Kim Gandy defends patriarchy, rejects efforts to combat violence against women
What does this picture have to do with the post? Guess you'd better read the post and see. -- V.S.
I know I put a provocative title on this post, but I call ‘em like I see ‘em. In her Below The Belt column of February 20, Kim Gandy spends half a sentence mourning the fate of Aasiya Hassan, and then three paragraphs explaining that the husband’s crime had nothing whatsoever to do with his culture or religion. Now, it’s true that the Hassan murder no longer appears to be an honor killing; the more we learn about Muzzammil Hassan, the more he looks like a garden-variety chronic abuser who flamed out with one final atrocity. And it’s true that raving whackjobs who behead their wives are by no means confined to any particular demographic niche. If Kim had left it at that, I wouldn’t have a problem.
But she goes far beyond these observations into a full-scale shut-down of any possible cultural or religious differentials in terms of violence against women. All religions and nationalities are essentially the same, Kim tells us, and if there are any teeny tiny differences, they are unknowable. Pointless to even think in those terms. No reason to look at environmental factors like culture or religion when trying to understand why there’s a dead female body on the floor. Violence against women is the same everywhere, Kim implies, regardless of culture or religion. From Sweden to Somalia, from Wicca to Wahhabi, it’s all the same.
This attitude drives me nuts.
All cultures and religions are not the same. Violence against women occurs in virtually every society, but the rate and severity of the abuse vary enormously across cultures. Anthropologists and social scientists have been studying this stuff for decades. The percentage of battered women ranges from, say, 18% in Norway (to take one example from a 1999 global survey) to 80% in Pakistan (or even higher, depending on the study.) Violence against women is not a universal absolute that floats independent of culture: it is very much tied up with social norms and expectations, with religious beliefs, and with levels of male dominance. Many scholars have documented a particularly strong correlation between an ideology of male supremacy and actual rates of domestic violence (one example on my bookshelf: Peggy Reeves Sanday’s Female Power and Male Dominance, 1981.)
But the Kim Gandy approach, apparently, is to ignore this. We’re supposed to talk about “the repression of women” without ever getting too specific about where it’s happening or why or how. We’re not supposed to inquire into social codes or religious beliefs; we’re not supposed to notice that many Christian communities turn a blind eye to domestic violence, or that many Muslims believe husbands have a religiously-sanctioned right to beat their wives. Better to just issue vague platitudes and gloss over any possibility that there may be more or less misogyny in any given cultural tradition. That way you won’t offend anybody.
Why does this tick me off so much? Well, first of all, because it’s dishonest. Few things exasperate me more than propaganda, and I have no patience at all with polite fictions that conceal the ugliness of so many patriarchal religions and customs. But hiding the truth is also actively harmful. If you want to fix something, you have to understand what it is and how it works.
Dr. Violet Socks, ticked-off Martian anthropologist.
If I were an anthropologist from Mars and I wanted to understand how to lower the rate of male-on-male interpersonal violence among Earthlings, for example (and by interpersonal violence I mean murder, not war), the first thing I would notice is that this violence varies in content and frequency across the globe. South Africa, for example, has one of the highest murder rates in the world; Japan has one of the lowest. Many New Guinea tribes have social codes that actually demand homicide, while Jainists wouldn’t hurt a fly. There is significantly more gang violence in East L.A. than in Provo, Utah. There are reasons for this: social, cultural, even religious reasons. And if I were putting together my packet of information for the Earthlings on how to deal with male-on-male violence, I would need to understand exactly what is going through the heads of the New Guinea tribesmen and what needs to happen for them to stop killing each other, just as I would need to know what the heck is the deal in South Africa, what is going on in L.A., and so on and so forth. I would need, in other words, a full understanding of how interpersonal male violence is generated and sustained in a variety of cultural contexts, and what works — and doesn’t work — to stop it. I would not need a National Organization for Men, headed up by a president Jim Dandy, loudly insisting that there is murder everywhere, that you’re just as likely to be killed on Maui as in Moscow, that it’s not nice to look into cultural or religious differences, that discussing homicide in New Guinea just “others” the phenomenon and makes dumb Americans think there’s no murder in their own society, blah blah blah.
You can tell this irritates me.
