This photo, circulating online during the last week of June 2009 and during the more chaotic moments of the recent unrest in Iran, makes a strong statement: Iranian men are in grave risk of “insecurity” due to their (carelessly!) eschewing the hijab.
Considering the hijab‘s myriad moral and social benefits for Muslim women, equal-opportunity veiling is clearly the next logical step for Iranian men. Too long has this “empowering” privilege been reserved for the lesser gender.
Though the Obama Administration has cut large portions of abstinence-only sex education from the 2010 budget, advocates of the movement are gearing up to continue their fight for unfulfilling, guilt-ridden sex for one and all. Remember when Creationism became “Intelligent Design”?
According to the Huffington Post, the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) has refocused its energies by hiring PR companies to market the movement as scientifically based and holistic.
A great deal of this involves modeling what the comprehensive sex education curricula and proponents have been doing so well, namely language and tools. For example, despite being well-known for presenting false and misleading information about condoms and contraception, abstinence-only groups are now holding that they’re medically accurate in their willingness to finally talk about contraception.
Instead of replying with an unnecessarily snarky admonishment, let me first state that, like any issue regarding a woman’s body, waiting for love, marriage or even just a bus, before having sex is not an issue open to ridicule—at least not for dignified adults. Sexual decisions are private decisions that must not be legislated upon by religious lobbying groups (a direct First Amendment violation) or dictated by the federal government. However, the underlying message of abstinence-only sexual education and other virginity cult movements, such as the loathsome True Love Waits organization, is that not only is sexual experimentation by both sexes prior to marriage morally wrong, but that the onus of virginity preservation lies on young women and, gulp, their fathers…
This is most evident in what has become a popular trend, particularly in Colorado Springs, Colorado, headquarters of Focus on the Family, and a politically conservative, religiously fundamentalist enclave in an otherwise generally liberal state. Teenage women are encouraged to pledge their virginities to their fathers, at least until marriage, and are often rewarded with a fancy Purity Ball—often at Colorado Springs’ swanky Broadmoor Hotel—and a sparkling ring to wear on their left ring finger. The fact that these girls are asked to “vow” something so private to their fathers, and not their mothers or their selves, is particularly telling. Abstinence-only education, no matter how “scientific” it is becoming, is still in practice a mode of patriarchy.
And, while many public intellectuals have openly and notoriously debunked the Intelligent Design movement as Creationism in the Academy’s clothing, little is being said about the damage that the abstinence-only movement poses for teenagers. Specifically, the question that no one seems to be asking is what this ideology means for a young woman’s psychological health. When an individual’s entire worth is dependent upon her pristine and uncharted vagina, and then eventually transferred to her identity as her husband’s wife, a young woman’s existence becomes indelibly bound to others, particularly the various men in her life. When it does come time for a her to enter into a sexual relationship with her husband—presuming she makes it to her wedding night as an “unmarred” virgin—she has never learned the art of self-fulfillment, either sexually or emotionally. She has placed so much energy on meeting others’ standards that she has never learned to ask what it is she wants and expects from her own sexual experience. Sexuality becomes the realm of the masculine, and women are meant to lie still and shut up about it–keep in mind, however, that “lying still” may alternatively displease one’s partner, so a virgin best have an encyclopedic (but not practical) knowledge of sexual acrobatics, you know, just in case. If, as advocates suggest, abstinence is, indeed, the “only form of safe sex,” they are entirely remiss on the gravely dangerous emotional affects of this movement.
“True Love,” after all, exists only when one truly loves oneself, independent of coercion or social mores, and with a fully informed and balanced sense of dignity. True love doesn’t “wait” for others; it’s available for anyone willing to claim it.
I confess to an electic nostalgia — I recall rotary phones with fondness, and the note-passing that was en vogue during high school, when texting meant one wrote in block characters rather then cursive. Accordingly I mourn the passing of trades made obsolete by so-called advances in technology, and the loss of all the technical art and skill that go with them. Who knows now how the elevator attendant managed all those buttons? Is there any alive now who can repair the wiring guts of an antique rotary phone? Eras vanish.
