What a powerful entry. I find this so moving and so precise. The only way to stop this is to find the ending point of cultural relativism and own up to the always pervasive global responsibility.

I couldn't bring myself to watch that video either out of sheer disgust, and also because I'm afraid that might be the thing to push me over the precipice and start hating all men.

It makes me ill that we are targets the world over, simply because we commit the crime of existing in this man's world. If people are so stupid to think that only "uncivilized" middle-eastern people are the ones who do this, they should take a good long look at our own rape conviction rates, murder through domestic violence (on a DAILY basis), or how about the debacle of the OJ Simpson trial?

It wrenches my heart to know that there is so much animosity and support of male priviledge, that we really haven't moved forward very much at all concerning equality. We need to keep dialogues open - keep talking and talking about this stuff - until real change happens, whenever that will be.

Thanks for posting on this. I hope those murdering men are held accountable for what they did. I hope some change comes out of this.

Here is our petition

Here are some photos of the demonstrations in Arbil

Here are some photos I took last night in Trafalgar Square, London

There will be a meeting to organise further action in London. Any potential particpants please contact me through the site.

Thanks so much for writing this, Samhita. I'd read about this through Pandagon (great post, by the way), but this post was particularly moving. I couldn't watch the video, either. The fact that there is a video disgusts me. I can't imagine a person getting murdered in the street in front of me and instead of trying to stop it or freezing and wailing in horror and fear, choosing instead to FILM it. Maybe it will help people who don't realize that this is happening to understand what women are suffering throughout the world (though more likely, it will just invoke racism). But I've seen enough women having the shit beat out of them by men in one way or another, and I can't watch anymore.

I know, I hate the whole "they" do this but "we" don't mentality. In fact, I would argue that one of the few things the world's patriarchal cultures (read: most of them) have in common is that they've been colonized at one point or another by European-based people. So it seems to me that "they" learned it from us. I believe this even more after reading the book "When God Was a Woman" where Merlin Stone argues that goddess worship in the Near and Middle East ended because northern invaders came and forced their male-god(s)-only religion on the native people of the Near and Middle East, which then led to complete obliteration of women's status in those societies. And now white Americans and Europeans call everybody else barbarians for what our ancestors forced on them and for what our societies still do.

Muki - your rant disappoints. Indeed, how do you not engage in talk of 'honor killings' without it turning into a "how can we bring democracy to such a backwards place" conversation. Your reluctance to confront reality is to the detriment of women of color and non-Western women everywhere. True enough, rapes happen all over the world, just like assaults, murders and other nasty things. But only in non-Western countries (read: Muslim countries) will you find anything remotely approaching the sort of systematic and institutionalized brutality against women that you claim to be against. By not advocating for liberal democracy in such places, you implicilty support the most brutal institutionalization of the patriarchy the world has ever known.

(Sycamore lane in the house :)

Goddamn.

The world is so fucked up.

Goddamn.

The world is so fucked up.

hey cracksmoker,

What about the systematic sexual assault of female American GIs by male American GIs? You can ask Ranter about that one. And what about the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that our troops use in Iraq, even towards children? (stories from my friend who came back from fighting in Iraq)

Those aren't really the people I trust to bring democracy anywhere...

Cracksmoker--

Get out of here! You think what the US is doing in Iraq is spreading liberal democracy?

Shorty please, don't make me cut you. If they were, this conversation would look much different. Did I say I don't support democracy? No. I don't support hypocrisy.

Samhita, the fact that you just said "Shorty please, don't make me cut you" pretty much made my day.

Muki - your second rant disappoints even more than your first. In point of fact, I most certainly do think the US is spreading demoracy. (And in point of fact no one here at feministing is doing anything to help that.) Your comment about supporting democracy and not hypocrisy is non-sense pretending to be sense. If you support democracy then you support the invasion. If you support democracy, then all you can object to is the execution of the plan, not the plan itself. But go ahead, ignore the real patriarchy so well entrenched in Muslim lands and its systemic oppression of women. Those women who are burned, stoned and beaten may yet thank you for not being an imperialist.

As for Nina's clever comments: riddle me this: Where would you rather live for the next 6 months: Saudi Arabia, a place completely free of American imperialistic notions of democracy and liberty; or with some American GI's?

Yours truly,
Cracksmoker

(Lakeland in the house :)

My favorite thing about cracksmoker is how apt his/her name is.

Am I showing some kind of ignorance if I ask who the hell Muki is?

Reminds me of a good article I read awhile back about how one can be a multi-culturalist (i.e. embracing all cultures) or one can be a feminist, but one cannot be both, simply because so many cultures are based on the subjection and oppression of women.

Of course, the whole topic is controversial, but I should think it's safe to say that ANY culture that embraces murder isn't really worth celebrating, at least from a humanistic perspective.

Also--I don't think that When God was a Woman is particularly ironclad. It's a highly questionable source among historians and archeologists, as I understand it.

I also wonder why we assume that "spreading democracy" would automatically spread feminism. Spreading democracy means self-determination by a kind of majority-rules method. A majority has never had a problem with trampling on the rights of a minority, to judge by the history of this country. If the majority of people in a given culture or nation are opposed to equal rights for women, bringing democracy is not going to result in feminism. (Leaving aside, for a moment, the fact that that's not what this country's army does, in general.)

"Saudi Arabia, a place completely free of American imperialistic notions of democracy and liberty; or with some American GI's?"

That's a really tough question to answer, honestly, given the high incidences of rape and assault in the American military. Plus, weren't you aware the "Americans" (or at least Bush) loves the Saudis, and they love us?

Read this:
http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/326/the_black_glove/

And then go smoke some crack.

I think tolerance is a better thing to spread than democracy.

Then again, it's hard to spread tolerance via an invasion, so maybe that's why we don't hear about it as often....

I think the only time the United States has managed to successfully spread tolerance at gunpoint was in Japan after its defeat in World War II. Also, as another poster said, "democracy" and respect for the rights of minorities have very little to do with each other.

I am muki. Cracksmoker is someone I went to school with and have known for many years, but clearly we have gone down different ideological paths.

