Tag Archives: patriarchy

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

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.

Shrinking secular spaces in the UK.

As a child of immigrants, I’m screwed by the community I’m associated with (Muslims). And I’m screwed by the community I live in (the UK).

The double whammy of disadvantage one faces for being a secular minded individual from a Muslim community living in the UK is really quite astounding. It’s bad enough that I have to battle with tiresome conservative values within my own immediate community, then on top of that, I have to contend with  the whims of UK public policy makers who are more eager to have tea with fundamentalists  than with secular minded individuals such as myself.

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone hugging Yusuf-al-Qaradawi upon inviting him to the UK (2004). Qaradawi was and is known for his attacks on human rights including supporting the killing of apostates, homosexuals and Israeli civilians. Livingstone defended Qaradawi as a supporter of women’s rights. Activist Peter Tatchell was criticised by Saba Ahmed for pointing out (among other things) that Qaradawi believed in female genital mutilation (FGM) and compelling the wearing of hijab. Neither Tatchell’s facts nor his interpretation were challenged. Instead, we were treated to a textbook example of contemporary, patronising communal discourse. SOURCE: Life Magazine

Identity anti-racists such as the Stop the War Coalition have dismissed and continue to dismiss secular activist voices like those of Gita Sahgal or secular organisations such as Just Peace (a young organisation founded by progressive and secular Muslim activists) and Women Against Fundamentalism. Instead they befriend the likes of Muslim Association of Britain which is an offshoot of the Arab Muslim Brotherhood. It makes my blood boil. It’s a form of racism masquerading as cultural cohesion and tolerance. In reality, such high tolerance for fundamentalists in the UK  just  exacerbates some of the inaccurate national (and global) perceptions of what all British Muslims are like. Such  alliances completely ignore the fact that people like me do exist. There are  secular, non-religious Agnostic (or Atheist) cultural Muslims who have needs that can not be served by Muslim fundamentalists, conservative Muslim values, nor by the Ken Livingstones of the world.

The contradictions in the UK’s approach to fundamentalism is encapsulated in the following scenario. Salman Rushdie was knighted after coming out of hiding after 10 years thanks to a fatwa against him. So was the man who stated “Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for [Salman Rushdie].” Iqbal Sacranie. Who by the way believes that homosexuality is “not acceptable” and served as the Secretary General of the “Muslim Council of Britain”. Just wonderful.

Being culturally Muslim does not mean that you are automatically an anti-semitic, anti-women’s rights, homophobic, pro-gender segration halali. I’ve met several people like myself through social networking sites.  It is a mark of cynical politics that caricatures such as Iqbal Sacranie  have in the past been chosen to represent “British Muslims”. Such individuals eventually end up having an influence over communities that were more progressive before politicians gave these individuals their stamp of approval.

On the one side, I am discriminated against by the society that I live in by getting racist chants thrown at me by football hooligans on a sunny afternoon, in the town that I grew up in. I am racially profiled at the airport causing me to be held longer than other passengers almost every time I fly. Simultaneously, I am discriminated against by the conservative (but not necessarily fundamentalist) Muslim communities which exist in Britain that cannot understand why I am not a misogynistic, homophobe whose sole mission in life is to fit every patriarchal stereotype of a “Muslim woman” that there is. As if things weren’t hard enough, on top of all this I then have to deal with politically correct non-Muslim Brits who don’t have the moral courage to say “You know what? This is bullsh*t!” Instead, cultural relativist pus festers in every corner of British society where I am told by non Muslims to accept the “free choice” of  a 12 year old Muslim school girl that attempts to (unsuccessfully) challenge her school in court for not allowing her to wear a face veil (niqab) to school. It’s enough to make me nauseous.

Where do I fit in British society? Oh yeah. That’s right. Nowhere.

Anyway, that’s enough ranting for now. I will write more on this subject (perhaps in a less clumsy manner) at a later date. At that point I will also clarify why I see a contrast between characters such as Qaradawi  and the diversity of Muslims in Britain (despite the largely conservative values that run through British Muslim communities). For now, allow me to direct you to Gita Sahgal’s BRILLIANT article on the shrinking secular spaces in the UK. Click on the abstract of the article below to go to the link. Thanks for reading.

“This article, an analysis of the role of religion in British life, examines the ways in which religion is promoted by British governments as part of public policy, leading to the shrinking of secular spaces, particularly in education. Successive governments have failed to recognise the lessons of the Rushdie affair and promoted fundamentalists who are Christian as well as Muslim. Class and educational aspiration rather than religiosity have opened the space for religion in public policy. Fundamentalists have also been embraced by identity anti-racists, while queer theorists and activists attack secularism and label those challenging Islamists as Islamophobes. Communalism is the default mode of academic theory, public policy and activism, putting at risk the gains made by egalitarian movements against racism and discrimination.

***

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.

***

Further reading

“Cohesion, Multi-Faithism and the Erosion of Secular Spaces in the UK” Implications for the human rights of minority women by Pragna Patel. Excerpt: “This approach is being repeated throughout the UK and the organisations that have so far been closed or threatened with closure are secular organisations for black and ethnic migrants, secular women’s refuges for black and minority women, disability groups and rape crisis centres. Following SBS’s[Southall Black Sisters] lead, organisations confronting similar funding problems with their local authorities have mounted legal challenges against their councils using the equality legislation but while some have been successful, others have not. Paradoxically, the emphasis on funding faith-based groups have led some previously secular black and minority organisations to re-fashion themselves as faith-based groups – this has the effect of reinforcing the view that questions of identity within minority communities can be reduced to questions of religious values only. Discussions with a number of antiracist activists in the north of England have suggested that minority groups have recently adopted a faith-based identity in order to attract local authority funding that has been diverted from anti-racist projects to cohesion and preventing violent extremism work.”

“How to be a Real Muslim” by Kenan Malik. Excerpt: “Liberal multicultural policies have not created radical Islam, but they have helped created a space for it in Western societies that previously had not existed.”

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

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.

***