Tag Archives: domestic violence

On the murder of Tabitha Stepple: Irresponsible media representation of violence against women.

Posted on February 29, 2012 | 10 Comments

Here are some excerpts from an insensitive and poorly researched article by Deborah Tetley at The National Post (Canada):

“This is hard for us because Derek will be missed, but we feel so much grief for all those families, too,” said Fay, 20.

“So, tonight we are trying to enjoy and remember Derek for the guy he was and not how he went, because we don’t know that guy.”

“He could finish your basement, then tune your car up and act as your hunting tour guide,” said Fay. “He knew how to do everything and would do anything he could for anyone at any time. A shirt-off-his-back kind of guy. That’s why none of this makes sense to us.”

Here are excerpts from another insensitive and poorly researched article by Nadia Moharib at The Calgary Sun.

“Friends say he was a popular young man, the type who wouldn’t even pick a fight.”

“Everybody is making him out to be a villain,” said a close friend who didn’t want to be named out of respect to Jensen’s family.

“And he’s not.”

Below is a blogger’s empassioned, succinct and accurate response to journalistic pieces (such as those by Nadia Moharib and Deborah Tetley) that are an embarrassment to the profession. What is most frustrating about the two examples given above, is the fact that they are not only written by public educators, but by women.

“When women are murdered, the most likely perpetrator is her intimate partner. In all cases of domestic violence, women are the victims 85% of the time, and women who are killed by their spouses are most often murdered after separation. It is absolutely ridiculous to read an article about Derek Jensen being a great guy who “shockingly” murdered three people and then committed suicide. This was not a random attack, it was not a mental breakdown, it was a case of spousal violence. Jensen murdered his girlfriend and shot the three others who were with her. The article’s mention of Jensen’s “broken heart” is laughably irrelevant, and does not even come close to justifying his violent murder of his ex-girlfriend. Additionally, it was not a “mix of booze and rage or something” that caused Jensen commit these murders, as his close friend speculated. Call it what it was: domestic violence. Ignorantly disregarding this fact does absolutely nothing to help the thousands of Canadian women who are abused or killed by their intimate partner every year.”

************

My thoughts on media representation of violence against women.

I guess the fact that Derek Jensen shot at four people including himself and killed three (including himself) is a minor detail to the teams at The National Post. What is this perverted obsession that media outlets have with representing CLEAR cases of stalking, partner violence and eventual murder as something random that just “makes no sense”? Are the writers of such articles ignorant? Dishonest? Stupid? All of the above? What about the editors that permit such yellow journalism to be published? What happened to their sense of duty towards the public? To educate? To present facts? Particularly on matters that affect their daughters, mothers, sisters, wives, friends and girlfriends? If you read the details of Tabitha Stepple’s relationship with Derek Jensen, it becomes patently obvious (to someone who has made an effort to educate his/herself on the most pervasive kind of abuse in the entire world) that what Derek Jensen did, DID follow a pattern. It makes absolute sense that his behaviour went from controlling, abusive and threatening, to physically violent and murderous. If you don’t wish to take my word for it, watch this video (and the remaining two parts). It will only take up 15 minutes of your time in total.

All the research is available yet so many individuals and media outlets are either ignorant to or deliberately misrepresenting violence against women as some “random” “inexplicable” act. Quite frankly, I can’t say which is worse. Why is this happening? I think we all know why. As my husband describes it, it’s the elephant in the room. 

There’s Lundy Bancroft’s book “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men”,  there’s Sut Jhally’s documentary “Dreamworlds 3″, there’s Jackson Katz’s book “The Macho Paradox” , there are his videos/documentaries such as “Tough Guise”. These resources are all designed for public education. What more information do people want? Everything is a click away. How lazy and irresponsible can the media industry get? Why the hell aren’t editors at The National Post and the authors of articles that are so devoid of ethics, asking themselves “WOULD I WRITE SUCH A GLOWING REPORT ABOUT THE MURDERER OF MY CHILD?” Somehow, I don’t think they would.

This is not a call to start a media lynching of men who were a product of a society we all contribute to. This is a call for journalists, editors and media outlets of all kinds to do everything in their power to understand intimate partner violence since they are contributing to the education of the masses.

Tabitha Stepple. SOURCE: Yahoo News

This post is dedicated to Tabitha Stepple. A young woman who – regardless of what the ill-informed might think or say – was blameless in her demise and the demise of her friends. This was NOT a case of “temporary insanity” or a “crime of passion”. If we as a society were not so hell-bent on blaming women for all of the world’s woes (including their own murder), if we were not so pig-headed and in denial about what the realities of intimate violence actually are, perhaps Tabitha and many others would be alive today.

