BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Hurts So Good

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 9 2008 4:00 PM

Submitted by TheFuckOffKid. Edited By Uncognitive.

TAGS: violence against women, human rights

In the spirit of starting with "I'm not racist, but...", please don't consider this post as being anti-religion, but sometimes you get the feeling that some religious types really resent, not so much being told what to do, but being told what they can and cannot impose upon others. Damn those human rights organizations! (Seriously, how dare they?)

In the West, it tends to be issues like gay marriage and abortion rights that are red flags to a certain kind of religious bull. In Yemen, apparently, it's about the right of men to beat up women.

Yes, indeed. In a ... what's the right word? ... provocatively titled article ("There Must be Violence Against Women"), published in the Yemen Times, Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy states firmly that in certain situations, "violence against women is a must."

Here are some things we learn from reading Al-Kholidy's thoughts.

First:

the term violence mustn�t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.

Got that? The existence of violence against women doesn't mean that we're witnessing anything involving gender inequality or absence of women's rights. Just so we're clear, 'K?

Next, if a man beats his wife following the stages of dispute resolution in the Qu'ran, then what we may be seeing is a failure to communicate:

If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.

Whoa there. If he beats her, it's because he misunderstands a word? Might it be possible to, well, correct this misapprehension? Just a crazy idea.

Next, assuming we're going to allow a bit of terminological ambiguity to slip past us, we can at least be assured that those men administering the beatings have pure motives.

Personally, I don�t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.

Well, OK then! Consider me reassured!

Further reassurance is just around the corner:

In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits.

Phew! I was a little concerned.

I mean:

Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?

Exactly! If ever a Napoleon-Dynamite "Gosh!" was well-deserved, there's one right there! Where I live, you can't walk the streets without being bowled over by angry women marching from police station to police station, from courthouse to courthouse. It's a public menace.

So, lastly, let us:

avoid the misleading propaganda of such [human rights] organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society�s religious, social and moral norms.

Just remember, as long as there are limits, it's all good, OK?

[Hat Tip: Theocrazy, via Saraah.]

105 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 7

Jackie_Treehorn

Seattle, WA

June 2004

JAN 10, 2008 09:26 AM

In what context (that would require a defensive editorial in a newspaper) would violence against women be construed as okay, inkonnu? I think THAT part is the part the TFOK was ridiculing. Self-defense is one thing, but would that inspire or require a newspaper article? I think not.

Your analogy of children in our recent past to women in Islamic society may be logically correct, but I think the argument is abhorrent. In effect you say that what we figured out was not acceptable in our society then, with respect to children, is okay in Yemen, with respect to women.

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JAN 10, 2008 12:22 PM

inkonnu said:
I did not read anything at all in the original article where the author was promoting sadistic/un-justifiable violence towards women,

I didn't read anything in it about self-defence.

And, since the author's point is to make violence against women sound perfectly reasonable in a particular context, of course he's not exactly going to make it sound like he's promoting "sadistic/un-justifiable violence". That would defeat the purpose of his exercise.

I also didn't read anything from him about when it's reasonable, "in context", for a woman or women to inflict violence upon a man.

they were simply commenting on a) linguistic evolution, and how that can impact on understanding a scripture, and b) that sometimes, violence is a necessity (for whatever that reason might actually be, but was not elaborated on in the article), and, in the cases where violence is a necessity, it should always be 'within limits'.

He says: "the husband yields to beating the wife slightly" -- note that we never find out how slightly.

Then he follows that with: "They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran" -- suggesting that violence arises from a misreading.

Then he ignores his own interpretive reading and goes on as if the "slight beatings" are "necessary" somehow.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 10, 2008 12:30 PM

inkonnu said:
As mentioned before, context for said 'violence' is key, and there is a considerable difference between chastising someone as a punishment, and abusing someone out of sadism. What one culture sees as justification for chastisement, another will see as unreasonable, and vice versa.

How is it "key"? If you're advocating moral relativism, I suppose that's all well and good. But here in the real world, bullying is bullying regardless of who does it and where.

inkonnu said:
I did not read anything at all in the original article where the author was promoting sadistic/un-justifiable violence towards women, they were simply commenting on a) linguistic evolution, and how that can impact on understanding a scripture, and b) that sometimes, violence is a necessity (for whatever that reason might actually be, but was not elaborated on in the article), and, in the cases where violence is a necessity, it should always be 'within limits'.