What is the purpose of all this anodyne smoothing over and blending away? What does Kim Gandy think she’s accomplishing? One theory (and I’ve asked around) is that she believes, like my hypothetical Jim Dandy, that if we drop our pretenses for even a second and acknowledge that some cultural traditions are more violently misogynistic than others, Americans will conclude from this that our own society is pristine and free of abuse. I think that’s a pretty unlikely result, myself. I have never met an adult American who actually believes that women don’t get beaten up in this country, and I’ve never seen the alleged chain of logic in action (”Oh, look, a man from Pakistan murdered his wife — that means men born in America never kill their wives!”). Yes, there are jingoistic Americans who interpret every data point on every subject as evidence that We’re Better Than Them (whoever Them is), but people like that are going to sing that song no matter what.
The other theory is that Kim is worried people might get the idea that Islam is a patriarchal religion with a number of misogynistic manifestations. This is tricky, because — ahem — Islam is a patriarchal religion with a number of misogynistic manifestations. Why wouldn’t Kim want people to figure that out? Christianity is also a patriarchal religion, and it is also used as an ideological weapon to oppress women. The solution with either religion is not to nervously change the subject, or launch into a litany of all-the-other-religions-that-are-also-sexist-so-it’s-unfair-to-mention-religion-at-all, or confuse the issue by pretending that criticism of a cultural tradition is synonymous with prejudicial hatred of the people who belong to that tradition (and notice how Kim accuses critics of attacking the Muslim community, which is exactly what Christian fundamentalists do when they accuse their critics of having some unreasoning prejudice against Christians). The solution, in all cases, is to confront the situation with unflinching honesty. Drag the truth into the light, name it, shame it, challenge it, harp on it, and demand that the mullahs or the imams or the preachers or the priests haul their sorry selves into the 21st century and change.
As for the Hassan tragedy, which breaks my heart every time I think about it, the only tiny shred of good news is that many American Muslims are much smarter (or more honest) about the situation than Kim Gandy. They recognize quite well that there are specific social and religious codes that help to perpetuate a culture of violence, and the case has moved many of them to speak out:
“This is a horrible tragedy, but it gives us a window,” said Abdul-Ghafur, editor of the anthology “Living Islam Out Loud: American Muslim Women Speak.” “The next time a woman comes to her imam and says, ‘He hit me,’ the reply might not be, ‘Be patient, sister, is there something you did, sister? Is there something you can do?’ The chances are greater the imam will say, ‘This is unacceptable.’”
And a Muslim woman writes in the Globe and Mail:
“Muslim denial over the abysmal status of women is deeper even than the one over the use of Islam to justify radical violence. Centuries of male-dominated and misogynistic interpretations of Islam are strangling us. We’re told on the one hand that God says men can beat us and yet, when we complain and demand our God-given right to a divorce, we’re told that’s a man’s prerogative.”
That is precisely the kind of understanding that is sacrificed when you sign up for Kim Gandy-style “no need to bring religion into it” anesthetic.
55 Responses to “Kim Gandy defends patriarchy, rejects efforts to combat violence against women”
-
sister of ye says:
“God told me so.” What a difficult point to argue against. Which the believers know, of course. The discussion of the wrong committed always gets sidetracked into “No, he didn’t!” / “Yes, he did!”
Maybe it’s time to try some, “Oh, yeah? Well, God told me…” Heh, it worked for Joseph Smith. For those who believe in a deity, why not choose a way to reference what “She” said.
“Oh, yeah? Well, God told me She’s tired of you beating up on women, who most closely share Her ability to create life. She’s tired of you denying our intelligence and abilities. She’s tired of you telling old women to hurry up and die. She’s tired of you pulling children out as a convenient tool to control women, then letting them starve and die of disease. She’s tired of you trashing Her world with pollution and weapons. And She’s tired of you letting Her people suffer and die so you can hoard a bit more money.
“Oh, yeah, one last thing. God says that men who run around in dresses and funny hats are the last ones who should tell anyone else how to dress and behave.”
Glad you cross-posted this here. Not sure my comment would have fit in at TNA.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:30 am EST -
sister of ye says:
P.S. I love the spaceships, and that’s a lovely pic of you in your anthropological gear.
-
Elise says:
An excellent, excellent post. More generally, I’ve been off the grid for about six weeks and have just read back through your work for that period - you’ve been on fire. I particularly liked your Naomi Wolf stuff. (She’s become a terrible, sad tragedy.)