Tabitha was a victim of not only an abusive and violent young man, but a society and culture that normalises behaviours like jealousy as expressions of “love”…and murder as an acceptable outcome of “heartbreak”. Society does this through negative and inaccurate depictions of masculinity and relationships not only in movies, music videos, video games and patriarchal interpretations of religious teachings, but through irresponsible journalism. Journalism that instead of explaining the causes and solutions of violence against women, seeks to paint murderers of women as some inexplicable anomaly, a bleeding lamb that must have been wronged by women or society and is therefore justified in murdering a woman. Shame on Nadia Moharib, shame on Deborah Tetley. Shame on every journalist and media outlet that reinforces the idea that heartbreak is an acceptable reason to kill a woman. IT IS NOT. As public educators, you have a duty to know what you are talking about it before you type or publish a single word. It seems that journalists and editors will not understand the gravity of their irresponsibility unless they are unfortunate enough to be touched by the brutal violence and misery of intimate partner violence that Tabitha’s family and friends have had to endure. I would never wish that upon my worst enemy.

It is time for the widespread ignorance and denial on the subject of intimate violence to be formally addressed and it’s time for us to educate ourselves on the most pervasive form of abuse and violence of our times. No-one else is going to do it for us.

Related post

***

Further information: For those who would like an example of responsible journalism on the subject of intimate partner abuse and violence, here is an excellent example, by Joanne Richard at the Winnepeg Sun.

“Rethinking Charm” by Lundy Bancroft. Bancroft comments on Facebook “Charming people tend to be instantly appealing, but as often as not, they are trouble. Here’s why.”

***

Note for readers wishing to republish any of my posts: Thank you for reading. Please respect my intellectual property and my copyright and leave all the identifying information intact. Feel free to “re-blog” and share my work, but please do not reprint or republish my work in any other format without my permission. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

→ 10 Comments

Posted in Violence against women

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“I’m not okay with Chris Brown performing at the Grammys and I’m not sure why you are.”

Posted on February 14, 2012 | Leave a comment

RE-BLOG: This is an excellent blog post by Sasha Pasulka on the widespread public acceptance of Chris Brown’s return to glory, less than 3 years after being convicted of felony assault against singer, Rihanna.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Sexuality, Uncategorized, US popular culture, Violence against women

Tagged , , , , , ,

“Do you think Asian women are treated better by non Asian men?”

Posted on February 10, 2012 | 11 Comments

The point that many of us appear to be missing

So, I can kind of, sort of, understand why a question like this might be posed on Nihal’s Asian Network  phone in. There is a widely held perception in much of Europe and North America that Asian, Latin, [fill in the blank] men are inherently patriarchal, inherently misogynistic and inherently more violent than non-Asian men. In other words, no matter what they do, they are biologically and culturally predestined to behave a certain way towards women.

Having had mostly negative experiences with Asian men myself, both as friends and as  partners, I used to subscribe to this idea once upon a time. This began to change however when I started to read up on the literature on patriarchal values, misogyny, abuse and domestic violence. I began to reject cultural relativist claptrap that predestines all non-white men to a life of oppressing women and found that the answers lie elsewhere. I started to realise that thinking about the issue subjectively wasn’t going to get me very far in understanding the whys and hows. So I turned to academic research.

In the UK, there appears to be a dire, dire lack of critical thinking among the general public about issues such as gender, patriarchy and violence against women.  We fall so easily into culture and race generalisations to explain away phenomena in a way that not only pretends to be “culturally accommodating” but is inherently racist. Turning the mistreatment of women of colour by men of colour into a “cultural” phenomenon essentially removes responsibility from the perpetrators of the injustice and implies that women of colour should never hope for better treatment from their male counterparts on the basis that it is “cultural”.

Yes, as a British woman of Asian origin, it does seem like I come across a high incidence of domestic violence, psychological and emotional abuse and strong patriarchal and misogynistic values in Asian communities. I would not deny that for a second. But surface discussions about “Are white men better than brown men” are simply a way of finding convenient excuses and not real solutions. Is it possible that the difference between Asian and non-Asian men is the level of tolerance that their communities have for negative, abusive and violent  behaviour towards women? Probably.

The point that most people on Nihal’s show seemed to completely miss, was that being Asian or Latin or African does not somehow predetermine how much or how little of a douchebag you are. Hence, the gentleman who called up and said that Indian men were “the best” might want to explain to me how he can defend that position when practices such as Sati and Female infanticide still persist in a widespread fashion across India and forced marriages and caste based discrimination still exist within British Indian communities?

If culture, colour, race or religion could predetermine the quality of a man’s behaviour towards women, then defences  such as  ”I beat my wife because it’s part of my culture/religion etc” would be acceptable in court.  A misguided New Jersey judge actually allowed such an argument to be presented and ruled in favour of the defendant who had repeatedly beaten and raped his wife and claimed that it was part of his religion. Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the decision was overturned, but it just goes to show where we can end up when we entertain the “brown men are inherently bad” line of reasoning. We need to dig deeper.