The way you write is so arrogant Josh. Good to see nothing has changed ;) First of all, I would like to know what you are doing to help democracy around the world, or what you think we are not doing. Engaging in public discourse is important and a necessary part of democracy. You are one of THOUSANDS of people that read this site and engaged in the concepts and ideas and sometimes they do translate to real world action.

Secondly, what are you talking about "if I support democracy, than I support invasion?" You sound brainwashed. I will ask again do you REALLY think that the invasion of Iraq is about democracy? I mean, I didn't realize you had become a neo-con (and by the way they hate me, so you can go visit some of their blogs if you want, you may find people that support your opinion more).

The problem with you US foreign policy buffs is you don't listen, you just talk. Why don't you ask what some of the women are saying around the world about whether they want to live here or not?

And you are right, I don't want to live in Saudi Arabia and I am definitely not defending misogyny anywhere, but I don't think invasion is the solution. It is not the purpose of it and quit frankly I am disappointed that you have bought into that rhetoric.

Finally, Muslim people didn't invent sexism, patriarchy or violence. They are global phenomena.

Muslim people didn't invent sexism, patriarchy or violence. They are global phenomena.

I REALLY think this should be on a T-shirt. I have WAY too many friends who think the opposite. :(

You can be anti-racist and feminist at the same time. Multi-culturalism is a crock - to continue the theme of crack on this thread. In both anti-racism and feminism, cultural relativism is discouraged.

"

Muslim people didn't invent sexism, patriarchy or violence. They are global phenomena.

I REALLY think this should be on a T-shirt. I have WAY too many friends who think the opposite. :("

I concur 100%

I just wish I knew something I could do about this. Where should I send my check to? UNIFEM (www.unifem.org)?

Thanks for the petition link, Galloise Blonde.
This is so sad and horrible. :(

"When God Was a Woman" where Merlin Stone argues that goddess worship in the Near and Middle East ended because northern invaders came and forced their male-god(s)-only religion on the native people of the Near and Middle East, which then led to complete obliteration of women's status in those societies. And now white Americans and Europeans call everybody else barbarians for what our ancestors forced on them and for what our societies still do.

-- ACS

Actually, as an Anthropology major, I've got to say that various archaeologists still hotly debate all of those issues, ACS. Add this to the long list of things that we just can't possibly know for sure.

I'd also point out that goddess-worship doesn't really correlate to equality and rights for women in the real world. Consider the veneration of Mary in Catholicism, which is absent in Protestantism. It has not correlated to greater rights for women in Catholic nations and cultures.

Muki --

'Tis not arrogance -- or at least no more so than your post :) Now to the line by line:

1. To help foster liberal democracy around the world I actively support -- by way of a vote, funding and attitude -- American led efforts to transform the world. The US led invasion is the REAL revolution that the pseudointellectual Marxists have been dreaming of.

2. What is the invasion about if not democracy? I so hope you will not bore me with some tired rhetoric of oil or imperialism: if that's what this was about, we could have simply set up Iraq as a puppet protectorate (and skipped Afghanistan altogether). Instead, the Iraqis have been asked to go to the polls and develop their own constitution. It takes a long time to get a stable democracy up and running. And jihadis who blow up women and children don't help the situation. But it's difficult to stop jihadis when so-called progressives think GI's are the problem, rather than killers who would seek to impose a patriarchy the likes of which you cannot even conceive of.

3. The problem -- Muki -- is not that I don't listen (though I appreciate being called a foreign policy buff). The problem is that progressives are blind to reality. Go read Jan Goodwin's The Price of Honor, a collection of narratives by women of color subjected to the horrors of Muslim patriarchy. (Or go read Burned Alive, a first personal narrative by a Palistinian woman burned by her kin.) The evidence from women's voices is near unanimous. The people who don't listen are privileged progressive women who's myoptic gaze extends no farther than rants about fairy tale wedding dresses and the use of the word "girl". (What can I say, I'm a frequent reader of feministing; I know one of the founders. BTW, props to you on its success.)

4. You wrote: "And you are right, I don't want to live in Saudi Arabia and I am definitely not defending misogyny anywhere, but I don't think invasion is the solution. It is not the purpose of it and quit frankly I am disappointed that you have bought into that rhetoric."

I guess you've hit a core issue: I think it's perfectly permissible -- no -- morally obligatory to liberate women from the tyranny and oppression of patriarchy. And while I'd be happy to grant that the West is not utopia, I will deny it is a patriarchy. Moreover, to compare and equate the Muslim lands and their treatment of women with the way the West treats women itself does real actual violence to women. In the US and the rest of the West you're free to publish things like feministing.com. But I doubt you could if you lived in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Indonesia.

5. You wrote: "Finally, Muslim people didn't invent sexism, patriarchy or violence. They are global phenomena. "

That's true (but definitely not worthy of a t-shirt). However, the West actively combats it. Muslims societies actively promote it. Or have you forgotten that in the West a woman can sue if she's discriminated against in the work place; whereas a woman in Saudi Arabia can be raped and beaten for being raped and beaten.

Yours truly,
Cracksmoker
(Josh was good guess, but he didn't live on sycamore, right down the road from you :)

Thanks for posting the guernica article too, Ninapendamaishi.

EG, I take your point, but Mary isn't really goddess-worship. She gets more props in the Catholic scheme of things, but there's still a big angry god at the head of it all.

I'm not trying to pick on you, and I haven't even read the book we're debating, but I AM a goddess worshipper and I personally don't fel that Mary veneration is the same thing. :)

Heh, and Nina, I'm glad we agree on something finally. Who knows? Five months from now and we could be BFF, like noname and I finally ended up being after weeks of disagreement. ;)

In the meantime, where does one go to get T-shirts printed...?

the West actively combats it....Or have you forgotten that in the West a woman can sue if she's discriminated against in the work place

That's not representative of some general beneficence on the part of the West. That's representative of the hard work of feminist activists who were opposed by the establishment of the West every step of the way. Don't co-op their work in order to demonstrate that the order they struggled against is progressive after all.

killers who would seek to impose a patriarchy the likes of which you cannot even conceive of.