Several years ago I was telling a female friend of mine that I thought we needed a re-worked feminist movement since it seemed to me that Institutional Feminism was spending an awful lot of time advocating for groups other than women. She asked why we needed special advocacy for women, why not just advocate for equal rights for everyone. I couldn’t formulate a coherent answer at the time but now I’d say two things. First, other disadvantaged groups have their own advocates most of whom seem utterly uninterested in advocating for women, even women in their own group. Second, an awfully large number of those disadvantaged groups seem quite happy to treat women like dirt which makes me reluctant to put a lot of my energy into arguing for their cause.
Sigh. Even as I write this, I cringe a little fearing I’m going to be accused of being heartless or racist or ethnocentric. My somewhat belated New Year’s resolution is to get past that cringing.
-
Lori says:
Yes, I too, love the anthropological gear. :). I always wanted to be like Ray Walston in My Favcrite martian. Well, not nearly as much as I wanted to be Samantha and wiggle my nose, or Jeannie and live in a really cool bottle, but Ray Walston would have done as well.
Here in LA in the eighties, we had such an epidemic of Vietnamese men assaulting their wives. When someone would call the police on them, they would just be utterly mystified as to what they were doing wrong. They’d all shrug their shoulders and say, “It’s my wife. What do you mean I can’t hit her?” the community was in meltdown over the arrests because it was so foreign to their culture. LAPD, to their credit, launched an outreach program (the details of which I’ve forgotten) that basically told them that if they hit their wives they would get arrested and if they were convicted a second time, they would do serious jail time. IT worked. Assaults in that community diminished enormously.
Remember those women in Brazil who were sneaking around beating up the men who were cheating on their wives? I wonder whatever became of that?
-
Alwaysthinking says:
Violet — exactly. And sister of ye — your “Oh, yeah” responses fit my mood exactly. We have to stop putting up with others’ beliefs that they have THE God-given answers. I can’t really imagine that God supports any of the atrocities and oppression that so many religions seem to foster.
-
Alderson Warm-Fork says:
Exactly. The best way to play into the hands of those who DO want to use ‘feminism’ as a tool to justify discrimination against muslims is to refrain from analysing and laying bare the patriarchal nature of religions and cultures. It just lets them suggest that you have to make a choice between respecting different communities and standing up for women.
-
Kim Gandy defends patriarchy « Donna Darko says:
[...] February 25, 2009 · No Comments Violet Socks: [...]
-
Apostate says:
Excellent. Thank you. I know I’m banned and all, but just wanted to thank you for saying what needs to be said.
-
anna says:
Dear Violet: Are you aware that commenters on your blog are saying that men are inherently violent and evil and calling for genocide against them? Please speak out against this. Thank you.
-
Sis says:
Anna, are you aware of the number of posts you make deflecting the women’s rights and misogyny-watch conversations to “but what about the men?”
-
slythwolf says:
It is true, however, that claiming men are inherently violent and evil lets them off the hook too easily. They are inherently human beings and should be held responsible for their actions, not have them written off as “just the way men are”.
-
Sandra S. says:
Slythwolf ftw. Not only are essentialist generalizations dehumanizing, but they remove the possibility of agency, and thus of personal responsibility.
Sister of ye, Maybe it’s just me being a big ol’ atheist, but my response is more likely to be “I don’t care what you think God is, or what God told you to do. I care how you have CHOSEN to Behave.” IMNSHO, we need less My God versus Your God, and an awful lot more emphasis on Believe whatever the hell you want so long as your behavior doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.
Of course, that doesn’t even begin to address the problem that religious fundamentalists WANT to be persecuted and suffer for their religion, so they’re unlikely to adhere to a Harm None philosophy, if only so that they have something to martyr themselves over.
-
donna darko says:
it’s dishonest
The solution, in all cases, is to confront the situation with unflinching honesty
the only tiny shred of good news is that many American Muslims are much smarter (or more honest) about the situation than Kim Gandy
Great rant. I like how Apostate called herself as a culturist when she was called a racist for criticizing sexism in her own culture.
Muslim denial over the abysmal status of women is deeper even than the one over the use of Islam to justify radical violence
The second quote by a Muslim woman remind me of my post:
November 17, 2007: Internalized sexism of women of color at least a hundred times more prevalent than internalized racism
-
Violet says:
Dear Violet: Are you aware that commenters on your blog are saying that men are inherently violent and evil and calling for genocide against them?
No, what thread is that in?