Therefore it is with great sadness that I learn that the president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, has announced his intention to ban female genital mutilation. President Museveni addressed a gathering in his country’s eastern Karamoja district: “The way God made it, there is no part of a human body that is useless.” Nice to see that the President still supports the ancient art of theologically medieval, ad hoc rhetorical justification — the way God mad it, indeed! — even if advances in so-called medical science and moral ethics are forcing him to retire his country’s corps of genital mutilators.
Let me propose a means by which this revered craft can be preserved.Let’s relocate a colony of labia carvers and their apprentice scalpel handlers to, say, Vermont or New Hampshire. They can set up a craft community, give tours and daily demonstrations for the Luddite looky-loos — like Sturbridge Village, if instead of hammer and anvils the blacksmiths did their work with artfully jury-rigged genital mutilation tools of the kind displayed by the genital mutilator in the photo here. Oh forces of modernity. Is there no tradition or trade that you won’t destroy, no custom you will respect?
1875, from Functions and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs by William Acton:
Women (happily for society) are not very much troubled with sexual feeling of any kind. What men are habitually, women are only exceptionally. It is true, I admit, … there are some few women who have sexual desires so strong that they surpass those of men, and shock public feeling by their consequences. I admit, of course, the existence of sexual excitement terminating even in nymphomania … but, with these sad exceptions, there can be no doubt that sexual feeling in the female is in the majority of cases in abeyance, and that it requires positive and considerable excitement to be roused at all; and even if roused (which in many instances it never can be) it is very moderate compared with that of the male. [as quoted on p.36 of The Social Meaning of Human Sexuality by John Petras, 1978]
1975, from Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller:
Is it possible that there is some sort of metaphysical justice in the anatomical fact that the male sex organ, which has been misused from time immemorial as a weapon of terror against women, should have at its root an awkward place of painful vulnerability? Acutely conscious of their susceptibility to damage, men have protected their testicles throughout history with armor, supports and forbidding codes of “clean,” above-the-belt fighting. A gentleman’s agreement is understandable — among gentlemen. When women are threatened, as I learned in my self-defense class, “Kick him in the balls, it’s your best maneuver.” How strange it was to hear for the first time in my life that women could fight back, should fight back and make full use of a natural advantage; that it is in our interest to know how to do it. How strange it was to understand with the full force of unexpected revelation that male allusions to psychological defeat, particularly at the hands of a woman, were couched in phrases like emasculation, castration and ball-breaking because of that very special physical vulnerability. [Petras pp.195-6]
The Telegraph is reporting that President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has signed the Shiite Personal Status Law, legislation allow the Shia community to settle family law cases involving sexual relations within marriage, divorce, inheritance, rights of movement, and other matters, according to Shia tradition — sharia law — at the expense of equal rights for women. From the article:
The law, which has not been publicly released, is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor’s appointments with their husband’s permission. […] Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women. […]
The bill was passed in both houses of the Afghan parliament. Thus far, United Nations representatives have not been allowed to see a copy of the approved bill. [First seen at the JihadWatch blog]
“Wickedly subversive commentator” Mary Beard blogs as resident don (donna?) for the Times Online. In today’s column, she shares on the response she’s been giving to folks when they ask her what she thinks about the lot of women in Sudan. Well, not really — who has the time to take it all in when visiting a place for only a few days? So rather than making a report on females in Sudanese society, she passes “professional verdict” on Islamic dress. Fashion is as good as sociology in a pinch, in’t it? She writes:
There are some who wear burkas, most simply wear long skirts and long sleeves. This was the costume I adopted — not much flesh exposed, but no aggressive concealment. It only took a day before I rather relished the democracy (and the colour coded fun) of this kind of attire. It was great for a 54-year-old woman like me, and in fact a relief not to have to walk through the streets of Khartoum, confronted (as you are in Cambridge) with posses of 16-year-old size 8s, displaying their thighs and belly buttons (pierced).
She means Cambridge, UK, of course — a regular catwalk of tawdrish immodesty — but the same surely holds here in Mass. How excellent that Beard was able to relish the fabric democracy of Sudan, without having to suffer disenfranchisement and genital mutilation. If only all women in Sudan enjoyed the same luxury.