Oh, I think we can conceive of it. It was feminists who were raising money for RAWA before Bush & Co. had even learned how to spell "Afghanistan."

I don't feel picked on, don't sweat it! I just would need to see some serious evidence before I accept the idea that we can gauge a society's level of respect for actual women by its level of goddess-worship (there's a big angry god at the head of the Greek pantheon too, but there was actual goddess worship there, and a culture that sucked more for women is hard to imagine)...actually, first I'd need to see some serious evidence that there ever was a culture based on primary goddess worship to begin with, and given that Stone's work is far from accepted, well...

EG wrote: "That's not representative of some general beneficence on the part of the West. That's representative of the hard work of feminist activists who were opposed by the establishment of the West every step of the way. Don't co-op their work in order to demonstrate that the order they struggled against is progressive after all."

Now to the line by line...

1. That's a non-sequitur to my point, which you don't deny. The West actively combats sexism; in non-Western countries (ie Muslim lands) it is actively promoted. You do not deny it. But you ignore it to the detriment of women everywhere.

2. You are mistaken: it IS actually representative of a general societal beneficence. It is representative of a political culture (borne of the Enlightenment and the Judeo-Christian ethic of charity) that allowed women sufficient freedom, privacy and resources in order to obtain political equality. We'll see if the same methods work in Iran or Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't hold my breath.

3. And I will most certainly co-opt "their" work -- but I will be honest about it unlike the cooption you've now just performed. Feminism and its expositors are part of the West. The core ideas of the classic feminists from Wollstonecraft, to J.S. Mill, to Cady-Stanton, as well as contemporary thinkers have been absorbed into the Western cannon (anybody here not think a women is entitled to equal pay?). What's really troubling you is that these once radical ideas ARE the Western establishment. But that would mean that you would have to support the establishment. And that would offend that pseudo-intellectual Marxist revolutionary that lingers in all progressives. The revolution to liberate women has started with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq: you are on the wrong side of history.

cracksmoker-

"What is the invasion about if not democracy?"

According to wikipedia:
“Throughout 2002, the Bush administration made clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a major goal. The principal stated justifications for this policy of "regime change" were that Iraq's alleged production of weapons of mass destruction, and purported ties to terrorist organizations, amounted to an imminent threat to the U.S. and the world community.�

Women’s rights (or “bringing freedom� to the Iraqi people) was not the ORIGINAL rational for going to war. Looking for wmds (which were never found) was.

"I will deny it [the US] is a patriarchy."

If we define patriarchy as “a system of gendered power relations through which men exercise power over women,� (from media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html), then what exactly would you call a country that has not passed the ERA to ensure women equal rights with men, just ruled preserving women’s health is not a concern of the government (while ruling preserving fetus’s lives are) via the federal abortion ban, where women make on average only 77% of men and all forms of martial rape are not illegal and where thousands of women are beaten and raped by men who claim to love them or don’t even know them, etc?

And btw,on March 6, 2007, MADRE, an international women's human rights organization, released of a report on the incidence, causes and legalization of gender-based violence in Iraq since the US-led invasion. Entitled "Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy: Gender-Based Violence and the US War on Iraq," it documents the use of gender-based violence by Islamists seeking to establish a theocratic state and by the US in its efforts to win cooperation from Islamists.

According to the report, "Under US occupation, Iraqi women have endured a wave of gender-based violence, including widespread abductions, public beatings, death threats, sexual assaults, 'honor killings,' domestic abuse, torture in detention, beheadings, shootings, and public hangings. Much of this violence is systematic—directed by the Islamist militias that mushroomed across Iraq after the US toppled the mostly secular Ba'ath regime."

Well cracksmoker, before we fall victim to your neo-con ideology, lets point out the obvious here.

First, democracy will never take root if it is instituted at the point of a gun (it never has).

Second, democracy won't and didn't prevent the Yazidi honor killings.

Third, honor killings (brothers killing sisters to save tribal honor) are a cultural aspect of the Middle East that has been around long before Islam was even a religion.

Forth, The Yazidi are not Arab, nor are they even Islamic.

I agree the issue of honors killings has to be addressed and protested, but we would be just as evil as the Yazidi were if we forced our values on them.

No culture has a monopoly on values (just as no political party has a monopoly on values).

Cracksmoker

If you want to fight radical Islam in Iraq, I know a lot of people who would like to trade places with you.

If you are not willing to die for what you believe in, then don't ask others to die in your stead.

cracksmoker, if the war in Afghanistan was about liberating women, we would have driven the Taliban out long before 9/11 (or that fucker Reagan never would have funded them in the first place). The war in Afghanistan was about revenge and trying to prevent more terrorist attacks. Women not having to live under the Taliban any longer was a happy product of that war, but they are far from "liberated." If the war in Iraq was about liberating women, the American people wouldn't have been brainwashed into going there through false accusations of WMDs. And we wouldn't have US TRAINED POLICEMEN watching a women get murdered by a mob in cold blood. Explain to me how that's liberating women, again? No, wait, please don't.

Now can we stop having this bullshit argument about the Iraq war? It's only taking away from the topic of this post, which is men killing women because they feel that it's their right to do so.

well cracksnorter:

"I guess you've hit a core issue: I think it's perfectly permissible -- no -- morally obligatory to liberate women from the tyranny and oppression of patriarchy."

Too bad things have actually gotten far worse for the women of Afghanistan and Iraq then since the invasions (at least according to the U.S. GI's accounts, and accounts of Iraqi feminists). Even if things were to be better for Afghan women in another 10 or 20 years (seriously questionable) how do you justify the thousands upon thousands of casualties of women and children (and men) in between now and then?

"It is representative of a political culture (borne of the Enlightenment and the Judeo-Christian ethic"

Islam was born of the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Islam shares far more in common with those religions (including the sexism in their religious texts) than any of them do with other world religions.

"Feminism and its expositors are part of the West"

I doubt the feminists everywhere else in the world, including muslim feminists in Iraq, would agree with you.

I mean, if we have to attribute everything back to its origin, we owe Algebra, table manners, elaborate running water, knowledge about the color spectrum, dessert, and a number of other things to the Arabs...