-
djmm says:
Violet, there are a few comments like that in the “Women’s Rights and Culture” comment section.
djmm
-
Kiuku says:
Men themselves are the one’s saying they are inherently evil. Evolutionary Psychologists, patriarchy apologists, are the ones saying men are inherently evil. They don’t use the word evil. They think, in fact, that by positing men’s oppressive behavior (violence/subjugation) as natural, it somehow prevents it from being evil. However, if men and Psychologists continue to argue that their behavior is only natural, therefore, inherent then why not get rid of them? What better argument for getting rid of the oppressor than their inherent oppressiveness.
However we all know that it isn’t inherent. We all know that it is relatively impossible to determine the role of nature in human beings, and that people have a capacity, despite whatever nature there is, to choose to act differently. But every day men choose the Patriarchy.
Men’s entitlement is taught to them from birth, by culture. Yes I’m glad that Violet is so eloquently pointing out that culture cannot ever be ignored. Yes misogyny is in almost all of our cultures today, but culture and cultural institutions -cause- and perpetuate the misogyny. If men are born misogynist, we have no way of proving that. But we do know, that even by virtue of brain scan, that misogyny is deeply engrained in men. Men’s objectification of women is documented on brain scan. They really and truly hate you. They really and truly view you as an object. It’s not just a saying..
So when is it ever ok to call for genocide?
Let me get one thing straight. I don’t support women’s rights because I support human rights. I support women’s rights because I support women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights. It’s not a tangent to supporting you know..world peace, and ..ending racism or abuse of animals, it doesn’t come as an auxiliary. So I reject the notion that I have to be or wrap myself in a blanket of ethics to end the oppression of women world-wide. I would be hypocritical if I believed in the oppression of a minority.
But I don’t believe that killing is necessarily always bad. In fact, I think that oppressors deserve and should be destroyed by any means necessary, and that this is not hypocritical. I don’t approach the issue of women’s rights under a blanket of ethics, such that I feel I need to wrap every argument for women packaged neatly with pink racism wrapping and multicultural tolerance, but that women should not be oppressed by men. When we attempt to dissolve the system, the Patriarchy, that keeps men oppressing women we are mainly targetting cultural nuances, religious doctrine, and all facets of Patriarchy in the society. We are attempting to get men out of the majority of politics. We are fighting for our right to have our own economy vice working for free, and our right to vote for our leaders.
We have a right to walk safely without fear.
However, now the prisons are overflowing with criminals. Why? Because at the heart of all conflict is men, taught by the Patriarchy to believe they should be in control of some woman or women somewhere. Women’s rights will cause the eventual collapse of our governance, at the expense of all humanity. This is not the fault of women’s rights, but the Patriarchy which refuses to let women go.
It is never wrong for a member of the oppressed group to call for the whole sale slaughter of the oppressor. And to suggest that we need to package our rage into palatable “ethical” arguments is dishonest to Feminism.
Of course, derailing the discussion of the termination of men to one about any “feelings”, rage, anger, or otherwise, serves only to change the discussion to whether or not our feelings are valid rather then what real justice would actually look like in the case of men’s wholesale evil, cruelty, every day horror.
Should we get rid of them?
I say it’s not a bad idea. It’s not an unethical idea. It’s not one that I would reject or condemn…atleast not in the presence of a decapitated woman.
It’s not an argument I make out of rage, but clear insight.
-
Kiuku says:
Nice hat (tin foil)
-
foxx says:
Well here’s one sich remark: Males are inherently more violent than females. The evidence for this is overwhelming. You can’t write it off to conditioning. Where does the conditioning come from?
That may not be the PC line, but as Violet says the truth is more importnat.
-
Violet says:
Violet, there are a few comments like that in the “Women’s Rights and Culture” comment section.
You mean Kiuku? Kiuku has been a denizen of feminist blogs for years and every now and then she starts on her theme that men are irredeemable, etc., or that only the elimination of men will free women, etc. I don’t agree and I had that dialogue with her a long time ago.
As for the genocide talk, I take it exactly as seriously as I take Valerie Solanas’s S.C.U.M. manifesto.
But Kiuku, please stop calling for “wholesale slaughter” in my blog threads. I understand your anger against patriarchy, but please let’s draw the line at genocide, even of the rhetorical sort. Thanks.