I would be grateful if someone could explain to me the redeeming satirical message underlying Robert Fiorentino’s instructional video, “How to Properly Slap a Woman.” I have three theories:
The Taleban has been closing girls’ schools in the northwest Swat district of Pakistan, and threatening to blow up schools which do not comply. Scores of schools have already been burned to the ground. This is a further putting-into-effect of the policies of Mullah Fazlullah, whose fundamentalist brand of Islam is propagated through the region via his illegal FM radio broadcasts. This ‘Mullah Radio’, as he is known, “has long been exhorting people to stop sending their daughters to schools, which ‘inculcate Western values'” (EarthTimes.org).
I’ve spent a few hours thinking over how to frame my response to these most recent crimes committed by the Taleban. Disgust is followed by a desire to act, but I am unsure what I could do from my Boston home that could keep safe any Pakistani teachers and students who want to continue their lessons despite the threats of these fanatics. What I’d like to do, at least, is to share my view of a root cause of such conflicts between “Western values” (the right of all children to an education, without regard to their gender) and Islam.
Mullah Radio can expect action when he declaims the Western brainwashing of Pakistani girls, because he has positioned himself effectively within the system of Muslim authority. In his whereabouts, moral authority derives from one’s scrupulous use of Koranic justification — really, interpretation — or at least from the perception that one is working out of that book. Humanism — and the gender equality which accompanies its more ideal manifestations — isn’t as attractive in the marketplace of ideals as revelatory religious traditions, which have claimed for their exclusive use the virtuous terminology of faithfulness: fidelity, truth, meaning, hope, charity. Until a humanism is articulated which somehow engages the latent cultural forces which associate credo with authority, the conflict between reasoning humanism and dogmatic institutions will be largely communicated through force, not communication. Western humanism has no seat at the table, in Pakistan or elsewhere, as long as adults continue to admit supernatural sources for moral claims. The moral claims of humanism (e.g., “all persons are created equal,” etc.) and the moral claims of theology (e.g., “Our way is the true way, as revealed to us exclusively by our Creator,” etc.) are simply incommensurable.
I don’t mean to suggest that religion need be eradicated before feminism can get girls in school throughout the world. Rather, I have a question: why must religion (the institution where communities pronounce, attempt to understand, and preserve their values) be supernatural? If there were a Church that could credibly command all the language of religion, as well as the right of religion to distinguish between right and wrong, then we would have an institution suitably equipped to oppose Mullah Radio.
Anyone who is freedom-loving, anti-fundamentalist, and interested in taking some kind of action, might start at http://www.rawa.org.
NB: This most recent incarnation of fundamentalist woman-hating is despicable… but unsurprising: Islam is not gender-equitable. However, some commentators are optimistic about making Islam compatible with a progressive feminism.
The Boston University Women’s Studies Program and the Humanities Foundation present Hilary Brougher, winner of the Milan Film Festival Best Director award, on campus to discuss her acclaimed film Stephanie Daley.
She will discuss her work as an acclaimed woman film director, on Wednesday November 19, 2008, from 4 – 6 pm in in room 206, 8 St. Mary’s Street, Boston (BU Central stop on the Green Line B-branch).
Join us also for a screening of Stephanie Daley on Monday, November 17, 2008, from 3 – 5 pm in room 211 in the College of Arts and Sciences classroom building, 725 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston (BU East stop on the Green Line B-branch).
Synopsis: A young girl has murdered her unwanted baby. Or has she? Forensic psychologist Lydia Crane [Tilda Swinton] is assigned to Stephanie Daley’s [Amber Tamblyn’s] case. Dispassionately, they discuss Stephanie’s life, a life from which Stephanie seems almost unnaturally detached. Meanwhile, Lydia’s own life is in turmoil-she herself is six months pregnant after a recent miscarriage, yet she’s ambivalent. Her husband may be having an affair and she herself is drawn to another man, a friend, and to Stephanie. . . .
Stephanie Daley explores the ambivalence women experience with regard to pregnancy and motherhood through the connection between these two seemingly very different protagonists-a “lost” teenage girl and a professional woman on the cusp of motherhood. The result is a brutally honest [and award-winning] film which never swerves from the troubling complexities it reveals.