she’s considered a disgrace who dishonoured her father by leaving her abusive husband. She had no skills, no work experience and no plan of what to do next. Hamida was being driven mad with anxiety and hopelessness. In the hours I spent talking with Hamida, I never her saw her smile even once. She felt psychologically defeated and could see no reason to continue living.

    For the cultural relativists who would defend child marriage, the story of Hamida and millions of others like her should make it clear that there is nothing to romanticize about the practice of child marriage. It’s a universally miserable and despicable affair, a social structure that sanctifies the sexual abuse of minors and steals childhoods away from unsuspecting little girls who are rarely privy to what is about to happen to them. Child marriage denies education to millions of girls, and assaults the bodies of girls who end up pregnant before their own bodies are fully developed, and they frequently die in pregnancy or childbirth as a result. When they survive pregnancy, they have children who are often unhealthy or malnourished, and have a greater chance of dying in infancy. And yet despite these well established consequences, globally one in every seven girls is forced into marriage before the age of 15, translating to 100 million girls being married in the next decade, or “about 25,000 children married every day for the next 10 years,” according to one estimate.

    A recent photo essay in Foreign Policy on child marriage in Afghanistan shows through image the surreal world where children have real weddings rather than make-believe weddings. It’s a world where children are paraded around as adults, draped in white wedding gowns, teetering in oversized highheels, and adorned with gaudy make-up. It’s not a game of dress-up, but a ritual wherein tiny, innocent daughters are handed over by their parents to older men who, after the wedding ceremony, will permanently traumatize them by raping their small bodies, an experience no one will take the time to explain or prepare them for in advance.

    And yet, it’s a ritual fiercely protected by numerous societies in which entire communities are complicit, despite minimum marriage ages for girls in most countries of the world, as Cynthia Gorney writes in a recent National Geographic article examining the persistence of the practice in several countries, including Afghanistan:

    Forced early marriage thrives to this day in many regions of the world arranged by parents for their own children, often in defiance of national laws, and understood by whole communities as an appropriate way for a young woman to grow up when the alternatives, especially if they carry a risk of her losing her virginity to someone besides her husband, are unacceptable.

    Child marriage is firmly anchored in the notion that the purity of a community is manifested in the modesty and asexualism of women and girls so that they serve as a kind of symbolic barometer of “honour.” Meanwhile, men are largely free not only to seek pleasure in their sex lives but also in many cases to venture into the darker sides of their sexual urges, acting on perversions that are written off with a wink and a knowing smile, men just being men you know. It’s within such a system that men can rape and women rape victims are then punished for having extramarital sex (zina), such as was mandated by the Hudood Ordinance of Zia-al-haq’s Pakistan. And it’s within such a system that the need to protect a girl’s virginity until marriage (or even just to avoid rumours of prosmicuity) trumps the need to protect her from rape and sexual molestation by an adult male.

    This is very obviously a situation where an obsession with reputation and modesty has spun into nonsensical madness, where entire communities are behaving delusionally, blind to anything but the fear that a girl from their family, their street, their neighbourhood might show too much skin, look at a boy the wrong way, sleep with someone without being married to them, or even worse, fall in love of her own volition. In their blindness, the piercing physical and emotional pain that child marriage (which is inseparable from child rape) imposes on daughters that families purport to love, and the broader harm that child marriage brings to societies who disable their female populations from being contributing agents of their society, is considered a casualty sacrificed towards a greater purpose.

    The wrongheaded worship of women’s modesty and premarital virginity, and the association of women’s bodies to cultural honour and purity must be unravelled, and the tragedy of the continued practice of child marriage exposed for what it is: a guise for male pedophiliac behaviour and a system designed to maim women into submission. In the West, we must cease being so polite about a cultural practice we are often loathe to criticize for fear of offending others. And in Afghanistan, religious leaders must publicly and unequivocally shame the practice, in a country where the average female marriage age is 15. The Afghan Government must act aggressively to bring to justice adults who perpetuate child marriage and to publicize the harmful impact of child marriage on girls’ health and on the children they bear, as well as on the social and economic standing of communities.