So, Spike, when exactly is "limited" violence against women "necessary"?

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

JAN 10, 2008 12:51 PM

Zarth said:

How is it "key"? If you're advocating moral relativism, I suppose that's all well and good. But here in the real world, bullying is bullying regardless of who does it and where.

So, Spike, when exactly is "limited" violence against women "necessary"?

Usually when she has been naughty. Tho I find that tying them up and leaving them there without any attention can sometimes do far more to get them to behave than a spanking. I mean if she did not want the spanking she would not have been wearing leather cuffs and a ballgag anyhow right?

Right?

I'm not the only one who thought of this am I?

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 10, 2008 12:52 PM

Colinism said:
Usually when she has been naughty. Tho I find that tying them up and leaving them there without any attention can sometimes do far more to get them to behave than a spanking. I mean if she did not want the spanking she would not have been wearing leather cuffs and a ballgag anyhow right?

Right?

I'm not the only one who thought of this am I?

Those are very different things, as I know you know. Consensual rough sex has no place in a discussion of nonconsensual physical abuse.

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

JAN 10, 2008 12:53 PM

inkonnu said:

punk said:
Yeah...but the author is not talking about self-defense, he's talking about the necessities of physical violence against women.

Correction. He's talking about the occasional necessities of physical violence against women (as a response to certain (unspecified) situations/provocations)

Try and bear in mind that there is a considerable difference in social guidelines and attitudes at work here, and what one society finds abhorrent, is totally common-place and acceptable to another. That does not mean that one is right, and one is wrong, it just means that they are different, so need to be considered and treated as such. For example. 50-60 years ago, if a child was misbehaving in public, the 'villiage bobby' would give them a 'clip round the ear' and send them home. Any police officer trying that today, would be accused of, and likely charged with, assaulting a minor. Let's not forget either, that when said skallywag got home and says "PC Jenkins gave me a clip round the ear, Dad..." that would likely have lead to another clip round the ear or a belting from the father, as punishment for behaving in such a way as to require police involvement. Again, nowadays, a parent would be on the phone to, or down the police station, trying to press charges, utterly irrelevent of the fact that their child had been punished for actually doing something wrong in the first place.

A lot of the rules which countries like the Yemen operate under, regardless of how self-righteous they may claim to be, are quite removed from the original principles of Islam as laid out in Al Qur'an.

As mentioned before, context for said 'violence' is key, and there is a considerable difference between chastising someone as a punishment, and abusing someone out of sadism. What one culture sees as justification for chastisement, another will see as unreasonable, and vice versa.

I did not read anything at all in the original article where the author was promoting sadistic/un-justifiable violence towards women, they were simply commenting on a) linguistic evolution, and how that can impact on understanding a scripture, and b) that sometimes, violence is a necessity (for whatever that reason might actually be, but was not elaborated on in the article), and, in the cases where violence is a necessity, it should always be 'within limits'.

Ok lets boil this all down to a more serious and simple discussion and go from there.

What good reason do you see for using violence against a woman at all?

To be honest men are almost always bigger and stronger so unless your having to rush in to stop a woman from strangling or stabbing a child or old person to death a man is pretty much assured of the ability to simply walk away from the problem and or let things calm down.

So again why is violence necessary sometimes?

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 01:12 PM

magpieboy said:
In what context (that would require a defensive editorial in a newspaper) would violence against women be construed as okay, inkonnu?

It depends in which culture you're talking about. In western society, then strictly self-defense only. However. Western values are not the ones under discussion here, so they cannot be judged by western values.

magpieboy said:Your analogy of children in our recent past to women in Islamic society may be logically correct, but I think the argument is abhorrent. In effect you say that what we figured out was not acceptable in our society then, with respect to children, is okay in Yemen, with respect to women.

