Women’s rights and culture
Originally posted at The New Agenda.
Aasiya Hassan
Earlier this week I wrote about the horrific murder of Aasiya Hassan, whose husband beheaded her in what may have been an honor killing. For many commenters on the web, it is apparently impossible to condemn this nightmare without hastening to add that American culture has plenty of its own home-grown brand of misogyny, and it’s therefore “intolerant” to notice the particular lethalness of the honor-shame paradigm in some non-Western cultures. You know the argument: America is full of sexism and the commodification of women and our own gendered violence, so we have no business even talking about women’s rights.
If you’re a habitué of the progressive blogosphere, this line of thought is probably so familiar that you take it in without blinking. But let me ask you a couple of questions. Remember during the Beijing Olympics, when many people sat out the proceedings to protest China’s human rights record? Did anyone argue that because the West has some problems of its own in that regard, protesting the Olympics amounted to nothing more than “intolerance” of Chinese culture? Here’s another example: in the final years of apartheid, South Africa was the world’s pariah. Did anyone argue that because the West had its own history of racial discrimination, it was “intolerant” to condemn apartheid? Did anyone claim that we should accept South African culture on its own terms and keep our noses out of other people’s business?
Of course not. And I’ll tell you why: because in China and South Africa and every other setting where men are or have been oppressed, the issue is seen as one of universal human rights. It’s not a question of culture or of tolerating each other’s customs; it’s a question of fundamental rights to freedom and bodily integrity. Abuses in one society don’t somehow mitigate the failings in others, because human rights are couched in terms of universal standards. Either you measure up or you don’t.
Yet when the issue is women, somehow the commitment to universal rights evaporates. When Hillary Clinton said that “women’s rights are human rights,” she was articulating an ideal, not describing a reality. The fact is that women’s rights aren’t considered human rights. The status of women is treated more like a cultural quirk, part of the collection of idiosyncrasies that define a given group. “It’s just the culture,” people say, as if they’re describing the cuisine or the architecture. Women are furniture.
But for me, as a feminist, women’s rights are human rights. I am not an apostle for American culture, which is certainly far from perfect; I am an advocate for women. When I criticize honor killings or sharia law or any of the other non-Western abuses of women, I’m not speaking from a standpoint of cultural chauvinism. The ground I occupy is one of fundamental human rights for all women: freedom of action, of self-determination, of bodily integrity; freedom from violence and oppression and subjugation; freedom to be educated, to work, to love, to have children (or not); freedom to participate fully in life as first-class citizens. I view and judge every society on earth through that lens, including my own.
But by the same token, it doesn’t work to simply advocate for a universal ideal of women’s rights without inquiring too closely into the specific cultural obstacles to achieving that ideal. The devil, as ever, is in the details. We cannot unpack the situation of an abused wife in a conservative Christian community, for example, unless we understand the particular social and religious codes at work. We can’t stop honor killings unless we know why they happen — and I mean exactly why they happen. What are the social and religious codes at work there? What is the psychology of the people who do this? What drives them, what sustains them, what potential punishments and rewards are in the offing? I wrote on Tuesday that “we must be like doctors fighting disease, seeking to identify precisely the pathogens involved.” If we’re serious about ending the oppression of women, nothing less will do.
None of this should be misconstrued as an argument against multiculturalism. There is remarkable beauty to be found in almost every culture, and people all over the world have created wonderful and compelling traditions that are worth preserving. But just as the individual’s rights end where the other person’s nose begins, a society’s right to its own customs ends at the point where human rights are violated. People seem to have little trouble applying that calculus when the rights of men are involved; it’s past time for women to be granted the same consideration.
35 Responses to “Women’s rights and culture”
-
Sandra S. says:
This is such a beautiful articulation of my own ideals. I get cultural relativism. To a certain degree, I consider myself a cultural relativist. But my commitment to that doctrine stops exactly at the point where human rights are breached.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:21 pm EST -
julia says:
I am so so sick of this. In America, women are not human, we are an afterthought.