    Child marriage is a health and human rights crisis that has seamlessly transitioned from the Taliban’s Government of Misogyny into the Afghanistan on the receiving end of billions of dollars of foreign aid and the site of a plethora of altruistic efforts to improve the lot of women and girls. It should not be happening under the noses of an international community that says it wants to strengthen women’s rights in Afghanistan. It should not be occurring with impunity in a country that has signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and which has a Constitution that says there shall be gender equality and a minimum marriage age of 16 years for females. But it’s occurring and it’s thriving, and it’s a travesty we should wipe clean from this earth.

    *A pseudonym.

  • A Miracle in Petrignano

    A luminous figure showed up on a cell phone. It’s Mary! The miracle would be if it were Loki.

  • I never can resist

    God it’s a gorgeous afternoon. Bright and clear so that all the new leaves and flowers all but hit you in the face with saturated color.

    Somebody did a little parody letter/award to Chris Stedman, the point of which is that gnu atheists are picking on him. Wayull, after that hatchet-job by Karla McLaren on his blog, is it any wonder? If you post stuff saying gnu atheists are violent bullies, gnu atheists may react. Them’s the breaks.

    To thank you, we’d like to give you the Watch Yourself award. With this award, every socially responsible cause you, your immediate family, or anyone you tag or like on Facebook or Twitter, gets involved in will be appropriated as a debate about Atheism, specifically from a New Atheist perspective. You want to promote LGBT issues? Don’t worry, New Atheists will be there to critique those causes on the basis of how inclusive they are to New Atheists…If you prefer, we can just assign a Task Force of New Atheists to follow you around with a megaphone, helping to contextualize everything that you do in terms of New Atheism, whether or not you ascribe to that movement. 

    [shrug] What I said. Chris does tell gnu atheists what’s wrong with them a lot, so some of us push back. So it goes.

    And if the idea is that we’re bossy – well what is he? Check out this “event” at something called “Faith House”:

    (F)a(i)theist: How One Atheist Learned to Overcome the Religious-Secular Divide, and Why Atheists and the Religious Must Work Together

    He’s always telling us what we must do. Well, I don’t take orders from him, oddly enough, so to work off my feelings of rebellion and insubordination, I sometimes dispute what he says, sometimes on Facebook. [shrug]

    It’s funny how the idea is apparently supposed to be about healing divisions and whatnot, but in fact Stedman has created some new divisions. It’s kind of like the deal where people who piss off former friends by the hundreds set themselves up as experts in communication. It’s a lesson to be cautious about what one claims for oneself.

  • Birth control is difficult in Nigeria

    Some people told the BBC that God decides how many children they have and so it would be wrong to try to limit the number of births.

  • Moscow authorities ban Gay Pride event

    Amnesty International is calling on the Moscow authorities to overturn their ban on the city’s gay pride event, which had been set to take place on 28 May.

  • The stealth assault on abortion rights

    The flourishing of these church-based pregnancy counselling centres fits almost too neatly into the “big society” agenda.

  • Tories whittling away women’s rights

    These attacks are often dressed up in the language of compassion and hand-wringing arguments that women’s choices need to be confiscated for their own protection.

  • Johann Hari’s podcast

    He takes on the Pope – and argues with Ann Atkins, the hardline Christian, about why violence against gay people is rising again.

  • I see Spain, I see France

    It’s extraordinary what the Telegraph considers news.

    Michelle Obama fights to control summer dress in windy London

    Seriously.

    What next? Michelle Obama eats a cress sandwich? Michelle Obama moves her head from left to right? Michelle Obama blinks?

    Well let’s not hastily accuse the Telegraph of triviality. Of course the story was newsworthy, for the very pressing reason that if Michelle Obama had lost the fight with her dress, the Telegraph would have been able to look up her skirt. Obviously that’s a significant news item in anybody’s book. Granted, it didn’t happen, but even the unrealized potential is newsworthy. In fact why not just skip the risks attendant on the weather and ask her to pull up her skirt herself? That would make an even better story! Playful, friendly, trans-Atlantic – it would be great. Why not ask her what color her knickers are?

    What are you looking at? Listen, if women don’t want to be sniggered and leered out, they shouldn’t leave the house. If they step outside, they’re fair game. Everybody knows that.

