Thousands in Mali protest equal rights marriage law
Tens of thousands of people in Mali's capital, Bamako, have been protesting against a new law which gives women equal rights in marriage.The law, passed earlier this month, also strengthens inheritance rights for women and children born out of wedlock.
Sigh. Perhaps even more depression-inducing is this quote from Hadja Sapiato Dembele of the National Union of Muslim Women's Associations: "A man must protect his wife, a wife must obey her husband...It's a tiny minority of women here that wants this new law - the intellectuals. The poor and illiterate women of this country - the real Muslims - are against it."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Thousands in Mali protest equal rights marriage law .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15641
Well gee, no one's going to force them to take advantage of the law, are they? Even the women who want to be controlled and abused by their husbands with no legal recourse should see how this can benefit them? I mean, what if he threatens to kill one of your children?
Hell, where would I be if I'd grown up in a society that didn't protect my mom when she left my dad? Oh, I'd be dead. That's right.
This of course begs the question--what happens when he doesn't protect them?
I'm suddenly reminded of an interview with a Muslim woman I was watching in a Religious Studies class. She supported the idea that the husband is the head of the family. However, when asked what she would do if her husband wanted to take her daughter out of school (as had happened to her), she said that she wouldn't let him. Full stop.
it's true that in many Muslim cultures (which is diverse and varies by country), society tends to be patriachal (sp?). But you would be surprised...I'm not Arab/Middle Eastern, but I've seen how much power Arab Muslim women can wield over their husbands and families.
And wouldn't it be nice if the law didn't give him the right to beat her over it? I mean, that's what this boils down to. If she doesn't think the law should intervene if she is beaten, that's her prerogative, but she shouldn't be allowed to take that protection away from other women.
I consider myself by and large to be pretty dern respectful of other cultures, and often find myself defending them when people don't understand that the groups they're infantilising are grown adults who have an opinion about these things. In this case, I don't care what the general opinion is in Mali.
This is exactly why education is so important for ALL people. These women, being poor and illiterate, are brainwashed. Besides, how much would you like to bet that they were probably FORCED by their husbands (or fathers, etc) to protest this?
That "REAL MUSLIMS" comment pisses me off so much (me being a secular, liberal Muslim). Dumbasses. I suppose that means those morons look down at the Prophet's wives who were renowned for being well-educated and outspoken?
The "real" Muslims? Dembele means the disempowered women.
Why is it that in situations such as this one the attack is so often launched at intellectualism?
I know the comparison is a stretch but it echos the Bush-era criticisms of intellectuals for being out of touch with the evangelical everyman. Intellectualism is so often presented as contradictory to religion (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.). It bothers me so much that people hide behind religion to attack people who value learning and education when there are so many well-educated, religiously devout individuals who combat the misconception that higher education=lack of religious devotion.
When have you seen intellectualism presented as contradictory to Judaism?
ROTFL, yeah, I was going to let this one pass since I didn't want to turn this into another Feministing Anti-Religion thread, but since you brought it up...anti-intellectual Judaism would be like, I don't know, chocolate chip cookies without the chocolate.
Or the cookie.
I've never seen it presented that way by someone who practices Judaism but by Christians who tend lump Judaism and Christianity together.
Christians who lump Judaism and Christianity together are basically trying to erase Judaism and think that we just haven't come around to admitting that Christianity made Judaism null and void. All in all, it's best to to ignore musings about Judaism from anyone who thinks that Christianity is simply Judaism+New Testament. They don't have a clue what they're talking about.
I don't disagree with what your saying at all. But that doesn't change the fact that this happens. Does that make it right? No, of course not.
I don't think anyone who tries to separate religion and intellectualism has a clue what they're talking about which is what my original comment was speaking to.
*you're not your
Argh... sorry for the extra post. Pet peeve.
It's just a pet peeve of mine - and many other Jews. We're always being spoken for and defined by those types of Christians who don't view us as a legitimate religion, to the point where the general populace seems to think that "Judeo-Christian" is an acceptable and accurate term. When do we get to speak for ourselves without being told, "Well, yeah, but there are these Christians that say X..."?
Your point stands that there are certain religious people who view intellectualism as contrary to religion. I'm sure that anyone who holds that stance can't see outside their own religious views to understand how other religious people operate differently. But it's helpful to be precise and make that point without letting a majority speak for a minority.
alixana, I really think that you must be misunderstanding me. Of course you should be offended by people who lump Judaism and Christianity together. I am in no way disputing that. I think it is extremely inappropriate that anti-intellectual Christians apply their anti-intellectual beliefs to Judaism when there is such a strong tradition of philosophy and theology in Jewish culture.
I was not letting the majority speak for the minority. I was saying that people inappropriately lump all religion together with anti-intellectualism. I just don't see how that's contradictory to your comments.
