NEWS: How Feminism Helps Men (Part Three Hundred and Forty-Eight)

CULTURE: How Feminism Helps Men (Part Three Hundred and Forty-Eight)

Can we all agree that stoning women to death for having sex is feminist issue?

Okay, good. Well, guess what? According to feminist organization Stop Stoning Forever, a man was just stoned to death in Iran on Tuesday. For adultery. The woman who was his alleged partner-in-crime is quite likely to be stoned as well, of course. Leaving their two children orphans.

Probably because Kiani, the victim, was a man, the government is acknowledging that the stoning took place--the first time in five years it's done so.

Still, it does rather go to show that when misogynist assholes start policing women's sexual practices, men are at risk too. Which should go without saying--and usually does, in circles where people don't think "feminism" means "man-hating." But I'm saying it here for the record. Guys, when other guys and the women who've swallowed the koolaid start going around trying to "defend" the "rights" of pharmacists to refuse to provide women birth control, or the "rights" of men not to pay child support, or the "rights" of men to get away with rape, or the "rights" of men to not be "penalized" by our supporting women's rights (because obviously if women are going to have rights, men are going to have to lose something--specifically, the privileges that go with not being women)--when this stuff happens, it affects you too.

Yeah, you might find that fewer men end up getting all the top jobs in math departments, or receiving 75% of the money in politics, or being most of the talking heads who make policy and run countries; a few of those guys will "suffer" from having to share. But the vast majority of y'all aren't enjoying those benefits anyway. And presumably you're smart enough to realize that being able to fuck without worrying about pregnancy, being able to grow up with enough food on the table, being less likely to get the shit kicked out of you by some dickwad who honed his violent skills on women, and living someplace where reproductive freedom, being able to marry (or not) the person you love, knowing that your kids will be provided for even if something awful happens, and being assured that you're not the only person in the household who can earn a living wage--that all those things are worth the "cost" of seeing a few more women at the top, and telling a few more entitled guys to learn to fucking share.

You can start, if you like, by signing this petition, addressed to the men at the heads of the Judiciary and Parliament of Iran.

Hat tip to Salon's Broadsheet.

Bitch_PhD wants it perfectly clear that she knows that all this sudden media attention on women's rights in Iran is partly saber-rattling propaganda, but presumes that her readers can keep in mind that we didn't do shit for women's rights in Afghanistan or Iraq, and separate the message from the intent of the old white guys who've suddenly woken up and realized that women's rights issues exist.

I once read some transcripts in Hansard of Englands Parliament in which slave owners were talking of "their rights" and compensation for giving up slavery.

The sad truth is that many people use the idea of fairness and human rights as a means of self gain. The queue for people to surrender their advantages is much shorter.

When Iranians do horrible shit, it's not horrible, they're just crying out.
Get with the program

In seriousness, it is really bizarre to me when people take a pro-Iran stance (because they're the "underdogs" or whatever) in the face of the seriously appalling lack of women's rights in that country.

You make a good point here, Bitch_PhD.

As the saying goes,
You can take a candle and light another, and you have two flames... but the original flame is just as bright. When you light yet a third, the first is still not diminished.

Oops, I thought the issue was people being stoned to death. Should have paid more attention to the title. But yeah, I'm all for women in power. Except Clinton.

Would signing that petition now not suggest to Iran's PTB that everyone's only getting in a twist about it because it was a man that got stoned for getting his rocks off? *goes to read the petition* Hm... sounds like it's not just a legal issue. Like saying people are free doesn't make them free, what really needs to be changed is the way people think. After all, you don't need a judge to tell you to start picking up rocks and throwing them at people, and it's so much easier when everyone else is doing it too.

Either that no-more-stoning directive wasn't issued very well, or few paid attention to it.

i find that ridiculous. stoning is a *humanitarian* issue and not a feminist one. be it though it's largely feminists that cry out about it, that doesn't somehow validate your (rhetorical) question. i in no way consider myself a supporter of feminisism because i don't believe that the movement should have to exist in the first place. i only believe in humanism.

Yeah, yeah. And women aren't people, so when we talk about "women's rights" we're being divisive.

you're right--it shouldn't have to exist, but it does.

Eh, it might, but the point is, it's an issue. And waiting for there to be a "good" time to address it is mealymouthed. It's not like the point is that caring about stoning means *ignoring* it when men get stoned.

Or, you know, there's the likely probability that passing directives is a form of public relations, and that passing laws and then failing to enforce them is a pretty clear wink and a nod to the status quo.

signed

You woefully misunderstand what feminism is.