-
Cate says:
Hi Violet,
I just sent your thoughtful post to:
Kristina Pace, Membership Specialist, National Organization for Women (202) 628-8669. I am in hopes she will pass your name on to Gandy and she can read it herself. Ms. Pace and I have corresponded a bit regarding my cancelation of my almost 30-year membership and monthly donation. I have informed her it is because of Kim Gandy. She is so full of gas she floats but I have not minced words so she doesn’t write anymore….too bad. But, I want them to see your post. -
sister of ye says:
Sandra S., I certainly wouldn’t expect an atheist to get into theological arguments, even ones that basically amount to “na na so are you.” But those of us who have done the study know their arguments are stupid even on their own terms. No reason we can’t contribute our modest bit (current state of belief or not notwithstanding).
After all, it’s not like there aren’t a cornucopia of arguments available for women’s rights. Heck, some days I’d even get behind Kiuku’s call for extermination, though I think that’s the remnants of having grown up with six brothers speaking.
-
Sandra S. says:
Sister of ye,
My problem with your argument is less that I don’t want to get into what God is and isn’t arguments and more that I think those kind of arguments are fundamentally unproductive. Similarly, I think the evo psych arguments about what men and women evolved to be are similarly flawed. The question isn’t what do we feel driven to do (by instinct or religion or society or whatever), the question is what DO we do. While eventually I’d be tickled pink if everyone adopted my belief system (thus valuing men and women equally), for now I’m concentrating on trying to convince people to alter their Behavior to be less reprehensible, even if they do it only out of self-interest.
But I won’t argue with you on the point about their arguments being stupid.
-
m Andrea says:
Dear Violet: Are you aware that commenters on your blog are saying that men are inherently violent and evil and calling for genocide against them? Please speak out against this. Thank you.
Dear Violet: In case you missed any of my previous missives, I utterly detest how rape, rape, and more rape is supposed to somehow result in my perpetual understanding and forgiveness, but they can’t take a freaking whinefest about dumping them off the planet once in while. I mean, how much longer must I be a spoogebucket for gawd? Why, I’d rip god almighty’s testicles off his sorry self and eat them for lunch, if I’m supposed to be happy about this crap. And how exactly does one propose to clean up the mess from genociding half the planet, anyway? I have always advocated frickin lazer beams, yanno…
P.S. The Ladies Terrorism and Sewing Circle is still taking applications. Edith (you remember her, she’s the one with the silver plated pitchforks) performed a rousing redition of her latest poem, entitled TIMES’S UP!! I’ve had enough. And then we voted on “death by dog vomit” or “death by fizzie soft drinks”.
XOXO
Miss Andrea -
gxm17 says:
American children have it drilled into their heads that our nation was founded on “religious tolerance.” But somewhere along the way tolerating religion became kowtowing to religion. The crimes against women and children that are committed, and excused, under the cover of faith are vast and terrible, and seemingly insurmountable. That’s why it’s imperative that the ERA is passed and femicide is recognized as a hate crime. We need a firm legal foundation to enforce an obligation to prosecute these “god-approved” atrocities.
-
gxm17 says:
I can’t sew worth beans but The Ladies Terrorism and Sewing Circle sounds like a hoot. “Death by fizzie soft drinks,” LOL!
OT: Did anyone catch Life last night? The show featured a “hitman woman” who used household supplies to do her job. What a great character. Hopefully they’ll bring her back in future episodes.
-
octogalore says:
Awesome, Violet. I just noted your eloquent post over at Feministe, where I have been attemting to make this argument.
-
donna darko says:
Lori, your observations are correct and correspond with Violet’s post.
Family Violence Prevention Fund, Asian Task Force:
The average score for all respondents on male privilege was 8.5 out of 24; for Vietnamese respondents it was 12 out of 24 (the highest score amongst the different ethnic groups in the study). The higher the score, the more an individual believes in male privilege. The average score of 8.5 is a low score indicating that overall, respondents do not believe that a husband has the right to discipline his wife, can expect to have sex with his wife whenever he wants it, is the ruler of his home, or that some wives deserve beatings.
This is off-topic but WOC often say feminism makes them choose between gender and race. I didn’t choose feminism, it chose me. The first political group I was attracted to was the Asian political group in college and when it was clear they were not at all interested in women’s issues, I became a feminist. Communities of color force WOC to choose feminism and it’s not the other way around.
-
Kiuku says:
Ok Violet. That sounds like a good line.
I think GXM raises some good points about religious tolerance.