Headlines today on DemocracyNow: protests against cartoon paradoy of Obama, US ignorant about racism
Where is THIS story, Amy Goodman?! Where is the story about the Patreece Johnson and the New Jersey Four, jailed for protecting themselves against an attacker, where is the story of Sali Grace Eiler, activist in Oaxaca, who organized for women and taught women’s self-defense, raped and murdered the night before her 21st birthday.Aasiya Hassan is all of us.
-
angie says:
Meanwhile, in breaking news — some b.s. study just “proved” that men see women as objects, but that is only “natural” of them — seems it is part of the whole “evolution” thing. {rolls eyes}
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
angie, from that “health article:”
New research shows that, in men, the brain areas associated with handling tools and the intention to perform actions light up when viewing images of women in bikinis.
“Handling tools” and “intention to perform actions?” That’s where I found myself snorting and rolling my eyes.
-
orlando says:
Thank you, Violet, for giving me a place to send people when the shock that it is even neccessary to explain this to them leaves me spluttering incoherently.
It is meaningless to say “it’s not Islam, it’s misogyny”. Misogyny can’t operate without cultural facilitators, so when Islam (or Christianity, or Republicanism, or family values, or free-speech libertarianism, or evolutionary psychology, or progressive cultural tolerance) is being used to support misogyny, that dynamic is the thing that needs to be exposed for the evil it is.
-
bob coley jr says:
One form of wisdom is knowing what to be tolerent of or when. This kind of thing must NEVER be tolerated. We show our lack of wisdom when we do. What you do in your house I may not like and if asked for help I will risk all. In my house, same thing. But don’t make me angry, you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry. This makes me angry, very angry. Why don’t you tolerate my taste for beer in your country? Am I bound by your beliefs in your culture but must give in to you in mine? There is only one house, and by God, we will clean house no matter what it takes. Way more eloquent than I am, great thoughts Dr. Socks!
-
yttik says:
It’s a good article, Violet.
What bothers me is the politically correct hierarchy of what issues people are allowed to care about. Racism, animal rights, going green, and respecting other cultures. They aren’t bad issues, it’s just that women aren’t even on the list.
The problem is you have to make a vegan, environmentally friendly, culturally respectful, racially supportive argument, every time you point to a woman’s mutilated body. It’s exhausting. It’s like being told you must save the planet, the animal kingdom, ancient cultures, heal race relations, and create world peace. If you have any time left over, you can talk about the woman’s body lying on the floor.
But see, women are not an “issue” to be prioritized. We’re not a sub-division of a category rated on a list. We are the environment and the culture. We’re half the human race.
What was so totally missed by those quick to rush in and protect Muslims the other day, is that it was a Muslim woman who was murdered. It completely sailed over their heads that she isn’t a sub-category who’s death might make Muslims look bad, she is also a Muslim. One who can longer enjoy any kind of freedom of religion because she’s not breathing anymore.
-
Sis says:
This, this is excellent:
“The problem is you have to make a vegan, environmentally friendly, culturally respectful, racially supportive argument, every time you point to a woman’s mutilated body.”
-
Nora says:
We do (did) not sanction or allow any religious group or cultural group to violate the Law. For example, Mormon’s were not allowed to continue the practive of polygamy. I don’t see why we now seem to want to make an exception for the Muslim religion. Are we eventually going to have the sharia practiced here? We’ve had 2 honor killings in the US that I know of, and no press about it. Our leaders and the MSM seems afraid of the Muslims. We must not be afraid to stand up and say “I don’t care your religion, we will not tolerate violations of human rights”. In truth our own gov’e (nowadays) will happily throw away human rights if it serves the interests of wall street or some corp entity.
-
tinfoilhattie says:
I don’t really understand how it’s “intolerant” to point out the ghastly horror of specific religious or social or cultural aspects of a certain kind of killing of women. How is it intolerant?