Having spent a large chunk of my childhood growing up with 2 Muslim families and have been given a rudementary education on Islam by said families, I know the path to a more liberal and modern islamic nation such as Iran or Saudia Arabia is actually freeing Men or converting Men to sects of Islam that interpret Shia law and the Koran in a more liberal way. Sounds backwards I know but they get stood over by the clerics or Mufties, so therfore they then oppress their women and children, especially in the class room. Its usually all about power and control, oppresive societies are easier to control, free men the women will follow.

I wont go into the specifics of what I'm talking about as it would be a very long post and I'm feeling lazy today. I also think you'll find that this occured in a regional or backward country area of Iran. Country people are the same the world over to me, Alot of them are ignorant by choice also rough chest thumbing meatheads.

where's this assumption that i believe "women aren't people" coming from? i was raised by a single, hard working, tooth-and-nail fighting mother who's been the biggest influence in my life. i was taught that prejudice and any form of superiority is against humanity's interests. to say that i'm somehow against women is uncalled for.

i think your editorial more than proves my point that stoning is a humanitarian issue. *it can happen to both men and women.* -- and neither one is acceptable. PERIOD. there's no debate about it. absolutely none. so the feminists are not being divisive per se, but they certainly don't have a stranglehold on what's right and what's wrong.

go ahead and explain it to me then.

Who/what defines feminism then? If this anti-feminism referred to in the article affects men as well (as asserted by the author), does that not make it a humanitarian issue? Or is this a woman's rights issue? Or a human rights issue? I'm confused.

from martin luther king, jr.'s "i have a dream" speech:

"For many of our white brothers as evident by their presence here today have come to realize that their freedom is bound to our freedom."

i think the civil rights movement is analogous with the feminist one. the core of humanity is that we're all in this together. whether we acknowledge it or not.

I am really impressed by this, it is about time some one realized that there are important issues in the world that need decisive action. No offense but it is stuff like this, not gay marriage, not legalizing marijuana and not animal rights that need our attention. This type of thing happens every day, and we can't see it because we are concentrated on the stupid social issues that are so easy to fix. Torture and unwarranted execution happen every day, and I am so glad you have brought our attention to this.Totally signed

A solution is at hand! Women's rights, human rights, and humanitarian issues *are not mutually exclusive*! Voila!

Thank you. I have to point out, though, that one reason I, personally, don't post on international feminist issues more often is that "other people's issues" are a lot easier to agree to condemn than things that are very bound up in our own societies. Stuff that we don't do--stoning people, raping children--is easy to vilify. Stuff that we *do* participate in--denying civil rights to gays, denying women access to birth control--is a lot harder to see as clearly wrong. Or, obviously, we wouldn't be doing it.

Plus, petitions are all well and good, but I'm a pretty firm believer in cleaning up that whole "think globally, but act locally" thing.

That said, it's also true that American feminism can be awfully insular and awfully well-off-white-women-centric, and I'm not innocent of that limitation myself. I do try to do international-type stories occasionally, but I really should do them more often, you're right.

Thanks, I'll have to apply that to my mindset, I can be a little intolerant some times.

Pssst.

Humanism doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.

sorry. humanitarianism. got cared away and that slipped out.

Well, to be fair, Subby, most feminists won't be able to agree amongst themselves what feminism is, when you get down to details.

I mean, to a whole bunch of feminists, this very site is "the enemy" and would not exist in a truly feminist world. Some of those feminists include some of Bitch's friends and (former?) admirers, but she refuses to talk about that here. (Who was it who used the word "mealymouthed" in this thread?)

But -- before we get into that -- the simple, practical reason that stoning is a feminist issue anyway you cut it, is that women have tended to be the victims of stoning, reflecting the fact that underpinning it all is (IMHO) fear of female sexuality. Whatever feminists disagree on, they'll usually be able to agree on that.

I have some more to say on this, but I'm busy, and if I take the time, it's likely to go nowhere anyway, so, meh.

So yr saying you don't believe in civil rights, either?

you seem to be implicitly saying that humanitarians disagree with the feminists on this issue. with your "anyway you cut it" language you're basically saying that all other parties that aren't based in feminism cannot be acknowledged for being concerned and proactive about this issue.

and by your reasoning that no other groups can care about stoning, you're basically saying that rush limbaugh must be a feminist because he does not approve of stoning either. (though be it, he's too busy being a douche and taking pills to be concerned with it.)

if you make out the issue to be clearly in one party's interests only, you're dividing and thus limiting the effectiveness in fixing it.