“You can’t be what you can’t see.”

Men in general or of a particular race are not “inherently” anything. Just as women in general or of a particular race are not “inherently” anything.  We’re “inherently” just human.  It is what we see around us that shapes our attitudes towards the opposite sex and shapes how we seek to establish and maintain relationships. What does differ from culture to culture, are the boundaries within which we operate. Hence, if I were in the shoes of an Asian boy growing up in Britain, and it just so happened that I rarely saw an equal, mutually respectful relationship between an Asian man and a woman, I might learn something from that. If I saw that most Asian women were housewives (which I have the utmost respect for might I add), were responsible for picking up after the entire family and did all the housework with little or no recognition, I might (in the shoes of a grown Asian man) think that this is “normal” and “acceptable” treatment of a woman. If I grew up seeing my mother being barked at by my father while she remains quiet and submissive out of fear, then again, it’s no surprise that I may (in the position of an adult Asian man) end up modelling my own relationships on this power imbalance. What we perceive to be “normal” in relationships is significantly informed by how we see our parents interact.

“Bangladeshi and Pakistani women had the highest female economic inactivity rates (77 per cent and 68 per cent respectively). The majority of these women were looking after their family or home. Within each ethnic group women were more likely than men to be economically inactive.” (Source: Office of National Statistics (2005) “Focus on Ethnicity and Identity Summary Report”)

In the year 2012, why are such a high proportion of British Asian women still being expected to adhere to restrictive gender roles and dedicate all of their resources, intellect and ambition to the whims of everyone else but themselves?

Don’t get me wrong, I adore my husband and have wonderful in-laws. I would happily go out of my way for either of them. But I am lucky, because I can choose whether I want to cook an elaborate meal for my husband or whether I do the laundry or not depending on my workload. When he’s busy, I help him out, when I’m busy, he helps me out. We have never sat down and discussed who’s doing what in the long term, yet it all just falls into place. Why? Because we see each other as equals. We are sensitive to one another’s commitments and supportive of one another when one of us is busy with work and the other is not. Something that few British Asian women ever experience in their lifetime. Why? I’m getting to that.

We are all “inherently” human, however if Asian or any other communities have such a high tolerance for the subordinate status of women and do not respond collectively to such behaviours with disgust, condemnation and a strong will to protect the abused target? Then this is what makes the difference between how Asian and non-Asian men (in general) tend to treat Asian women.

“It is important to note that research has shown that men who have abusive mothers do not tend to develop especially negative attitudes towards females, but men who have abusive fathers do; the disrespect that abusive men show their female partners and their daughters is often absorbed by their sons.” - Lundy Bancroft (2002), p.41

I am not for one second suggesting that we should see everything about non-Asian cultures as superior. I don’t think in binary and neither should any of us. I am however suggesting that a culture that saves its best parking spaces for the disabled and sets up mechanisms to prevent forced marriage of its Asian citizens abroad definitely has aspects worth holding in high esteem, as compared to the culture that treats disabilities with level of disdain and deems violence and mistreatment of women as something “cultural” that is to be tolerated.

We know for a fact that other than a handful of matriarchal societies, the mistreatment of women and violence against women exists in every society and culture on earth. And contrary to popular perceptions, it transcends social class, occupation, education and financial capacity. However, this does not absolve Asian communities of their responsibility to respond to violence against women and misogyny in a serious and just manner.

“Among my clients I have had: numerous doctors, including two surgeons; many successful businesspeople, including owners and directors of large companies; about a dozen college professors; several lawyers; a prominent – and very mellow sounding – radio personality; clergypeople; and two well known professional athletes. One of my violent clients had spent every Thanksgiving for the past ten years volunteering at his local soup kitchen. Another was a publicly visible staff member of a major international human rights organization. The cruelty and destructiveness that these men were capable of would have stunned their communities had they known” – Lundy Bancroft (2002), p.69-70

We all need to move away from stereotypical presumptions about misogyny and violence against women based on generalisations about race, religion or culture and focus on the differences in cultural and community responses to such phenomena. Asian men aren’t the problem. Community responses to the mistreatment of women are the problem. They are inadequate and lacking in moral courage.

“Look pretty and shut up.”

