Skip to main content

View Diary: Feminisms: One Is Too Many (Updated) (308 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I didn't watch this video (27+ / 0-)

    either...it came out not long after I had read the details, all the details, of what a raging stalker ex- had done to the daughter of one of our own.  And people seemed to want me to become outraged about the Iraqi style of honor killing rather than our special American style in which just the one man kills a woman brutally, often because he can no longer control her...and the judicial system kind of sits on its hands and says "sorry, we can't do anything about him" even though he's beaten her nearly to death at least once before.

    Does having more than one person participate in the killing make it worse than when it's just the one man who comes back and back and back to hurt until finally he kills?  Are stones worse than a gun or his boot?  Is having police officers present worse than having a judge grant the guy his freedom to roam?

    What do Republicans and cockroaches have in common? -- Shine a light on them and see.

    by kismet on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:28:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  One doesn't excuse the other (29+ / 0-)

      They are both horrible and wrong. We should be outraged by both. I say this as one who had four bones broken over several months by the person who told me he loved me in between each break.

      Mais, la souris est en dessous la table, le chat est sur la chaise et le singe est... est... le singe est disparu! -- Eddie Izzard

      by CSI Bentonville on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:31:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't saying it excused it (6+ / 0-)

        just that we've got our own shit to deal with and it's not like we all smell like roses over here in the USofA.  Many people on the tubes are using the video as a tool to justify anti-Muslim rage.

        What do Republicans and cockroaches have in common? -- Shine a light on them and see.

        by kismet on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:41:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just think we need to work on both (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Elise

          But it would be good if we could be a model instead of "Do what we say, not as we do."

          Mais, la souris est en dessous la table, le chat est sur la chaise et le singe est... est... le singe est disparu! -- Eddie Izzard

          by CSI Bentonville on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:47:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, the problem is (7+ / 0-)

            when we have such a hard time acknowledging our own sins and then people try to use a story like this to rile us up against some "them" that is supposedly so much worse.

            Maybe the most horrific thing about honor killing is that it's the woman's own family administering the stones.  However, there are religious communities in this country where families love "god's law" more than their own offspring.  I've known more than a few people who have been excommunicated/shunned by their families for getting divorced or pressured against fleeing abuse.  However, at least we don't stone them -- one great reason to keep America secular.

            What do Republicans and cockroaches have in common? -- Shine a light on them and see.

            by kismet on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:56:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In both scenarios (9+ / 0-)

              Someone is killed by the person or persons she trusted to protect her.

              Perhaps the only difference is that in so-called honor killing, no criminal charge is made.

              •  True (5+ / 0-)

                although, the charges that are made once someone is dead, are largely symbolic.  She's still dead.  The problem people often have over here is getting protection orders issued, taken seriously, and enforced.

                What do Republicans and cockroaches have in common? -- Shine a light on them and see.

                by kismet on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:24:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's true (8+ / 0-)

                  But in domestic violence deaths here, I wonder how many perpetrators are first time offenders. It seems often there is a pattern of escalation, i.e. stalking, battery and then murder.

                  •  That is why ZERO tolerance is needed (5+ / 0-)

                    Without immediate condemnation, there is almost always escalation. It is just too easy for the male to slip into the pattern of dealing with his "frustration" through violence.

                    The pattern cannot be allowed to start.

                  •  I have had an idea for a long time (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    revsue, Elise, jessical, Rippen Kitten

                    that I've never given the energy it deserves.  It is my impression that a lot of men engage in violence against women out of fear of what other men think about them.  It is something about how men act tough around one another, avoiding showing vulnerability, so men all pretend to each other that they've got the whole woman thing covered, in that women are objects that they use for their pleasure, etc.  I think a lot of men don't really feel this way (naive?)--I just think they believe other men feel that way and that they need to measure up.  There is something immature and small behind a lot of this violence.  I think the true socio- and psychopaths are rare.

                    Anyway, my idea for an anecdote is to have a group of men who are first responders to spousal abuse in addition to the legal authorities.  These men would not play a punitive role so much as make it clear to the man, in a setting of men, that disrespect towards women is shameful behavior.  I think it would be possible for men, in many cases, to reverse the fears of the abuser.  Rather than feeling shame about appearing weak or out of control of "their woman," we would encourage shame about abusing a woman instead of protecting her.  I envision a supportive, but firm, intervention--not lecturing, not threatening, rather establishing some level of safety and discussing the situation.  Through this discussion, other men would model that, in this particular society of fellows, the macho thing to do is to protect and nurture women.  I have a sense that this could be effective.

                    Sadly, I am so much more an idea man than a doer.  I am interested in reactions to this.

                    If it's our freedom they hate, they must love Bush's response to the WTC attacks.

                    by geomoo on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:18:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It starts in the schools (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Elise, jessical, geomoo

                      so long as "bullying" is OK, and it's "OK" for guys to rate the girls walking by and it's "OK" for them to decide who is ugly and can be verbally put down in the halls.  And of course it's "OK" to call any male who doesn't want to play those games similar names, as well.