Hypocritical, maybe. Intolerant? Sounds like something the patriarchy made up.
-
Lisa says:
I saw a special on cable many months ago that talked extensively about honour killings in the USA- it was on CNN maybe? Apparently we’ve had a whole hell of a lot more than two in this country- it’s just that the police are reluctant to label a murder as an “honour killing” because of fears of religious discrimination.
There is a similar problem with sex trafficking. Many young girls are reported by the police as “runaways” when they are kidnapped into the sex trade.
It leaves the distinct impression that our justice system doesn’t want us getting “carried away” and thinking that there is any sort of danger or problem with women in this country.
-
Lori says:
Violet,
This is one of the most beautiful and truthful posts I’ve ever read on the internet. Thank you for this.
-
foxx says:
OK I’m tired of talking. Let’s move!
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
Sis says:
This, this is excellent:
“The problem is you have to make a vegan, environmentally friendly, culturally respectful, racially supportive argument, every time you point to a woman’s mutilated body.”
Yes, yes it is. Thank you yttik.
-
Datechguy says:
One of the best arguments I’ve read on the subject.
-
gxm17 says:
Lisa, more than that, I think violence against women is kept quiet so that the average uninformed person doesn’t go and get the idea that things need to change. If we ignore the problem then it’s never dealt with it and the status quo is maintained.
The hush campaign is one more device used to keep women in their place. That’s why we need to have violence against women treated as the hate crime it is.
-
m Andrea says:
I’ve always thought that the reason VAW and sexism was minimized was becsuse when a person finally looks at the enormous amount of harm males perpetuate upon females, a reasonable person starts asking some extremely troubling questions. Such as:
Why do we blame a specific group of people for racism but we blame a nebulous all-encompassing culture for sexism?
What came first: Culture, or the men who created culture?
Are the motivations for racism and sexism exactly identical? Are the conditions necessary for the continuance of racism and sexism exactly the same?
How long does a person tolorate such a gross injustice committed upon half the planet, before a reasonable person decides the amount of harm outweighs the amount of good?
And my personal favorite: What’s an efficient and humane method to get rid of them all?
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
m Andrea – whenever I hear that question “What’s an efficient and humane method to get rid of them all?” I immediately recall the story “Sultana’s Dream.”
-
T.I. says:
“Did anyone argue that because the West has some problems of its own in that regard, protesting the Olympics amounted to nothing more than ‘intolerance’ of Chinese culture?”
A different example is needed there, Violet.
From my first-hand experience in supporting a boycott of the Olympics last year, “Yes!” is actually the right answer to your question. At many blogs, I saw comments by apologists for China’s dictatorship who would toss around accusations of intolerance, racism, American ignorance of U.S. imperialism, cultural imperialism, and a double standard, among other excuses.
On the bright side, those apologists were never the overwhelming majority and usually met stout-hearted opposition.
Here’s one blog example just off the cuff:
http://beijingolympicsboycott......-the-blog/ -
lexia says:
The problem of violence against women in the U.S. was and is so vast that in 1994,after four years of congressional testimony, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act. A majority of state attorney generals supported it. A majority of federal judges opposed it, not because they did not believe violence against women existed on this scale, but precisely because they did. The judges saw the problem as so great it would clog the courts and prevent the real business of the courts from being done. The Supreme Court struck down the most effective provision of the Act, the right to sue an attacker in court, in “U.S. v. Morrison” in the year 2000: http://www.answers.com/topic/u.....v-morrison
(the wikipedia entry is very much against women having this protection from male violence).In 2005, the Supreme Court removed the last pretense that any woman has the same legal right to protections from violence as any male under U.S. law. In a case in which a father kidnapped and murdered his three little girls after Castle Rock police refused to enforce a restraining order, the five member Catholic majority on the court ruled that women have no federal or constitutional right to enforcement of the law, not even under the same civil rights statutes that were enacted to protect black Americans from white violence when the states would not. Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in “Gonzales v. Castle Rock” that “a well-established tradition of police discretion has long co-existed with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.” So unlike the civil rights era statutes compelling state and local law enforcement to obey the law and protect black citizens, a “well-established tradition of police discretion” is enough to override enacted law when it comes to women. U.S. law is only “apparent” when it comes to women having rights.