Finally, I cannot end this post without acknowledging a lesser talked about but equally destructive form of misogyny which exists among many Asian women. Known among many Asians as “Saas-Bahu” complex (Mother in law – Daughter in law complex), this is a pattern of behaviour that I see repeatedly in cultures where women are powerless in their marriages, in their families and in their communities. It is compounded by the fact that many famous Indo-Pakistani TV soaps (or “drama serials” as they are referred to within Asian communities) act as a step by step guide on how to become a conniving, scheming woman and how to plot against other women out of your powerlessness. The fact that so many Asian women in the West (including my own mother) watch these programmes as their sole point of reference with regards to their culture, only confirms their beliefs that their daughters, grand-daughters, nieces, sisters, daughter-in-laws must not only wake up looking like the front cover of “Stardust” magazine, play the role of “Sati Savitri” (a demure, virginal woman who is uniquely devoted to her husband), but that they must be almost solely responsible for every domestic duty there is whilst putting their own ambitions and dreams in the dustbin.

The level of destruction which female misogyny wreaks must not be underestimated. Add to this the fear of polygamy that many British Muslim women face, et voila, another reason for women to hate one another and scheme against any woman deemed remotely younger, smarter, slimmer or more attractive than oneself. Deeply patriarchal cultures destroy the fabric of communities. They destroy any chance of real bonds of sisterhood between women and leave them feeling insecure, powerless and mistrustful of other women.

The recent Maya Khan fiasco in Pakistan is another example of Asian women scheming against Asian women and thus, perpetrating misogyny. This was an incident where Maya Khan and her “ghairat brigade” (honour brigade) went around a Karachi park in an attempt to name and shame unmarried couples. Faces were not pixellated and people were filmed despite being told that the cameras were off. In the end, a worldwide wave of internet activism resulted in the presenter and her team being fired and the show being cancelled. It was a victory for every free-thinking Pakistani and excellent parodies of her behaviour started to crop up on the www. But the point is, you cannot make amends for the pound of flesh you’ve already taken. Khan and her team cannot undo the fact that the people whose faces were shown are  now potentially exposed to a heightened risk of honour crime being perpetrated against them.

So essentially, female misogyny in Asian cultures is just as damaging as the misogyny of Asian males. It supports the deeply unjust values of the community and leaves women with nowhere to turn for solidarity and support. As long as these destructive views remain unchallenged and anything that promotes equality is seen as a “Western” concept, Asian women such as myself will find partners from outside the community (not that there’s anything wrong with this. Ethno-cultural mixing rocks!) My point is, even if anecdotally speaking, we find that it is true that Asian women are treated better by non-Asian men, when we ask “why?” we need to move away from notions of “white men are better than brown men”. As tempting as such answers might be, they’re not very likely to address the problem. What we should be talking about, is why so many British Asian communities blame all of their problems on their youth and the influence of “Western values” when it is precisely these values considered to be “Western” that are making the lives of many brave Asian women (and men) remotely bearable?

Societies that have evolved to hold the human rights paradigm in high regard have no place for selective abhorrence. Hence, elders who purport to teach “good traditional values” within Asian communities cannot pick and choose which injustices are bad and which are acceptable based on the gender of the victim. All injustice is unacceptable.

It’s high time for elders within British Asian communities to stop pointing fingers and take a long hard look at themselves and what they’re contributing to the cultures of their communities. It’s time to search deep for some moral courage and solidarity against violence, disrespect or mistreatment of any kind, regardless of whether the victim is “just a woman” or not.

***

Note for readers who may be suffering domestic abuse: I am not an expert on matters of violence against women or domestic abuse (which is more than just physical abuse). See the definition here. If you are in a situation where you feel you may be suffering domestic abuse, whether that is emotional, psychological or physical and have no-one to turn to, please do not hesitate to drop me an email at opinionista.wordpress@gmail.com.

I am not qualified to advise anyone on such matters, however I can signpost you to some excellent individuals, organisations and resources that could be of help to you. Stay strong. You’re not alone.

Note for readers wishing to republish any of my posts: Thank you for reading. Please respect my intellectual property and my copyright and leave all the identifying information intact. Feel free to “re-blog” and share my work, but please do not reprint or republish my work in any other format without my permission. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

→ 11 Comments

Posted in Asian culture, Cultural relativism, Pakistan, Pakistani culture, Religion, Violence against women

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Femicide. Not “honour” killing – The exoticisation of the Shafia case and trivialisation of the murder of women.

Posted on January 31, 2012 | 1 Comment
Shafia murder victims

Victims in the Shafia femicide. From left: Rona Amir Mohammad, 52; Zainab Shafia, 19; Sahar Shafia, 17; and Geeti Shafia, 13. SOURCE: Montreal Gazette.