P.S. Awesome statement, Ranter.

Ranter, your cultural relativism is what's killing women.

You wrote: "I agree the issue of honors killings has to be addressed and protested, but we would be just as evil as the Yazidi were if we forced our values on them."

Right -- wouldn't want to force my imperialistic beliefs on people that murder and mysogyny are wrong. I make no apologies for believing that a culture which attempts to combat sexism and mysogyny is morally superior to those that don't. Cultures can and should be judged objectively. When they are not, it is women who suffer. (Witness Darfur. The rhetoric for not allowing peacekeeping troops is relativistic non-sense about colonialization. And so women go on being butchered. But hey, it's not like the West is objectively right or anything in condemning genocide -- that's just your sujbective point of view.)

But your relativism has far more profound implications which you ignore. After all, aren't you just trying to force your feminist views on others in the US? If you're right, "sexism" has no meaning. It's just your personal point of view. And as you've just written, it would be wrong to impose that on others.

Ah, I see. You'd like to take the best elements of Western history and thought and claim that they're representative of Western culture and thought as a whole (Mary Wollstonecraft) and then take the worst elements of Middle Eastern history and thought, and claim that they're representative of Middle Eastern culture and thought as a whole.

No. It doesn't work like that. If you want Mary Wollstonecraft, you have to own the dominant forces that she was fighting as well. I'm not sure, by the way, why'd you link the Enlightenment to the "Judeo-Christian" tradition (and I put that phrase in quotation marks, because in general, whenever I see it, there's very little "Judeo" about whatever the user is talking about), given that many of the most prominent Enlightenment figures attacked religion and the church.

I agree with cracksmoker that "a culture which attempts to combat sexism and mysogyny is morally superior to those that don't" (although I don't know if Ranter would call himself a "feminist."
He was very critical himself of "feminists" and this site when he first showed up.)
I think that was what Samhita meant when she said, "Violence of this kind is a production of male ego and woman-hate and this truth is pitifully disguised when justified through religious or cultural circumstances. There is no cultural defense when it comes to mob mentality, woman-hate and violent murder. Unless, you want to talk about the global culture of patriarchy."
I wonder why cracksmoker did not respond to my post.

Melody,

The US is not a patriarchy. Go to Iran and Saudi Arabia and you'll see what I mean. Your reasons for thinking the US a patriarchy are weak at best. True no ERA, but did you notice that little gem called the Equal Protection Clause? True, partial birth abortion is not constitutionally protected, but did you notice that (a) abortion is still legal, and (b) that more than half the fetuses killed -- especially in primitive patriarchal societies -- are female fetuses (what you mean women come from fetuses!). True, on average women do make 77% as men. But perhaps that's because too many women have been brainwashed not to go into corporate America for fear of looking like a sell out. Exactly how are women supposed to take power when feminism excoriates corporate America and capitalism?

But it seems to me that we agree: after all you readily admit that the problem for women is systematic violence "directed by the Islamist militias that mushroomed across Iraq after the US toppled the mostly secular Ba'ath regime.""
Now that last part about the most secular Ba'ath regime cries out for comment: Is your argument that women were better off under secular tyranny? If you want that side of the argument, I'm happy to give it to you.

EG: It does work like that. I do get to claim all these thinkers. And as a Jew, I can tell you there's a lot of Judeo in what I mean, but let's not forget that it was the Christians, like Locke who first spoke and wrote of toleration. Toleration is a profoundly Christian idea (even Derrida thinks so).

And I'll take the history of the faults of the church and state, because both institutions managed to reform and improve themselves -- because of the Western traditions of reason. Reason is unfortunately sorely lacking in contemporary Islamist and feminist discourse.

Indeed, Melody. Though I would say that those aspects of a culture that attempt to combat sexism and misogyny are morally superior to those aspects that don't, because I've yet to run across any culture that, as a whole, fights patriarchy. And I'd be very, very surprised to hear of the existence of any culture that monolithically supports patriarchy, with nary a dissenting voice.

"Ranter, your cultural relativism is what's killing women."

Actually, cracksnorter, Ranter has informed us he is a current serviceman and he has fought in the Middle East. I'm pretty sure he has a good idea of what is killing women (some honor killings... and a lot of guns?).

"Right -- wouldn't want to force my imperialistic beliefs on people that murder and mysogyny are wrong. I make no apologies for believing that a culture which attempts to combat sexism and mysogyny is morally superior to those that don't"

Cracksnorter, I am not a total cultural relativist, but I don't think anyone here is (you can like or accept some parts of a culture, and still think certain things need changing). I want you to answer me on how you justify the thousands upon thousands of deaths of Iraqi and Afghanistan women who have been bombed and shot by American soldiers?

Cracksmoker

Yes, you are right; it would be wrong for me to impose my values and believes onto others by force, though I was part of an effort that did just that (and you can see just how well it worked out).

Violence only leads to more violence. If MLK had preached violence instead of non-violence, African Americans would probably still have to ride at the back of the bus.

Nothing would please me more than to change the values of many of the people of this world, but I know values cannot be changed through violent intervention (from personal experience).

If you want to enlighten people, then trying working with them first, before you advocate killing them.

Cracksmoker - you are the American that gives Americans a bad name.

While you are busy justifying an illegal invasion in the name of democracy, will you also advocate invading, oh I dunno - Zimbabwe, Tonga, North Korea, Cameroon, Somalia, Chad, Papua New Guinea - to name a few, in order to instill democracy?

Somehow i doubt it. Papa New Guinea ain't got much oil.

I believe in a Peoples' right to self-govern.
I believe in democracy.

I do not believe in the fattest kid in the playground using his size to get what he wants, while pretending he is bullying for in victim's best interest.

You are the reason the rest of the world pities and laughs at "those stupid Americans".

Disclaimer: I do not hate most Americans, in fact I love several, but the level of arrogant imperialism that cracksmoker displays makes me want to call him names. All the right-on, peace-loving awesome Americans who read this, please don't be offended.
One day soon you'll get your country back, of this I'm sure.