The mother whose children were murdered by their father took her name back and her case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as a violation of the telling named “The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man”. As far as I know, it has not yet been decided.
http://www.law.columbia.edu/me.....showmenu=0
Women have no legal right to protection under the law in the U.S.
-
Alwaysthinking says:
The recognition that neither the Constitution nor our nation’s laws truly recognize women as humans is chilling.
Then we face the compounded factor of religious zealots who call for the submission of a woman regardless of whether she is morally right on any matter and regardless of whether she is abused or is trying to protect her children from abuse.
Intermixed with this is the increasing numbers of other cultures in our country and elsewhere who seek to carry out their own religious “laws” outside of a nation’s laws (such as in the case of permitting a level of “Sharia” in Great Britain). Just as bad almost is that here in America, our media and legal system seem to just be looking the other way. Chilling. Chilling. Chilling.
How can we identify those pathogens in our sick societies in time to save ourselves, Violet? We haven’t much time. The onslaught against us is here.
-
Daisy P says:
When it comes to religion, women have none.
When it comes to political parties, women have none.
When it comes to having a right to a voice, women have none.
We belong to one big human race.
The politics and religion and voice for women, is Women.
-
BabeinLA says:
Violet, You’re really on a roll with these articles and comments. I’m happy at these honor killing issues seem to be emerging from the P C Multicultural Relativism Closet. The outpouring is quite amazing.
-
Cindy says:
I knew we were doomed years ago, when, instead of talking about violence against women, we had to use the phrase “domestic violence”. It was more politically palatable. And still is.
-
qaz says:
Cindy: “I knew we were doomed years ago, when, instead of talking about violence against women, we had to use the phrase “domestic violence”.”
Not only that, but I noticed that often it is stated as ‘just’ domestic violence.
-
Lexia says:
I believe this is the number one reason men kill women in the U.S. – because they can:
“The average prison sentence of men who kill their women partners is 2 to 6 years. Women who kill their partners are sentenced on average to 15 years, despite the fact that most women who kill do so in self-defense (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1989).”
from the fourth cited source in this excellent post:
http://pumapac.org/2008/12/17/buy-a-gun/I’ve also known for a long time that capital punishment in the U.S. is as unjustly used against women as it is against black males, but can’t find the sources for that right now.
-
Kiuku says:
“Meanwhile, in breaking news — some b.s. study just “proved” that men see women as objects, but that is only “natural” of them — seems it is part of the whole “evolution” thing. {rolls eyes}
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH…..index.html”
This is an spin of the original article, which was more Feminist, pretty much detailing the extent and absurdity of men’s objectification of women. The psychologists got a hold of it and put a “evolutionary” spin on it, why it’s “only natural.”
Natural or not, anything that views me as an object must be elimated.
-
Kiuku says:
Here is a link to one of the earlier articles that the men couldn’t handle:
http://news.nationalgeographic.....jects.html
Notice the phrase “sexualized women”
And who sexualizes women? Who dehumanizes them? Forces them into “objects” to be viewed accordingly? Men can’t hide the truth from a brain-scan but they can and do hide the truth from themselves.
At the end of the day Evolutionary Psychology is bullshit, but the horrors that men inflict upon the human race daily is real.
They must be destroyed.
-
Picador says:
Let me begin by saying that I agree with everything in this post, and I share Violet’s outrage that “multiculturalism” has been mobilized as a shield for misogyny and violence. The idea of multiculturalism sprung from noble intentions, to be sure (i.e. the fight for racial tolerance), but its foundation is wobbly and perhaps it needs to be torn down and replaced with something less toxic to human interests.