What you said was "Intellectualism is so often presented as contradictory to religion (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.)"
That seemed to me (and apparently Alixana) to be lumping Judaism in with Islam, Christianity, and etc. The strand of virulent anti-intellectualism found in certain branches of Christianity just is not a feature of Judaism (which has its own pathological sects), so casually throwing Judaism into the mix does indeed make it look like you're treating it as a flavor of Christianity. You obviously didn't mean the slightest bit of disrespect, but it does appear to throw Judaism in as a generic religion to round out the list.
If you really think I was lumping the three together then I'm sorry but that is hypersensitivity on your part. It's a logical list since Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the three Abrahamic religions. I wasn't "throwing Judaism in as a generic religion to round out the list". A Buddhist, Hindu or Pagan could have been offended by being labeled as "etc." but that really wasn't the intention of the comment and I think that is easily noted if you read it carefully.
I feel as though you and alixana derailed the conversation I wanted to have about religion and intellectualism to nitpick. Maybe I'm being hypersensitive in that regard but there you have it.
It's a logical list since Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the three Abrahamic religions. I wasn't "throwing Judaism in as a generic religion to round out the list".
Oy
Seriously? What is wrong with that?
I'm acknowledging that the three are linked. How can that be disputed? And I love that you threw out the rest of my comment to nitpick some more.
So you threw Judaism into a list of religions with a trait that clearly doesn't apply to Judaism, because it's an "Abrahamic faith" like the other two, but you're not treating it as generic pseudo-Christianity. Yes, the three are "linked" (!), but they are not the same , and one of the glaring dissimilarities is the presence of intellectualism .
You're right about one thing though, I didn't see any need to respond to the rest of your comment. If you think the two hypersensitive Jews are picking on you than obviously I'm not going to convince you otherwise, nor do I care. I chose to address the objectively false points instead.
Excuse me, the presence of anti-intellectualism.
Well since anti-intellectualism can be applied to any of the three by someone who does not practice the the religion (secularists are sometimes guilty of this) I still think my comment is valid.
If you want Judaism to be excluded from the list because of "the presence of intellectualism," FINE. You can read the original comment to say, "Intellectualism is so often presented as contradictory to religion (be it Islam or Christianity)." But AGAIN my whole point was that intellectualism is present in all three. I think the implication that Islam and Christianity don't include intellectualism is shortsighted. And you insist that because you misread my comment it is "false". How is that conducive to dialogue?
That was a typo which I corrected 8 minutes before you responded. Of course Islam and Christianity have towering intellectual traditions.
The comments are coming in a little delayed today on my end. I saw your correction but not until several minutes after I posted.
Dude, chill. She didn't say they were the same. She said, as I understood it, that some people - not members of those religions - label religions (of various sorts) anti-intellectual. For all your argument that Judaism isn't, that's beside her point. She never said it was; she said some people say religion in general (and Judaism is a religion) is.
Thank you.
Despite the known hypersensitive tendencies of members of Abrahamic faiths, I'm completely chill, and I don't get the impression that Alixana is exactly flipping out. Judaism is indeed "a religion," that does not make it interchangeable with every other religion, or even just Christianity and Islam. I'll try to put this more simply for you: Judaism is a religion, yes, you've got it right so far, but not all religions are Judaism. Red is a color, and blue is a color, but red is not blue. Judaism is indeed like Christianity in some ways, but it is not congruent with Christianity, and certain elements of Christianity clearly do not apply to Judaism, particularly the one being cited. Perhaps there's some big rumor going around that Jews are anti-intellectual, but that's certainly one (of the few) I've never heard.
Is there some part of this law that we're missing? Does it also say men are not obligated to support their families, or something? Because as its written right now, I don't see any down side. If you want to let your husband boss you around, you can still let him.
Nobody favors laws in order to restrict their own behavior. My guess is these particular women view the traditional family structure / power-dynamic as essential to society rather than just their own families.
Sounds like some Ladies Against Feminism would say, if you replaced "Muslim" with "Christian."
I don't know about this woman, but I bet there's a lot of "poor and illiterate" women who don't want their husbands being jerks.
Also, how can one say that the illiterate are against this law? Clearly they can't read it so how can they (truely) be against it?
I suppose inheritance laws have little value for them (they won't be inheriting anything anyway) and they don't want their husband to be giving any money to babies born out of wedlock.
It isn't surprising at all to see National Union of Muslim Women's Associations making such a statement as they are just parroting the Quran. You can expect this attitude in just about every Muslim majority country possibly with the exception of Turkey.
In some comments, I see --
Kettle, meet pot.
Pot, kettle.
As another poster pointed out, quite reasonably, how does this law prevent women from submitting if they want to, according to their faith?? It would protect those women who don't want to rely on trust and want to be protected from their so-called protectors. Go ahead and call them apostates or what have you but leave them to their choices. Freedom totally rules.