Actually, as an Anthropology major, I've got to say that various archaeologists still hotly debate all of those issues, ACS. Add this to the long list of things that we just can't possibly know for sure.

-- ACS

That should read...
while pretending his bullying is in the victim's best interest. Anger makes me incoherent.

"that matriarchy has never quite existed. At least, not "matriarchy" in the sense of "the inverse of patriarchy."

Well I guess I'm not completely understanding what that means, so what is the difference between Minoan culture and matriarchy?

Actually anorak, I'm getting the impression cracksnorter is one of those people who would advocate bombing the hell out of any country that couldn't be gently persuaded to democracy and capitilism...

Nina
Just to make things clear. I never fired a gun, and I have not been to Iraq (yet), but yes I was part of efforts to combat the spread of terrorism in the Middle East.

Nothing makes me prouder than to serve and defend my country, but I will rant against neo-con ideology till the day I die.

Ninapendamaishi -
Yeah, but I bet he's not a soldier, he just plays a lot of "World of Warcraft".

I probably shouldn't have mentioned those countries, because now HE KNOWS THEY EXIST he'll be greasing up the old invasion plan!!!
Tonga, watch out! The U.S. is coming to bring you democracy!

I mean Cracksmoker, not Ranter!

Maybe we should start ignoring the troll who thinks that he's clever by coming onto a feminist blog and pretending like he knows enough about feminism to argue "feminist" ideas with actual feminists, when really he can't even spell "misogyny" or understand the nature of patriarchy.

Holy shit Ed. Elyse just called me. I am glad you are putting that Cornell Law Degree to good use.

And thank you, we are quite proud of our success.

But the real thanks goes to the awesome commenters that have debunked your pro-war, pro-Western rhetoric.

You know it may seem to you, that progressive talking about these women's issues are just floating in privilege (barely making ends meet) but our words are not popular and they are not hip. They are a way of life and we are committed to that. It is easy for you to think the way you do, you are a high power lawyer in NYC and you have an entire system supporting your thoughts and beliefs.

I on the other hand get threatened by rape, when I write about rape. That is not an intellectual high-ground or a privileged place. It is an indicator that it is still not popular to talk about male power or suggest that the West (and its different manifestations of power) have indeed had bad impacts on the world, that our foreign policy is terrible, that this country is founded on the genocide that you want to stop in other countries and that we did not go to Afghanistan to save the women (that was rhetoric stolen from feminists to justify war). What are you going to tell me next? Laura Bush is a feminist!

I on the other hand am a freelance writer in SF and you should buy me dinner! :P

But let us not forget what this initial post was about. Woman-hate, group violence and the rhetoric used to justify it. Like I said in the beginning, this conversation should not be about whether invasion is justified or not, but what incidence like this tell us about violence and patriarchy.

Thank you Ranter for pointing out that "Fourth, The Yazidi are not Arab, nor are they even Islamic."

"(Josh was good guess, but he didn't live on sycamore, right down the road from you :)"

Don't trust your neighbors kids!

I can't believe you read our blog! WE WIN! WE WIN!

"The US is not a patriarchy. Go to Iran and Saudi Arabia and you'll see what I mean."

The fact that women may be oppressed MORE in other countries under a more harmful patriarchy does not change the fact that the US IS patriarchal (although I'll obvioulsy admit to a lesser degree than Iran or Saudi Arabia). But that is IN GENERAL there are plenty of women and little girls who are trafficked as sex slaves into this country or work in sweatshops, etc and women who are beaten and set on fire by their husbands, etc. Maybe it doesn't happen as often, but you can't just ignore these women's experiences.
Also, I'd like to add that the Judeo-Christian tradition you're so fond of is ultra-patriarchal. Do you not see how the Christian teaching that women should be subordinate to their husband is preached in churches across the country and institued in laws (ie lack of comprehensive marital rape laws)? And how the religious right is all for male authority?

"Reason is unfortunately sorely lacking in contemporary Islamist and feminist discourse."

As a feminist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy I resent that overgeneralization. cracksmoker sure isn't trying to make any friends.

"The U.S. is not a patriarchy".
Cracksmoker said it, in between hits from the pipe, so it must be true.

Ranter: Yeah, I realized you had never been to Iraq. I had assumed you had seen Americans fighting in the Middle East, though...

Hey you guys should check out the crack slang:

http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/cocainecrack/l/blsldiccrack.htm

The one I find funniest is "Devil's dick" to refer to a crack pipe. I guess that means that "cracksmoker" would translate roughly to "Devil's-dick-huffer"

OhmygoshSamhita, the way companies search the internet these days, you could totally control his job prospects by putting his full name on here (I mean even if they didn't care whether he understands feminism, he's calling himself "cracksmoker". He's lucky you're such a good person.

"Indeed, Melody. Though I would say that those aspects of a culture that attempt to combat sexism and misogyny are morally superior to those aspects that don't, because I've yet to run across any culture that, as a whole, fights patriarchy. . ."

Great point, EG. I agree completely.

Ninapendamaishi-
he could also be "cat's pee inhaler"

Well I guess I'm not completely understanding what that means, so what is the difference between Minoan culture and matriarchy

All I meant to say is that it is the case that the concentration of power and status into women's hands has never been as severe -- anywhere -- as the concentration of power and status is quite frequently in societies across the world.

-- ACS

Nina

Always remember that for the most part almost all of the American servicemen are doing a great job, and it is really sad that the few bad apples have spoiled history for the rest. The problems in Iraq are mostly due to bad political decisions instituted from Washington, and not due to the individual acts of the men and women in the American uniform on the ground. Of course even the servicemen who have behaved badly would not have done so, had they not been sent to Iraq to begin with. Wars make monsters out of everyone involved.

My understanding based on talking to my friends who've gone to Iraq, is a lot of the horrendous things they've witnessed have been due to the orders of higher-ranking military personals, as well as some serviceman who are a bit nutsy.