                      And it's "OK" for the girls to display the same cruelty and ranking behavior toward other females, as well.

                      And because it's "OK"--it's just part of growing up, right?--the teachers ignore it.  The authorities ignore it.  No one names it for cowardice (which it is).

                      And then later there are years of misery for those involved with the boys and girls who never had to grow up, as well as for them.

                      "I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and the Republicans thought it was hell." -- Harry S. Truman

                      by revsue on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:35:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am way late but I think this is not entirely (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Elise, Pandoras Box, Rippen Kitten

                        right.  

                        TONS of boys 'rate' girls.  I did it myself.
                        TONS of boys and men like to look at naked women.  I like Playboy, and not for the articles.

                        I've never hit a girl or a woman, and haven't hit a boy or man since some adolescent fights with my brother

                        So, why do some boys and men beat women and others not?

                        It's not objectification that does it.  After all, we don't beat up objects!  

                        No, I think the beating is very much related to viewing women as the personification of evil.  Eve TEMPTED Adam in the garden.  Women in various religions are told to dress in ways that hide their physical attributes so that men won't have to look.   It couldn't POSSIBLY be something wrong with the MAN!  Oh NO!!!!!!  (exclams added for snark).

                        Sex is evil. (well, DUH, of course the God who created us doesn't want us to have pleasure, he is, after all, a loving God....huh?????).  Women tempt men.  (Yeah, of course!!!!  It's THEIR fault).  Hence women are EVIL!!!!!  (It follows LOGICALLY, don't you see??).  

                        The other big strand, I think, is the incompetence of many people (including some women) to deal with frustration in nonviolent ways.  In this regard, abuse of women is tied to abuse of children.  

                        YOU DIDN'T do what I WANT!  Whack!!!!

                        Two strands.  But neither tied to objectification.  

                        That's how I see it, anyway.

                        I was liberal when liberal wasn't cool

                        by plf515 on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:12:02 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  I've got to say... (15+ / 0-)

          that argument:

          we've got our own shit to deal with

          is one that really really frustrates me. Like...makes me angry- because it implies that someone here is somehow more important than someone who lives elsewhere. And it's just not true. We are all human. We are all equal. And we should all be treated and valued that way -- whether we're American or not.

          The point of the video wasn't to invoke or justify anti-Muslim rage. The point of the video was to show just how fucking inhumane people can be...and that "we've got our own shit to deal with" mentality contributes to the inhumanity.

          I'm guessing you didn't quite mean it like that kismet, and I don't mean to single you out here, but this needed to be said.  

    •  Good point (12+ / 0-)

      There's plenty of condemable and outrageous action here, and everywhere. Don't think it fits only one culture.

      "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

      by BentLiberal on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:32:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That "special American style" (15+ / 0-)

      doesn't always stop with just the woman. I talked with a woman last weekend who has been stalked by a former boyfriend for thirteen years. The SOB even sent her letters congratulating her on the birth of her children.

      Yes, that sequence of words I just said made perfect sense.

      by sbdenmon on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:33:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is the codification of acceptance and approval (10+ / 0-)

      At least here we PRETEND it is wrong.

      While still engaging in it.

      •  Right now, (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marrael, Elise, Ice Blue, buhdydharma, jessical

        there are Iraqis pretending that this murder was wrong.

        And I suspect there are a lot of Iraqis who find this horrifying and would work against it if they didn't have a hell of a lot of other things to worry about right now.

        What do Republicans and cockroaches have in common? -- Shine a light on them and see.

        by kismet on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:59:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeahbut (9+ / 0-)

          It's still part of Shariah.

          Which is completely unacceptable to me.

        •  For women to have any prayer of equality (8+ / 0-)

          in the Middle East, there will have to be an imposition of a human rights agenda from outside, I would venture.  Not sure that'll happen.

          What a shame that half of humanity is convinced it is the weaker, less spiritually pure half.  Did we fool the patriarchs, or did they fool us?

          •  not fooled (3+ / 0-)

            Bullied.

            In a world where the patriarchy CREATED masculine warfare, then used the EXCUSE of masculine warfare to create the false paradigm that women needed to be protected ......from masculine warfare.....when masculine warfare is TOTALLY is a totally unnecessary and chosen model. It is a cruel self-feeding, self-fostering behavior pattern that created a false need, that grew into a false society...and we are reaping the fruits of that bullying and deception in every aspect of our lives now.

            As I say elsewhere, it is the fundamental wellspring of all our ills. Along with the also false acquisitional greed/need paradigm.

            Wherin we must take from others to have what we need. (when in truth there is plenty for all in a cooperative model vs. the current patriarchal competitive model) That leads to the conquering mentality. These, IMO are the major flaws of our current reality. Both based on male domination.... and all simply because males have bigger muscles.

            An evolutionary level leap is what we need...and what we are on the cusp/balance point of now. Success of OUR ideology swings it one way. Success of their ideology the other.

            Interesting times.

          •  oddly enough, I disagree (10+ / 0-)

            When thinking about this, remember that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were upper-middle class Saudi Arabians, educated in madrasssas and whose media content was controlled by the House of Saud funded Wahhabi sect of Islam.