One a side note, I think that religious diversity and tolerance in America, and lack of religion within American households and big city areas leads many to believe that, because men are violent against women in America, that religion has nothing to do with it. But no men are raised in truly atheist households and to a large degree experience male privilege memes via other religious men and/or their own upbringings.
I think religion has a lot to do with men’s violence toward women in America as well as other nations.
-
Kiuku says:
The nuclear family is a religious institution itself. The idea of the nuclear family and raising children in an environment which fosters the idea of male heads of households and women deferring to male economy promotes men’s violence against women. Any idea that promotes the submission of women will promote men’s violence against them as the men try to keep ahold of their god given right to oppress and dominate some woman somewhere, sexually, economically, reproductively. Most of these ideas are promoted through the powerful influence of religion.
Kim Gandy also admits in her article that she “doesn’t know” if there is more men committing violent acts against women in Islam or Arab countries. While you have to take into consideration the overall population of Christians vs. Muslims, I think the answer is a very obvious yes.
-
datechguy says:
It could be that she is afraid of getting a short haircut as well. Remember comedy central and south park.
That fear is not entirely unfounded. Fame didn’t save Theo Van Gogh.
Glad to see you posting again its been a bit, then again the blog IS called Reclusive Leftist.
-
octogalore says:
Kiuku — I agree that the nuclear family should not be viewed as a mandate. However, I disagree with the following:
“The nuclear family is a religious institution itself. The idea of the nuclear family and raising children in an environment which fosters the idea of male heads of households and women deferring to male economy promotes men’s violence against women.”
The “environment with fosters the idea of male heads of households” is not mandatory. Individual couples have the ability to determine their own norms. The “environment…” is not the family, but our world. Tossing over the idea of women who want to do so living with men isn’t a fix, and suggesting it denies women’s agency.
-
donna darko says:
18% in Norway (to take one example from a 1999 global survey) to 80% in Pakistan (or even higher, depending on the study.) Violence against women is not a universal absolute that floats independent of culture: it is very much tied up with social norms and expectations, with religious beliefs, and with levels of male dominance. Many scholars have documented a particularly strong correlation between an ideology of male supremacy and actual rates of domestic violence
The ideology of male supremacy correlates with rate of DV.
And it’s interesting how the Norway and Pakistan rates correlate with gender equality based on economics, education, politics and health in those nations:
Norway is the most gender-equal nation in the world, Pakistan is the fourth least gender-equal. -
Hedgepig says:
Suberb essay as usual, Dr Socks. Your thought experiment with male-on-male violence is particularly enlightening. Imagining various situations with the genders reversed has got to be one of the most effective ways to cast light on sexism.
Also, nice antennae. Now I know why you’ve been looking up expectantly all this time. -
yttik says:
Good article, Violet.
One thing we do know, which donna darko’s post shows, is that those countries that merge church and state, such as authoritarian Islamic nations, do not bode well for women. It doesn’t matter what the religion is, you put state power behind religion and you wind up with hundreds of thousands of women being burnt at the stake, as was done in the name of Christianity. Or the Spanish Inquisition, or any other of our great atrocities. Islam is no different.
Iraq was one of the more progressive countries for women in the ME and although Saddam was a dictator he was a secular dictator. He had women working as scientists, doctors, teachers. He kept the religious extremists at bay and kept women out of burkas. Since the invasion, the secular nature of Iraq has disappeared and with it has gone what little rights women had.
There’s that old saying, peace begins at home. But I also believe that oppression trickles down. The more religiously authoritarian the government, the more violence women will face at home.
Kim Gandy, yep. Sigh. Too much walking on eggshells, too much appeasement, too much political correctness.
-
yttik says:
Oh, and Gandy is incorrect when she says:
“…many talk shows and blogs used the horror of Muzzammil’s act to indict an entire community — in a way that they would never have accused the entire Christian religion because a Methodist man murdered his estranged wife in a horrible way.”
Oh yes I do accuse an entire community when I hear of an atrocity. The Catholic church sexually abused children and covered it up for decades. Yes, I do view this as a negative reflection on the entire Catholic church. I’m not going to spin apologies for them in the name of religious tolerance.
-
Nora says:
“18% in Norway” and “Norway is the most gender equal nation in the world.” This is a frightening statistic and suggests to me that if Kiuku’s solution is too extreme then perhaps mass imprisonment of men to “protect themselves and others” is the solution.
-
gxm17 says:
“The ideology of male supremacy correlates with rate of DV.”