That being said, when I say a lot of bad things are done my American soldiers I am not intending to call all American soldiers bad people. I understand what trauma and constant fear of death can do to a person's psychology, decision-making skills, and self-control issues.

samhita,

i don't think you need so many caveats... i mean, we shouldn't be determining what media to put forward based on how we anticipate the response reactionaries will have to it.

further, there's nothing wrong with bringing to light injustice, even where 'protecting women' has been used as an aegis under which to attack and occupy sovereign lands.

i think simply rocketing to the front the voices of kurdish activists, as you did, says it all. i mean, if we had looked to rawa for direction in afghanistan, things would most likely look very different now.

a genuine intention to bring to light and look for solutions to violence is very easy to tell apart from justification for selfish acts of war.

i mean, really, is killing a girl to "protect her honor" all that different from bombing a country to "liberate" it? i can't see how one could honestly be used to justify the other, so stop apologizing.

i tried to write this a while ago... and look how wrong i was...

Thanks Nina

I knew you had nothing against us.

Puckalish is, as usual, spot-on.

Taking direction from the women involved is the way I see it working.
I guess I mean liberation on their terms, how and where the women involved see the need.
It can never be about "we know what's best for you", but should be, "you want change? ok, how can we help?"
I believe it is possible to be culturally sensitive and a feminist.
It's just about listening and not assuming, I guess.

Muki --

Naturally I had to tell Elyse about the discourse :)

And I'd be happy to buy you dinner when I'm out in SF -- old friends, feminism and food go well together … but perhaps one or two parting shots:

You wrote: "It is easy for you to think the way you do, you are a high power lawyer in NYC and you have an entire system supporting your thoughts and beliefs. I on the other hand get threatened by rape, when I write about rape."

1. You don't deny my main point: there is a brutal institutionalized patriarchy in Muslim lands and nothing comparable to it in the US or the West. The only ideology fighting Islamism is that of the West -- democratic capitalism.

2. Please sell your claims of pseudo repression to someone else. There's a world of difference between receiving a threatening email from an anonymous joe and the actual lived oppression of women in Muslim countries. And no, my position as a lawyer does not alter the validity of my arguments. If we must dive into personal perspective, then I merely note, we grew up in the same place, went to the same high school and had the same opportunities. Nothing prevented you from choosing the life a "high powered" attorney. You still can be a high powered whatever you like. The horizons are completely open you -- as a smart women -- because you live in the West. Indeed, because you live in the US.

Until dinner …
Very truly yours,
Ed (aka cracksmoker)

P.S. While its true the Yazidi are not Muslims, I doubt you will find the kind of barbarity described among Christians in the middle east. Indeed, the Yazidi seem to have absorbed the patriarchal practices of the Muslims they live with -- that is absorbed Islamist patriarchal ideas, and NOT Western notions of freedom and political equality.

Oh my god.
Samhita, is this guy for real?
He just sems like a parody to me.
"Indeed, because you live in the U.S." Puke.
Oh yeah, the old "Islam is so much more patriarchal than Christianity" argument.
Has this guy ever been outside the U.S.?
Somehow, I doubt it.

"Please sell your claims of pseudo repression to someone else. There's a world of difference between receiving a threatening email from an anonymous joe and the actual lived oppression of women in Muslim countries."

It depends on which women you are in those Muslim countries, and when you lived there (e.g. before or after the Iraq War). There are women in the US that live in far worse conditions than some women in pre-war Iraq, and vice versa.

And while you may be right that being sent threatening e-mails is better than say, being beat to death (of course hundreds of women /are/ beat to death in the US each year) I'd like to see if you have the balls to put yourself in Samhita's shoes. She stands up for what she believes in, and she doesn't do it anonymously. I think in order to get to that level, cracksmoker, you need to post your full name and e-mail online, right next to your political beliefs. (Or alternatively, you could sign up to fight in Iraq, like Ranter suggested)

Keep in mind puckalish, they didn't just kill any girl to protect her honor, they killed their own sister to protect not only her honor, but the honor of the entire tribe. You have to understand the ideology before you can work against it. The real problem is that women (or rather girls) in most Middle Eastern societies are not just responsible for themselves but also for their entire tribe. It is fair that any culture puts that kind of responsibility on young girls? How do we offer an alternative?

"In fact, I would argue that one of the few things the world's patriarchal cultures (read: most of them) have in common is that they've been colonized at one point or another by European-based people. So it seems to me that 'they' learned it from us. I believe this even more after reading the book 'When God Was a Woman' where Merlin Stone argues that goddess worship in the Near and Middle East ended because northern invaders came and forced their male-god(s)-only religion on the native people of the Near and Middle East, which then led to complete obliteration of women's status in those societies."

What about China?

"I agree the issue of honors killings has to be addressed and protested, but we would be just as evil as the Yazidi were if we forced our values on them."

Wouldn't that depend on which values and how they're forced?

For another example, suppose Mr. A values raping Ms. B and Ms. B values not getting raped. Ms. B has a number of methods to force this value of hers on Mr. A - fighting back once he tries to rape her, shooting him in the face before she sees him doing anything to anyone, etc. Would all of these methods be equally evil?

"No. It doesn't work like that. If you want Mary Wollstonecraft, you have to own the dominant forces that she was fighting as well."

Why? Who says I have to lump together everything in a culture and like or dislike the whole lump? Especially when cultures often have overlaps, subcultures, internal disagreements, mutually exclusive customs, etc.?

"The fact that women may be oppressed MORE in other countries under a more harmful patriarchy does not change the fact that the US IS patriarchal (although I'll obvioulsy admit to a lesser degree than Iran or Saudi Arabia). But that is IN GENERAL there are plenty of women and little girls who are trafficked as sex slaves into this country or work in sweatshops, etc and women who are beaten and set on fire by their husbands, etc. Maybe it doesn't happen as often, but you can't just ignore these women's experiences."

Exactly. There's more info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/slavery/default.stm

"Why? Who says I have to lump together everything in a culture and like or dislike the whole lump? Especially when cultures often have overlaps, subcultures, internal disagreements, mutually exclusive customs, etc.?"

Mina, you didn't understand what the paragraph you quoted was saying. She was saying that you /can't/ lump cultures together and call them "good" or "bad" (as-in, you can't call the West "good" and the Middle East "bad" as cracksmoker was doing, because the US contains bad elements as well (i.e. the forces feminists have to fight).