Much of the discourse surrounding the Shafia murder case has circled around the use of the term “honour killing”. In the CBC radio episode Shafia-Muslim Reax, Alia Hogben (Canadian Council of Muslim Women) quite rightly states her dispondence with regards to the use of the term. She states that she would prefer for such killings to be referred to as “Femicide”. The murder of women or misogynistic murders. I happen to agree. Tribal patriarchy is alive and well everywhere. Domestic abuse and murder are universal problems however there are some cultural contrasts. Community acceptance and responses to such acts differs, as well as the fact that  Femicide among conservative Muslims (and other South Asian cultures) is often perpetrated by more than one person. In this case the entire immediate family. To make matters worse, perpetrators of such crimes in these communities are often not sufficiently condemned by their peers. In the radio piece above, you will first hear the prosecutor Gerard Laarhuis being heckled by (what I can only assume) are members of communities where patriarchal values are strongly at play. Their rejection that the Shafia case was indeed a case of first degree murder, despite all of the evidence, is testament to that.

Shahla Khan Salter (Muslims for Progressive Values) emphasises that femicide is not a religious issue but a cultural one. I partly agree. “Honour killings” have  existed before Islam, and they have and do exist in non-Muslim societies. Until quite recently they happened with a degree of regularity in European Mediterranean countries, because like Muslim cultures, those cultures too buy into the honour/shame dichotomy. We see the same among Middle Eastern Christians, and in some African countries with Christian majorities. Murders of this nature are perpetrated in Latin America, and they happen in India (and non-Muslim Indian communities in the West) – again because honour/shame is a prominent cultural theme. In all these cultures, most of this “honour” (of men, families, tribes etc) is bound to the (actual or perceived) sexual behaviour of women.

Femicides are not Islamically sanctioned

For those who seek to disassociate such murders from Islam through stating that “honour killing” are not a feature of Islam, this not so easy to do. How does one explain that the religious establishments in many Muslim majority countries openly support merely nominal sentencing for these crimes throughout the Middle East? Jordanian liberals have been trying for years to nullify a clause that allows for reduced sentencing in the cases of honour crimes. Who opposes this most vociferously? The clerical establishment. The Mullahs, the Muftis, the Imams. They have been instrumental in drumming up opposition to the nullification of such laws.

The Palestinian Authority uses an even older Jordanian penal code that largely exempts men from being charged altogether. How do Muslims explain the fact that research has shown that in many Muslim majority countries, a significant section of the population thinks that honour crimes are something sanctioned by religion? It’s great that some Muslims can identify and state that this wrong, but this doesn’t mean that every Muslim is in agreement with you.

Despite the fact that this is not an issue that is exclusively Muslim, despite the fact that it is not something that is sanctioned in the Qur’an or other Islamic texts, it is  obtuse and dishonest to proclaim that religion has nothing to do with it. A religion is what its followers do. Islam is no different. When Islamic religious establishments lobby to have lenient laws for perpetrators of honour killings in Muslim majority states, honour killings become part of “religion”. When a significant part of the population thinks honour killing is religiously sanctioned, it is a part of religion. If we are to address the issue of honour crime head on (what I prefer to describe as femicide), we cannot disconnect Islam from these murders, particularly  when 95% of honour killings in the West are perpetrated by Muslim fathers, brothers or their proxies.

Femicides are a cultural phenomenon

Cultural distinctions are important to make, however culture alone is not at the root of the problem. A particular common feature of many cultures is.  There is not a single culture on earth where women aren’t killed for opposing male control. Yet, when a Caucasian woman is killed for cheating on her husband, or a Caucasian highschool boy turns a gun on his schoolmates after his girlfriend broke up with him, that is not referred to as an “honour killing” (nor should it be. It’s femicide. The target is a woman and anyone else who gets in the way is regarded as collateral damage by the perpetrator).

When people of colour commit the murder of a woman, it becomes exoticised and termed an “honour killing” when in fact, we should be least bothered by the feelings of shame/honour the perpetrator(s) harbour and call the crime what it is. A murder of women i.e. femicide.

Comparatively, when a Caucasian man (or in some cases, a woman) is driven by the same values of patriarchy, it is presented as a “tragedy”, “gun rampage” or “random act of violence”. This is what happened in the Tabitha Stepple case in Alberta, Canada. News reports began by talking about the deaths of the two baseball players who were with Tabitha at the time. Interviews of the grieving friends of the players were broadcast first and reports were almost entirely focussed on the loss of two baseball players and their sporting talent as opposed to pointing out that this was a case of femicide. The mention that the key target of this killing was a woman who had recently split from the man who killed her came rather late. Almost as an “addition” to the reports as opposed to the central message. This was a case of violence against women and femicide, yet not a single news report used such terms. (Stepple’s ex boyfriend had tracked her down and turned a gun on her and the two men with her at the time before turning the gun on himself and committing suicide.)

Femicide / Honour crime: Racism and misogyny in the public discourse.