  • God is punishing the US for allowing abortion

    So he smites Tuscaloosa and Joplin, abortion capitals of the universe.

  • Let one flower bloom

    Gnu-haters are bad enough when they just say it, but when they say it and then later say they didn’t, they’re worse. I got into a disagreement of that kind with Stephen Prothero on a thread of Jennifer Michael Hecht’s at Facebook. Remember Prothero? I did a post about an article of his in December 2009. Lots of people did. It was the one about how gnu atheism is angry and male but women will maybe fix it up.

    He said I got him all wrong.

    My point is that there are TWO ways to argue for atheism, rather than one. (Actually, there are many more, but two will do for present purposes.) The people who lit into me afterwards (you included) were/are trying to impose ONE way of doing atheism–an imposition I opposed then, and still do.

    Right, except that that’s not what he said. This is what he said:

    Today, most Americans associate unbelief with the old-boys network of New Atheists, but there is a new generation of unbelievers emerging, some of them women and most of them far friendlier than Hitchens and his ilk. Although the arguments of angry men gave this movement birth, it could be the stories of women that allow it to grow up.

    I heard two very different arguments at this event. The first was the old line of the New Atheists: Religious people are stupid and religion is poison, so the only way forward is to educate the idiots and flush away the poison. The second was less controversial and less utopian: From this perspective, atheism is just another point of view, deserving of constitutional protection and a fair hearing. Its goal is not a world without religion but a world in which believers and nonbelievers coexist peaceably, and atheists are respected, or at least tolerated.These competing approaches could not be further apart. One is an invitation to a duel. The other is a fair-minded appeal for recognition and respect. Or, to put it in terms of the gay rights movement, one is like trying to turn everyone gay and the other is like trying to secure equal rights for gay men and lesbians.

    See? He’s unmistakably not saying there are two (or several) good ways to do atheism; he’s saying there’s currently a bad shitty nasty way to do atheism and there’s also a good respectful nice way to do atheism and the latter should replace the former. That’s not debatable – it’s on the page.

    Yet he felt entitled to say I was misrepresenting him.

    I prefer my way of doing arguing to his way of doing arguing.

  • Afghanistan: Taliban kill head of girls’ school

    The education director in Logar said the teacher had received several death threats from the Taliban warning him not to teach girls.

  • Telegraph: hey! you can see up Michelle Obama’s skirt!

    Huh huh huh, really, you can, it’s windy, huh huh huh, look, huh huh huh, news, skirt, look, huh huh.

  • Vatican to ponder condoms and AIDS

    So that this morally bankrupt pack of child-rapists can tell the world not to use condoms but to get AIDS and die, instead.

  • Vatican continues campaign to prevent condom use

    Article in L’Osservatore Romano says condom campaigns increase the possibility of AIDS infection by promoting a false sense of security.

  • UK: anti-abortion group to advise govt on sexual health

    Some secular organisations have been growing increasingly worried that Tory ministers are opening up government to the agendas of faith-based groups.

  • They were at least eleven

    Miranda did a close reading of the US Conference of Catholic bishops’ report on child sexual abuse.

    Feast on this one item:

    One of the most egregious aspects of this report is that the researchers arbitrarily redefine “pedophilia” as sexual abuse of victims that were ten years old or younger at the time, despite the fact that the DSM sets the cutoff age at thirteen.

    And guess what the result of that is? It changes the stats! Radically. It makes the problem seem a whole lot smaller than it is.

     if the researchers had used the DSM‘s guidelines, the percentage would jump from 22% to almost 73%.

    Extraordinary, isn’t it? Just arbitrarily change the definition and poof, the whole mess all but disappears – and the report gets the fun of scolding the media for using the unchanged definition:

    Media reports about Catholic priests who sexually abused minors often mistakenly have referred to priests as pedophiles. According to the DSM IV-TR, pedophilia is characterized by fantasies, urges, or behaviors about sexual activity with a prepubescent child that occurs for a significant period of time. Yet, the Nature and Scope data indicated that nearly four out of five minors abused were at least eleven years old at the time of the abuse. Though development happens at varying ages for children, the literature generally refers to eleven and older as an age of pubescence or postpubescence (53).

    At which point children simply long to be raped by priests.