            The public schools and seminaries all over the world that teach extremist Muslim religion/ideology that requires sharia law and condones honor killings are by and large, funded by the Middle East oil monarchies, among which the Saudis are at the top of the tree.

            They fund this because in exchange, the clerics give them political legitimacy and also teach that the problems of the Middle East are caused by Western "infidels" with their "evil and immodest women" (which seems to be most of their beef with our lifestyles) and "immorality".

            In the post-oil future, these monarchies will become rich expats anywhere but the Middle East, as the Middle East oil nations are money sinks rather than profit sources without oil. Will they continue to fund this religion after they no longer need it politically?

            What happens when the citizens of the Middle East nations have to compete with the rest of the world with no oil revenue coming and with the money that should have been spent on the kind of infrastructure which makes a nation viable in the bank accounts of their ex-rulers?

            Their options will be to find a way to become a modern technological civilization with the help of "evil infidels" or die as nations and as populations. I don't know of ANY Middle East oil nation that's self-sufficient with respect to food.

            Modern technological civilizations can't afford to suppress the brainpower of over half of their populations by keeping them at home, barefoot, and pregnant.

            This is something that American theocrats don't understand, either.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:54:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's a lot of explanatory power there (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marina, Elise, buhdydharma, Pandoras Box

              I want to add, as I mentioned in another comment, that the move to Islamic fundamentalism was in many ways a response to imperialistic pressure.  When confronted with unrelenting racism and exploitation by the west, there was no realistic avenue for entering the modern world with self-respect.  This led to a reaction back to tradition.  I feel this is part of the dynamic you describe.

              If it's our freedom they hate, they must love Bush's response to the WTC attacks.

              by geomoo on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:23:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  agreed (6+ / 0-)

                And one thing I didn't make adequately clear. I'm not saying that they have to give up Islam to become a technological civilization.

                IMO, their choices will be to secularize Islam, to allow it to make compromises with reality as Christianity did, or find another religion that permits women to function as full equals in society. Unitarianism. Non-militant atheism. Wicca. FSM. Agnosticism. Something else. Their other option. . . a 13th Century civilization consistent with rigidly prescribed sex roles, and a population consistent with late Middle Ages human and animal-powered civilization in a land that's an ecological disaster area.

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:41:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What you say makes me think this: (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  marina, Elise, Pandoras Box

                  Some of the explanation lies in the environment which thwarts men's ability to function with autonomy and pride, that is in which they suffer second class citizenship.  I think the helplessness engenders fear, which leads to violence.  This can also be seen in the African American communities in America--a heritage of slavery.  When men feel out of control, especially of their ability to freely find an appropriate mate, and to feed and protect their families, they often react badly.  I think a society in which all men are so dispossessed, the conditions exist for the mutually agreed on desperate measures we saw here.  Well, it's a theory, but honestly I have a hard time imagining any reasonable explanation for such behavior.

                  If it's our freedom they hate, they must love Bush's response to the WTC attacks.

                  by geomoo on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:05:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  garbage in, garbage out (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    marina, Pandoras Box

                    They were taught to believe that honor killing is right, and they did it the first chance they got.

                    Frankly, I haven't the slightest interest in what was going through their heads at the time.

                    If they are all executed as murderers, officially or unofficially, they'll never do it again, and perhaps others will be discouraged from doing so.

                    If there is a certainty in a population that honor killing = death or worse, they'll stop. Or at least stop doing it in front of camphones. And start as soon as whatever authority was punishing them withdraws.

                    But the best long-term way to make sure that this doesn't happen is to make sure that nobody is ever taught again that honor killing and other hate crimes against women are a good idea.

                    That's culture change, not law enforcement or covert action. The only way I know of to forcibly change a culture quickly is under extreme life and death stress. The sooner there is no longer a market for Middle East oil, the sooner the culture change will take place.

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:31:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  But don't you get it, alizard? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marina, Elise

              I mean, isn't it obvious?

              Women can't THINK!!!!  I mean, SOME of them can, but those ones are perverts and abominations to God's plan!
              Women are intended for making babies and taking care of kids, and that's it!  REALLY!  God told me!  And my dad told me, too!

              (for the totally oblivious, that's snark).

              I was liberal when liberal wasn't cool

              by plf515 on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:27:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, the point of my posting is (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marina, plf515

                that if Islamic fundamentalists in what are now the "oil countries" in the post-oil world don't learn how to think, they're dead.

                Of course, they aren't the only people in the world with that problem.

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:23:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Interesting, excellent thesis (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alizard, Elise, Pandoras Box, geomoo

              and one that offers hope. Lots of interesting comments here, with much food for thought.

      •  Yes. Another reason to be proud of liberalism (10+ / 0-)

        And an inspiring reason to fight its defeat by the rising fundamentalist fascism represented by the neocons.  Militarism, paternalism, and misogyny come in one package.

        If it's our freedom they hate, they must love Bush's response to the WTC attacks.

        by geomoo on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:15:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site