Media outlets in North America need to overcome their innate misogyny and start telling the complete story when a woman is murdered for being a woman, as opposed to focusing on loss of male sporting talent. Lawyers, judges and media outlets, once again, need to fight this rather racist inclination towards labelling the murder of non-Caucasian women as “honour killings” (putting the focus on the perpetrator’s honour and his feelings) whilst simultaneously turning the same acts perpetrated against Caucasian women into “random acts”. To be clear, this does not absolve the Conservative Muslim communities or other communities within which these murders happen, of their responsibility to challenge patriarchal values and to stop femicide from being perpetrated. What it does mean, is that whenever a woman is killed for her free choices, it leads back to the same reasons regardless of the ethnicity or religion of the woman or the perpetrator(s). Patriarchy. An inability to see a woman as a complete human being who is entitled to make personal choices without the permission of the males around her. We must move away from this double standard. Killings of non-Caucasian women are not some exotic anomaly. Murder is murder is murder. We must stop making cultural excuses for the perpetrators of these crimes. Femicide is universal and must be condemned and tackled wherever it is found. However, the universality of femicide does not change the fact that 95% of such murders are perpetrated by Muslims fathers, brothers and their proxies. Femicides are disproportionately, a Muslim problem in the West. Changing the label to focus on what happened to the victim as opposed to the “honour” of the perpetrators does not absolve  Muslim communities of their responsibility to change attitudes and stop femicide from taking place.

The term “honour killing” is a favourite among cultural relativists who subscribe to a racist brand of feminism (or are just plain racist) that creates cultural excuses for crimes such as domestic abuse, Female Genital Mutilation, violence and murder. Australian feminist Virginia Haussegger addresses this quite beautifully in an Intelligence Squared Debate (Melbourne, 2010).  See below.


I would like to take a moment to thank Alia Hogben (whom I mentioned at the beginning of this post) for ignoring the CBC radio interviewer’s rather blatant attempt to silence her on the issue of femicide. Thank you for being brave enough to re- state your disapproval of the use of the term “honour killing”. As long as the term “honour killing” remains mainstream, we are essentially descrating the memory of murdered women by turning their deaths into an exotic story about the perpetrator’s “cultural” honour, as opposed to maintaining a focus on the universal humanity of victim’s of femicide. Murder of women motivated by a hatred of women.

When a man is killed for the colour of his skin (e.g. Stephen Lawrence, UK), do we call it a “racially motivated killing”? Or do we use the word “murder”? My proposal is for femicide to become synonymous in gravity of meaning with the word “murder”, since at present, the term honour killing doesn’t adequately describe the violence, the premeditation or the real motive. The fact that the victim was a woman. ”Killing” detracts from the seriousness of the crime as opposed to the term “murder”. If femicide is understood as murder of women, this will provide less justification to the perpetrators for their feelings of honour since their actions will focus on the demise of the victim and not the feelings of the perpetrator.

Penultimately, despite the universal nature of femicide, I must emphasise firstly, that I do acknowledge that men are also victims of such murders. Due to their sexual orientation, for being involved with someone’s daughter. And this is where we run into problems with the word “femicide”. However, perhaps we need to create new words to refer to all of the victims of such murders as opposed to focusing on the “honour” of the perpetrator?

Finally, I refuse to ignore the fact that some communities and cultures deal with femicide better than others. Conservative Muslim  communities (particularly from South Asia) are certainly not among those. Neither in their homeland, nor when they emigrate to Western democracies. Abusive behaviour towards children, particularly female children as a method of discipline is widely accepted and unchallenged by their peers. Conservative Muslim women from the South Asia (of a variety of ages) are often guilty of deep, deep misogyny towards other females in their proximity. This is visible from the participation of Tooba Yahya (Mohammad Shafia’s wife) in the murders. This prevents young Muslim women in these communities from being able to turn to their mothers or other Muslim women for solace, since many such women will refuse outright, the idea of challenging the patriarchal norms that they have lived with all their lives.

Conservative Muslim women (particularly from South Asia) too have an integral responsibility in stopping this cycle from persisting. If they do not find the courage to reject their subordinate status and the mistreatment of other women as standard, their daughters and grand-daughters will re-live the horrors that they themselves have lived. The more independent a young Muslim woman becomes, the more she educates herself, the more problems she might face at home for voicing her opinions or deviating from cultural norms. Some Conservative Muslim communities in the West still hold true the notion that the honour and reputation of their family and their community rests mainly (if not solely) upon the sexual behaviour (real or perceived) of their daughter. This notion is maintained despite Muslim boys often being able to engage in whatever sexual behaviour they so wish.

Such double standards and the notion of female responsibility for honour must be challenged and rejected by all Muslims and communities where femicide is perpetrated. If the communities in question are to sincerely address the issue of femicide, they must acknowledge the above and challenge the tribal patriarchial values that deeply permeate the cultures of their communities. Nothing less will suffice. Values that put community perceptions of “reputation” above the personal development and happiness of their own children do not have a place in any home. Particularly those homes that wish to be free from emotional or physical abuse.