I also, as a further qualification to my ensuing remarks, understand that tragedies like this, the latest in an endless string of atrocities committed by men against women, create a great deal of anger in any feeling person, and this anger feels righteous and powerful. One beings to feel as though the righteous power of this anger, if harnessed properly, could purify the earth and leave it safe for women to live their lives without fear of beatings, of rape, of murder.
That being said: surely we all recognize that the genocide of all male humans (as Kiuku and m Andrea propose above) is, if not necessarily a bad idea, at least infeasible. I say this as a member of the targeted group. I am motivated in this statement not primarily by self interest, or even by my fondness for other males (like my sweet 6-year-old nephew Charlie), but by my concern for the soul of any group that contemplates the annihilation of another group of humans. I know that the anger can be difficult to contain, and perhaps speaking the unspeakable is an understandable way to blow off some steam, but at the end of the day we must be serious about these issues, and I hope that serious adults can recognize that the actual advocacy of genocide is an act of madness.
Along the same lines, I think that it’s dangerous to rail against “PC relativism” (as BabeinLA does) for elevating cultural tolerance above universal human rights for women. The anti-”PC” backlash has been a very useful tool for cultural conservatives in dismantling many of the civil rights and feminist gains of the past few decades; joining them in this chorus of “PC”-bashing isn’t doing women any favors. Indeed, comments very similar to these were calling for a US invasion of Afghanistan in emails I received as early as 1998 or so, citing the brutality of the Taliban in their treatment of women. I was wary about the calls for blood in these emails, and in retrospect — after America’s middle eastern adventures have resulted in over a million innnocent dead, and worse conditions for women in Afghanistan and Iraq than before the invasions — I was right to be wary.
I understand that this kind of equivocation can be frustrating. I really do understand and identify with the sentiment behind the complaint that “you have to make a vegan, environmentally friendly, culturally respectful, racially supportive argument, every time you point to a woman’s mutilated body”. But the terrible fact is that the enemies of freedom and peace are very powerful, and they will divide us against each other as they have done so many times in the past: poor whites against blacks, poor men against women, women against brown men, and so on. Do not fall for their ploy. Do not call for the blood of your brothers and sons. It is exhausting to make these distinctions, yes; but it is necessary.
-
Sis says:
Examples of how men get paid whacking huge sums of money to tell each other the bleeding obvious,and the scam is dignified with the word “science” while women try to raise families on minimum wage.
-
Sis says:
Oh dear auntie, love him to bits while you can. It is my experience that sweet six-year old nephews grow up to be men.
-
Kiuku says:
-
Kiuku says:
The ploy that I do not fall for is the ploy of good men and bad men. I am passed anger. You do not know what that point is. The enemies of freedom and peace are men.
Feminism can go only so far to change the system and the mindset of men who are unwilling to change themselves. The only other option is to remove men from power.
-
Kali says:
Picador, if you are so worried about male-female relations, why don’t you start with working on your “brothers and sons”, eliminating male violence against women, male exploitation and abuse of women. Then you can come here and lecture us about our genocide fantasies.
The problem is that men are not going to change unless they have to. They don’t have to as long as they have power over women. They will have power over women until they change. Unfortunately, this is the vicious circle of patriarchy. A major upheaval of some sort is needed to change this – something like that group of chimpanzees where all the dominant males were eliminated due to the contaminated food they were monopolizing, with subsequent generations living in peace and harmony. Maybe a retrovirus which makes men break out in boils at the very thought of harming a woman (or anyone, for that matter)?
-
Kiuku says:
Kali the thing is that nature will destroy the males. Once our environment becomes so polluted that human beings are turned into nothing more than super eliminators, liver and organs of elimination being selected for over intelligence, for example, as people die from environmentally, toxin induced diseases, the men will die off before the women. If it gets to that point you will see men more disease ridden and possibly more morally depraved (moral depravity has a strong correlation with ill health/genetics) because men do not have a double X, which protects females genetically. Nature will protect the female of the species, because that is the norm of any species.