"Wouldn't that depend on which values and how they're forced?"

Absolutely.

But are you to going to convict entire culture C because Mr.B (a member of culture C) raped Ms. A?

Actually I want culture C to be held accountable for their actions, but I would rather my nation (a nation that has no authority over culture C) not try to enforce values on Culture C through military means.

"Mina, you didn't understand what the paragraph you quoted was saying. She was saying that you /can't/ lump cultures together and call them "good" or "bad" (as-in, you can't call the West "good" and the Middle East "bad" as cracksmoker was doing, because the US contains bad elements as well (i.e. the forces feminists have to fight)."

OK, I stand corrected. Thanks!

""Wouldn't that depend on which values and how they're forced?"

"Absolutely.

"But are you to going to convict entire culture C because Mr.B (a member of culture C) raped Ms. A?

[and don't forget that Ms. A may be in C herself along with Mr. B!]

"Actually I want culture C to be held accountable for their actions, but I would rather my nation (a nation that has no authority over culture C) not try to enforce values on Culture C through military means."

Good points.

Thank you Nina.

And you are on point as always Puck.

Ed, you are wrong about a lot of that, but it is not germane to this conversation, which is my fault for bringing it up.

Some people have choices, others obligations and some do things out of necessity. We actually have a lot of personal differences for why I ended up this way and you that. I don't deny that I am smart as hell, but spare me the you could have, blah blah blah. I don't need more parents. Email me to finish this conversation.

I would never deny that there is a WORLD of difference, an email to an act of violence. Just pointing out this shit happens and we are shocked but writing about it brings out a lot of hate and anger. Surely they are connected.

Either way, you may sound like the minority opinion here, but you are not, out there. So what I write is necessary to the dialog and it is not a popular opinion.

This woman was killed violently for nothing that she did, but because of jealousy, paranoia,desire and control. Countless civilians are dying everyday in Iraq for those same reasons.

Mina

Few people will debate that everyone has the right to defend themselves, but self defense is not the same thing as imperialism. One can defend himself without subjugating the improverished or unenlighted.

I meant to say "impoverished or unenlightened."

I meant to say "impoverished or unenlightened."

Mina

So I guess you agree with me that we would be evil if we forced our values onto the Yazidi.

Thanks, I thought we were arguing.

Also, I might note that this isn't an "honor killing", at least not in the gendered sense. The Yezidi kill any Yezidi who converts, not just women.

-- ACS

"Few people will debate that everyone has the right to defend themselves, but self defense is not the same thing as imperialism."

...except maybe to someone who thinks that anything a Westerner did earlier than a local (such as defending herself) must therefore be an imperialist influence?

"One can defend himself without subjugating the improverished or unenlighted."

...even if she or he is defending herself or himself from someone who is impoverished or unenlightened?

I'm reminded of Dutch politics.

http://www.slate.com/id/2141276/?nav=navoa

Apparently part of the pro-immigrant aspect of the left wing became so pro-patriarchial-homophobic-immigrant that it drove some feminist and gay immigrants to part of the right wing. o_O

It was an honour killing because Du'a did not convert. That was a rumour started by Sunni Islamist groups in order to enflame sectarian tensions. She was murdered by her uncles and brothers (all of the brothers were educated to degree level by the way) because they thought she had spent the night in a forest with her boyfriend. He is currently in prison for his own protection. He is also 17 years old.

Her father ordered a virginity test on her corpse and has been proudly doing the media circuit with proof that she died with an unruptured hymen to prove that he was right to disagree with the 'honour' killing ordered by his brothers.

I highly recommend everyone reading the thread at Twisty's - which you can do without having to watch the video, by the way.

It's a long thread, but there's a lot about the pros/cons of watching the video or not, the ethics of watching it vs. how it came to be, and the impact it has had/is having - and not coincidentally, there's a lot less drift away from Du'a's experience and its universal relevance to women of all cultures.

I can't tell anyone to watch it or not. It's horror, whether you have personal experience of horror or not.

I did watch it, and it f*cked me up harder than almost anything I can remember seeing.

I haven't been able to write about it yet.

But I will say that it becomes completely impossible to discuss in any kind of abstract, dissociated, drifting way when you've seen it.

Also, the 'it's anti-Muslim to discuss this' argument is well-covered at Twisty's.

You know, it's true that a piece of soul was destroyed when I watched that footage. But that's the point. Even if people decide for their own reasons not to watch (which choice I respect), there's a way in which if news like this comes to us and a piece of soul isn't destroyed, we've shut down something essential and disrespected women like Du'a.

Obviously, I'm still working through what I want to say about this, and my own reactions, but thank you for writing about this, Samhita - brave, again. I appreciate what you do here.

there are a couple of gems back there that kinda threw me when i first read 'em...

What is the invasion about if not democracy? I so hope you will not bore me with some tired rhetoric of oil or imperialism: if that's what this was about, we could have simply set up Iraq as a puppet protectorate (and skipped Afghanistan altogether).

hmmm... it seems to me that we had a puppet protectorate in iraq from 1979 til 1990, at which point we realized we had lost control of a military dictatorship we enabled. considering that a large chunk of our bases have been located in our friendly saudi arabia (an authoritarian monarchy with a legal system based in sharia), i really must call into doubt if "liberation" is really the reason we were in iraq.

i dare say, considering that the invasion was engaged in on grounds of iraq being an imminent threat and, given our history of support for military dictatorships and monarchs in the region, you're being a bit overoptimistic.

True, on average women do make 77% as men. But perhaps that's because too many women have been brainwashed not to go into corporate America for fear of looking like a sell out.

on this note, you know that number [77%] is corrected for such things as title, industry, experience, and so forth, right? i suggest you look into the statistic before assuming why it is as it is.

FWIW, posted a personal essay responding to Du'a's death here, if anyone's interested.

Galloise Blonde, thanks for your informative and tough responses here at at Twisty's place.

FWIW, posted a personal essay responding to Du'a's death here, if anyone's interested.

Galloise Blonde, thanks for your informative and tough responses here at at Twisty's place.