***

Note for readers wishing to republish any of my posts: Thank you for reading. Please respect my intellectual property and my copyright and leave all the identifying information intact. Feel free to “re-blog” and share my work, but please do not reprint or republish my work in any other format without my permission. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

***

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Violence against women

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why the burqa is not always a simple matter of “choice”.

Posted on May 3, 2011 | 2 Comments

The title of this article should really read “Why the burqa, niqab and hijab are not always a simple matter of choice”. For simplicity, I shall essentialise and just use the term “burqa” in reference to the burqa and the niqab.

When the French government banned the burqa, I for one, breathed a sigh of relief. As much as I believe that the state must not interfere in its citizens choice of attire, there are some exceptions that I have to acknowledge.

The almost automatic assumption that all Muslim women are in situations conducive to making a “free” choice about their attire, is naive to say the least. Cultural relativists and some feminists must realise that rights and choices do not exist within a vacuum. A woman’s circumstances dictate whether she is able to make free, coerced or adaptive choices.

It is also worthy of mention, that often, those very “progressive Muslims” who support the right to veil are the same people who slut-shame courageous and politically aware women such Alia Magda El Mahdy. In other words, for some, a woman’s right to choose her attire only stands when she chooses to wear more, not less.

The burqa is more than a political symbol, more than a security risk. Human social development relies heavily on facial recognition.  Symbols are very important to humans. This is why branding and logo creation are so important in business. Regarding women, we have to understand the symbolism of the burqa. What it represents. One of the things that the burqa represents is the ideology that women and men who are not married or closely related are not supposed to interact. The burqa becomes a physical and cultural marker/identifier of a woman wherever she goes. In countries where she has a choice in the matter, it can actually be seen as a form of self-policing and self-oppression. Wrapped up in this identity she cannot see a male doctor, limiting her healthcare choices (especially in countries like Afghanistan, where there are very few women doctors), she cannot partake in business transactions with men (and let’s be frank, men dominate the world of economics), limiting her economic choices. She also cannot participate in politics, as men also make up the majority of politicians throughout the world, severely limiting her ability to change policies. Even those that directly affect her.

So, personally, I see the burqa as something much greater than a piece of cloth, greater than a simple “choice”. Some describe the bikini as the other side of the coin with regards to the burqa. To some extent, I see their argument. The burqa completely denies a woman’s physical sexuality whilst the bikini puts a woman’s physical sexuality on display for all to consume. However, there is a vital difference. The bikini is not imposed upon women by implying that it has been ordained by God. Women do not have acid thrown on their face (or worse)  for refusing to wear a bikini.

I must clarify once again, that I’m not particularly keen on outright “bans” in general, as they tend to be reactionary and are often rooted in cynical politics [as many would argue, was the case in the French example]. This can result in increasing the militancy and notoriety of those individuals targetted by the ban. However, I will now outline eight concrete reasons as to why I make an exception in the case of the burqa.

1) Studies suggest that the decision to wear any form of Islamic dress may be a result of the limited range of options families may present to their Muslim girls. This phenomenon known as an “adaptive preference”, results when a preference has been altered to fit unjust surrounding conditions. Such conditions might include family pressure, peer pressure or high rates of sexual harassment in public places (as is the case in Pakistan, Egypt and many other Muslim majority countries).

If a Muslim woman is presented with the choice of either wearing “modest Islamic dress” and being respected by her male peers, or opting for “Western” clothing and being verbally/physically abused and/or harassed it doesn’t take a genius to figure out which option she might choose. Muslim women may try to maintain their dignity and self-esteem by convincing themselves that their choice to veil or “dress modestly” is a free one, particularly in the context of wanting a collective identity in response to the anti-Muslim sentiment present in much of the US since 9/11. Muslim women are keen to be viewed as “liberated” as opposed to the stereotypes often capitalised upon by many US media outlets.

2) It is important to note that the burqa (niqab included) is not an Islamic requirement. There is an abundance of Islamic scholars that conclude that the niqab (face veil) is a class symbol. There is even evidence to suggest that it is a mere custom that dates back to Arabian tribal nomadic societies who covered their faces in order to protect their airways from sand. This might explain why Tuareg men continue to cover their faces even to this day.

3)  Many Muslim women are led to believe that if they are not part of a certain “category” of women then they are ‘safe’ from being raped. Women and girls of all ages, classes, culture, ability, sexuality, race and faith are raped. Attractiveness has little significance. In fact, reports show that there is a great diversity in the way targeted women act, look or dress. Rapists do not choose women based on whether they are wearing a burqa [or not] or dressed “modestly” [or not]. Rapists choose women based on their vulnerability, not their physical appearance . It is also important to acknowledge that “random” rapes by strangers account for less than 20% of all rapes. More than 80% of rapes are committed by men that were KNOWN to the woman. 