Excellent point. A fundamental tenet of male supremacy is that might = right. Violence against women is the physical expression of this ideology while defining women as the weaker sex is the psychological or “spiritual” articulation of it.
Never mind that everyone has to sleep and a well-timed, well-planned attack will overpower the “strongest” among us. Never mind that girls/women are raised to be submissive and when they aren’t are punished more severely than boys/men. Never mind that females outlive men and are as hardy (if not hardier) in times of stress. Facts don’t matter. The “weaker” meme persists and one of its most effective agents is religion.
-
Kiuku says:
I do deny that women have agency in the Patriarchy. To a large extent I agree that individuals in a nuclear family structure have the ability to choose how their own dynamics, but women still make less money than men, when they make it. We can’t focus on the exceptions and mandate it as a rule that people can choose. They can’t. The nuclear family is a conventional institution, and women and men do not always, actually seldomly have the ability to choose their own dynamics away from the conventional nuclear family norm.
-
Kiuku says:
anymore than women can “choose” to be without men. They can’t.
-
Toonces says:
Why isn’t Obama sending an envoy to the Democratic Republic of Congo?
https://secure.oxfamamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=955
“Who will go to the Congo?
Since 1998, an estimated 5.4 million people have died due to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), while countless other have fled to neighboring countries for safety or remain in camps far from their homes.
Women and girls have borne the brunt of this horrific crisis, with rape as a weapon of war on a scale seen nowhere else in the world. But when President Obama announced special envoys to some of the most dangerous regions of the world last week, the DRC was not included.
Please tell President Obama that the US needs a special envoy to help end the conflict in the DRC.”
ALL HAIL THE FEMINIST-IN-CHIEF!
-
donna darko says:
That was Violet’s point:
Many scholars have documented a particularly strong correlation between an ideology of male supremacy and actual rates of domestic violence.
From my same link above, 41-60% of Asian American women experience DV which is higher than the national average, 33%. The studies on that link provide these statistics:
Japanese 61%
Korean 60%
Vietnamese 47%
South Asian 40.8%
Filipina 20%
Chinese 18.1% -
c says:
“The more religiously authoritarian the government, the more violence women will face at home.”
This may well be true. However, you don’t need religion to embrace violence against women. Take a look at statistics about domestic violence and tolerance of domestic violence for those non-religious countries like Russia and the former members of the Soviet Union. Vietnam, mentioned here, is not a country with a state religion either.
Perpetrators of this violence will use any handy argument to excuse their behavior. Distortion of “religious” beliefs is just one source of self-justification.
Most authoritarian governments are not having women be the authorities.It seems as though whenever bullies are in charge women get bullied.
-
donna darko says:
Religion is ideology. Male supremacy and male privilege are ideologies. The excerpt I provided linked attitudes about DV and belief in male privilege which is a type of ideology.
Gender-equality rankings among nations based on economics, education, politics and health outcomes can be due to different factors such as strength of feminist movements in different countries, ideologies such as religion, poverty, maybe others can think of other factors determining the economics, education, politics and health outcomes.
The high rates in Russia are due to poverty and drinking.
-
Sis says:
I agree Donna Darko, up until your statement ab about Russia. I think thigh rates there are due to the Orthodox Russian church and the Slavic male supremacist culture (and vice versa) imbedded so deep even decades of pograms couldn’t purge it.
-
Sis says:
This site, for me, is about one word wide. I do not know why.
“the high rates”
-
donna darko says:
There’s definitely a connection between sexism and Confucianism which was written about here:
December 7, 2007: Intersectionality and communities of color
-
purplefinn says:
I think religion can be used to enforce and justify male domination. Patriarchy is the dominant force in the world. It isn’t all powerful. It has to be maintained. Think of all the energy expended in keeping women down and propping men up. There are significant challenges to the patriarchy. I will resist patriarchal domination until the day I die no matter how hopeful or hopeless the cause. Women are human. Women’s rights are human rights.
I agree that it does not help to absolve various religions of their part in maintaining patriarchies. I agree with the commenters who suggest that religion is not the only factor. It seems male domination needs to be continually challenged on any number of fronts. -
Kiuku says:
religion would be beautiful if not for men
-
yttik says:
What Kim Gandy does in her article is imply that we must first protect Muslims from any negativity this case might bring them. That’s the kind of thing that constantly drives me crazy, women are coerced and maneuvered into defending every social cause before themselves.