I really can't imagine a more clear-cut and compelling case against cultural relativism than these "honor killings," with the possible exception of "honor gang rapes"
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21332543-2,00.html

I still remember the high-profile Mukhtar Mai case ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtaran_Bibi ), and thankfully the perpetrators are being given a death sentence, but so many more crimes of this kind go unpunished.

Yeah, cultural relativism has its limits. Ugh.

ranter,

thanks for the correction on why this woman was killed. excuse my improper use of terms, i'm subject to the media for much of my information.

on another tip, regarding the dutch thing... i think it's really important to recognize that right intention really does away with a lot of this grey area stuff.

i mean, i don't think it's imperialistic at all to listen to people who are subject to oppression and repression and act on that by supporting their efforts and taking up actions. i figure most folks'd agree with that.

this would be characterized by taking a lead from the people on what their needs and desires are under an oppressive government (possibly even overthrow) and partnering with groups representative of the population.

it's an entirely different story to use nods to supporting oppressed groups as a pretext for military intervention.

this intention is betrayed by partnering with local armies regardless of how those armies are viewed by the people or just running in with a military force and planning the aftermath during the aftermath.

i mean, i can't see how invading a country without having voices of people from that nation represented in the public discourse is in any way congruent with working in the same people's best interests.

finally, on the cultural relativism tip, i think (a) that term is grossly overused in popular discourse and (b) do you really think relativism could be used to justify something like the holocaust just because a lot of people shared the delusion that such a thing was good or morally okay?

in this case, even with culture taken into account, this act is reprehensible. hence, why even yazidi community leaders have condemned this crime.

i mean, really, bringing a term like cultural relativism or, more accurately, moral relativism into this conversation strikes me as uninformed - about what cultural relativism is and about who the yazidi are.

i mean, just because something happens a lot doesn't make it untouchable - or even cool by local moral standards - i mean, dang, i don't think it is offensive to suggest that americans stop beating and killing gay people, even though it's one of our most popular hate crimes.

heck, most homophobes don't think lgbt folks should get beat down. claiming cultural relativism in a case like that is dishonest, as it is in this "honor killing".

i should really write one of these posts straight through instead of over the course of 8 hours. apologies to anyone who just read it!

heights and blessings

Puckalish, this my parting shot for this post, since there's just not enough time in the day to deal with all your errors.

You wrote: "on this note, you know that number [77%] is corrected for such things as title, industry, experience, and so forth, right? i suggest you look into the statistic before assuming why it is as it is."

I suggest you take your own advice. I only assumed the 77% figure for the sake of argument. In point of fact the gap is far far smaller (about 5% and not something that can be easily corrected for absent some sort of totalitarian intervention in peoples lives). The 77% figure is based on some radically flawed and bogus assumptions. Read this, and please, for the love of God, stop drinking that left wing kool-aid :)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2007/05/09/the_great_clintonobama_feminist_pander

You need Women's Studies 101, not more pop-neo-con overly theorized ramblings that will fuel your ego that you have fully worked for and deserved your place at the top of the universe, IMO, cat-piss inhaler...

But Nina, if your post is anything to judge by, I'd only learn the art of ad hominem attack rather than how to actually make an argument in support of my position. (You'd never find MacKinnon or Estrich doing anything so silly as what you've written.) You may want to supplement those womens' studies courses with some in logic and philosophy.

Cracksmoker

Your neo-con link has been thoroughly established, which completely kills your credibility (especially concerning your insight into Islam-West relations).

If anyone has drunk poisoned cool-aid it's you, because you stick to you neo-con guns.

Neo-con ideology is 100% the reason why the war in Iraq is failing.

I've no interest in making a scholarly, armchair general argument with you. This semester I took a course in which I had to read the original texts of many famous conservative political philosophers -I read thousands of pages of that stuff. That's not counting the several other courses I've taken on political theory. Something tells me you haven't taken one women's studies course. Am I right?

The 77% figure is based on some radically flawed and bogus assumptions.

hey, man, 'cos you go back with my girl, i'm just gonna say that aping an unqualified quote from a representative of a right wing "think tank" (with extra adjectives, of course) does not really prove much of anything.

besides, have you read ms furchtgott-roth's article on the hudson institute's website? no numbers, just assertions like "Women... often select professions with a more pleasant environment and potentially more flexible schedules, such as teaching and office work."

hmmn, I think your friend sami can tell you about how laid back a teaching job is.

oh, yeah, and the hudson group has released some op-eds on the wage gap, but nothing substantive. and they're one of townhall's two sources?

but, look, i read your article, so please read a little something with a few more facts and figures to chew on. particularly, scroll down to number 7 as it speaks specifically to the only research the townhall.com piece referenced.

anyways, i'll take this as a compliment coming from you:

Puckalish, this my parting shot for this post, since there's just not enough time in the day to deal with all your errors.

and then you should buy me a drink next time sami visits nyc. when did i ever just assert your error without actually answering it.

at any rate, i will admit one thing: i miswrote earlier. the 77% number doesn't correct for all the factors i gave it credit for, only for hours worked. i was writing quickly, while at work, and i apologize for my gross, inhuman mischaracterization of data.

at any rate, i haven't been drinking much kool-aid lately, my recall was in error. i would say your near-direct quoting of an op-ed writer was much closer to drinking kool-aid.

5% - that's rich.

i read an article a year or two back comparing salaries of men and women in the same degree brackets (no high school, high school grad... masters, doctorate, professional degree) and the numbers were pretty stunning. anyone know of a link to that (or a similar) study?

i did, however, dig up this general accounting office study [pdf] from 2003 which states, pretty clearly, that

holding all other variables in the model constant except for gender, women earned an average of about 20.3 percent less than men in 2000.

heights and blessings

Funny that cracksmoker (aka "cat piss inhaler") says that we need logic classes etc when he doesn't realize that his "the US isn't a patriarchy BECAUSE Middle Eastern countries are more patriarchal" argument does nothing but show his ignorance of logic.
A similar argument would be saying a man who punched his wife and knocked out a tooth wasn't an abuser because another man had beat his wife to death (and thereby was more of an abuser than the first man).
I think we should ignore him.