The statistics show that the burqa is not the answer to preventing rape. Men refraining from committing rape is the answer to rape. The responsibility lies with the perpetrator and not the victim.

4) Many Muslim women, in particular immigrant women do not possess sufficient language skills to be informed regarding their legal rights in their new domicile. Many women who come to Western democracies succumb to cultural pressures without realising that the law protects their right to choose. Furthermore, in the context of the UK, thanks to the deep mistrust of authorities fostered within many insular Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, a woman is far less likely to report coercion or other forms of abuse to the authorities. If a woman does decide to report an issue, she faces the possibility of physical violence, being ostracised for “disloyalty” by the community or worse.

Research indicates that domestic violence is as prevalent in Muslim communities  as elsewhere. (Hyperlink to follow).

5) Women who are brought into the country by their partners illegally face many challenges with regards to their personal choices. Although the US has certain sympathetic procedures to deal with illegal immigrants who have been subject to spousal/partner abuse, the woman in question may not be aware of this and may be fearful of approaching authorities due to her illegal status.

If her husband is violent and requires her to wear the burqa, fear of deportation may thwart any simmering courage to approach the authorities. The burqa (including the niqab) can be extremely effective tools in entirely isolating a woman from the society within which she lives. This leaves the woman without any support network to turn to in an unfamiliar country where she may or may not speak the language.

6) If a woman is suffering domestic violence and sustains physical injuries, the burqa (including the niqab) is the perfect tool of concealment. This then diminishes any possibility of a third party being alerted to her abuse. This is highly relevant since the UK Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004, (part 2 section10:1) recognises the psychological impact of domestic violence and has made it possible for the police to press charges against an abuser even without the victims consent. In other words, a third party/police report can result in bringing charges against the perpetrator. Similar laws exist in the US.

The head of a prominent progressive Muslim NGO once presented the argument “but make-up can cover bruises too”. Make-up cannot conceal all types of injuries and it certainly cannot conceal tears or the facial expressions of a woman wincing in physical pain.

7) Although many women argue that the burqa is a liberated choice that does not carry any symbolism for them personally. That it is simply an expression of their spirituality, that it makes them feel safer etc. These are somewhat redundant arguments.

A man who chooses to go to a fancy dress party dressed in a Ku Klux Klan outfit could argue that the outfit has no symbolism for him. This however, does not change the symbolism of that attire for others who might be profoundly disturbed by the sight of a KKK outfit. E.g. Those who have experienced racism at the hands of such groups. Although a stark comparison, the same goes for the burqa. Many women have left their lives and their loved ones behind to flee from countries where they were forced to comply with extremely restrictive public morality laws and/or wear the burqa. They have fled to seek refuge in Western democracies and to leave the burqa behind along with the gendered and political violence it symbolises. Yet  now, these same women who have experienced the burqa as a tool of oppression are to be faced by “free thinking” Western Muslim women and converts to Islam informing them that it is their “right” and their “choice” to wear a burqa. That they wish to please Allah (God).

8) Finally, the niqab and the burqa are offensive to many of us (including me) who have grown up surrounded by a culture which directly or indirectly promotes these items of clothing as some sort of prerequisite to being a woman of good virtue. Many progressives and converts alike seem to ignore this little fact. The ideology and symbolism attached to items of clothing such as the burqa and the niqab [and to a lesser extent, the hijab] is abhorrent and offensive since it is a visual reminder of the hateful belief that a society’s honour rests solely and unquestionably on the shoulders of women and women alone.

In conclusion, the issue of the burqa is much more than an issue of choice. A choice that is informed by restrictive cultural and religious definitions of female “modesty” (a concept that is problematic in itself), can hardly be considered a “free” choice. The burqa presumes that all responsibility for the [alleged] rapist tendencies of men is placed upon the woman. This is insulting not only to women but also to those men who do not possess the tendencies of a salivating animal. And there are many, many more wonderful men out their with healthy attitudes towards sexuality and women than religious leaders would like us all to believe.

Furthermore, the choice to wear the burqa might not necessarily be inspired by direct coercive threats or interference, but the options open to many Muslim women are not particularly attractive. Hence, even when Muslim women continue to defend their choice to wear the burqa, we cannot as global citizens ignore the very real possibility that their choice may be a dominated choice.  However cynical the French administration’s motives may have been, in practice, the French ban acts to protect precisely such women.

***

Note for readers wishing to republish any of my posts: Thank you for reading. Please respect my intellectual property and my copyright and leave all the identifying information intact. Feel free to “re-blog” and share my work, but please do not reprint or republish my work in any other format without my permission. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

***

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Secularism

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,