For example, we’re having a lovely feminist protest here in honor of international womens day and the issues on the agenda are…immigration rights and gay marriage. Excellent, two valid social issues, but once again we’re dealing with other issues that do impact some women’s lives, but they aren’t at the heart of the matter. And ironically, we’re holding this protest in a town that just lost 3 women to DV, has a young rape victim in prison awaiting trial for giving birth alone and putting the baby in the garbage can. The atrocities that are happening right here, right in our backyard, are not related to immigration or gay marriage, they’re directly related to women’s low status in the world.
-
donna darko says:
And Confucianism is a social philosophy, an ideology.
-
djmm says:
Violet, when someone suggests killing all men, particularly on a blog where emotion on comments does not always come through, I cannot necessarily tell whether they are blowing off steam (a “Venting” in parentheses would be helpful) or whether they are truly so damaged that they really mean it. So I do appreciate you placing the comments in context and your reminder for civil discussion. But I feel I should throw in my two cents.
It is sad, but there are many vicious, twisted women in the world. Some of them abuse children. Some abuse their partners (male or female). Some of them brag about their fun with the KKK. Some were themselves victims, some have brain chemistry problems and but some just enjoy the exercise of power. And there are some really great guys in this world, a few of whom are true feminists (along with, I agree, many men who are disgusting, violent, and vicious — or just cute but clueless). I have too many friends who have been raped or beaten. A few of these friends are men. Yes, men are sometimes beaten and raped, usually by other men or, if they are young, by other young boys. But a couple of the ones I know were beaten by women, who happen to be serial abusers. So who is irredeemable? Who is inherently evil?
I am a proud feminist and despise rapists and abusers of whatever sex. But when someone talks about killing all men, well, that would include my father, my brother, my significant other and many of my friends — all of whom abhor rapists and those commit violence towards women or children.
Men of good heart — and they are significantly numerous — can be our allies in seeking redress, in changing the laws and in making this society more fair for all. But if our best venues of discussion have postings that insist, without contradiction, that they are inherently evil or talk (in what looks like serious terms) about their wholesale murder, they will turn away in disgust. While that may be gratifying for some, it is counter-productive and unintelligent, as well as untrue, unfair and unjust.
djmm
-
Sis says:
Men of good heart will have abused some woman, somewhere in their lives, in some way, physical or emotional or sexual, while being kind and good to some other woman. Men abuse because they can. Not some men, all men. Mostly, the only payback women get is venting. I can’t believe anyone took kiuku seriously. I think maybe a couple of you are just looking for an excuse to defend men. Read the new post.
-
m Andrea says:
I am seriously tired of people who somehow or other imagine that a nutcase or group of nutcases is capable of wiping out 4 billion men. Don’t you think someone would notice and put a stop to it? It took Hitler how many years to murder 6 million people, and how many complicit helpers did he need? It’s not even fricken possible to murder 4 billion people, so what exactly is your problem?
What I believe folks like djmm are really worried about is that someone may start listing all the reasons why it’s actually a good idea in theory. We mustn’t accuse men of being deserving of that fate, after all. That would upset Patriarchy and cause a revolution of equality to spread over the world.
As for all that “what about teh menz” routine: A reasonable person measure the amount of harm inflicted onto a specific biological group, by measuring the amount of harm. In other words, we don’t measure the amount of racism by measuring the amount of nice white people. Any attempt to do, and the true purpose becomes clear.
Just to make you squirm, perhaps you might like to know that a world of only females can ethically arise by the work of just ONE person. *snickers* Perhaps men should shape the freak up and act like they are human, eh?
-
So refreshing and true « Donna Darko says:
[...] reminds me of Violet’s post about Kim Gandy: The solution, in all cases, is to confront the situation with unflinching honesty. Drag the truth [...]
-
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Why NOW needs new leadership, and why you should care says:
[...] Why NOW needs new leadership, and why you should care If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you already know that many of the leaders of the feminist establishment in this country behaved shamefully last year. (And if you don’t know it, read this and this and this and this). If life were an Akira Kurosawa movie, Ellie Smeal and Kim Gandy would commit ritual seppuku in public to atone for the grave dishonor they did to the feminist movement. But lo, dig it! Life is not an Akira Kurosawa movie! And so instead of graciously offing themselves or at least promising to stop being dishonest Obama-enabling hacks, Ellie and Kim and cohorts keep doing shit. Like this! And this! And this! [...]