You say that it was unnacceptable for the 'villiage bobby' to give a child a clip round the ear. That's fine, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However. I would point out, that it is that kind of 'softly-softly' policing (certainly in the UK) which is a major contributing factor as to why so many of Britain's youth are habitual criminals (theft, petty violence etc), who know that they are above the law, and the worst that will happen to them if caught, is that they will get a verbal caution, and then asked to abide by a behavioural order, which are barely enforced. If the law was able to deal out harsher sentances for minor crimes, it might have served as a deterrent, and things might not be as they are now.
Also, I'm not saying that that attitude towards women in Yemen is okay, simply that that is the situation, and it is up to that country/society to move forward themselves.
What I was saying, was that what is unnaceptable to one set of cultural values, is considered acceptable by another, and both need to be respected, not one subjugated by another.

Shalome

MODERATOR

Los Angeles, CA

JAN 10, 2008 01:15 PM

inkonnu said:

magpieboy said:
In what context (that would require a defensive editorial in a newspaper) would violence against women be construed as okay, inkonnu?

Unless you believe in petty stuff like universal human rights...

PRockGirlScout

Hawaii National Park, HI

October 2005

JAN 10, 2008 01:15 PM

Kindle said:

_Twitch_ said:
I am going to send my father-in-law and my stepfather this article. Maybe they'll move to Yemen!

As long as they photo's and postcards back.

I don't know what this means. I think it means you were a little bit drunk. But no, I'd prefer they did NOT send postcards or photos.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 10, 2008 01:16 PM

inkonnu said:
Also, I'm not saying that that attitude towards women in Yemen is okay, simply that that is the situation, and it is up to that country/society to move forward themselves.

That doesn't make any sense, Spike. By that logic, Apartheid would still reign supreme in South Africa.

inkonnu said:
What I was saying, was that what is unnaceptable to one set of cultural values, is considered acceptable by another, and both need to be respected, not one subjugated by another.

So beating your wives and daughters is now a "cultural value"?

Does your girlfriend know this?

inkonnu said:
You say that it was unnacceptable for the 'villiage bobby' to give a child a clip round the ear. That's fine, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However. I would point out, that it is that kind of 'softly-softly' policing (certainly in the UK) which is a major contributing factor as to why so many of Britain's youth are habitual criminals (theft, petty violence etc), who know that they are above the law, and the worst that will happen to them if caught, is that they will get a verbal caution, and then asked to abide by a behavioural order, which are barely enforced. If the law was able to deal out harsher sentances for minor crimes, it might have served as a deterrent, and things might not be as they are now.

And this is the kind of analogy you're using to defend wife-beating? Seriously?

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JAN 10, 2008 01:18 PM

inkonnu said:
However. I would point out, that it is that kind of 'softly-softly' policing (certainly in the UK) which is a major contributing factor as to why so many of Britain's youth are habitual criminals

Unsubstantiated, and irelevant to the discussion.

Also, I'm not saying that that attitude towards women in Yemen is okay, simply that that is the situation, and it is up to that country/society to move forward themselves.

IN RESPONSE TO WHAT?

To "move forward" by repeatedly telling themselves that such violence is OK?

EVEN IF THE VIOLENCE IS BASED ON A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE KEY HISTORICAL TEXT?

Make some fucking sense, man!

MrCrisp

Charleston, SC

August 2004

JAN 10, 2008 01:21 PM

Zarth said:

And this is the kind of analogy you're using to defend wife-beating? Seriously?

you know Zarth, i beat you because i'm concerned about your wellbeing and don't want to see you get into any trouble. what's so unbelievable about that? i beat you because i love you!

on a more serious note, spousal beatings and criminal punishment? how do those even start to compare to each other? so a harder beating serves as a greater deterrent, regardless of necessity or if it's warranted, therefore if spousal beating occurred more frequently or did more damage, things "might not be as they are now"? where's the logic in that?

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

JAN 10, 2008 01:25 PM

inkonnu said:

magpieboy said:
In what context (that would require a defensive editorial in a newspaper) would violence against women be construed as okay, inkonnu?

That would be a valid argument point were it not for the fact that in islamic societies women are more often than not relegated to the status of lesser or second class citizens who do not have the ability to shape the way they are treated or seen in those societies. Since they are denied the ability to do so, how is arguing that it's an ok societal norm any less reprehensible than say treating moslems differently simply based on their religion. Women do not choose to be born as women so in effect you are trying to argue that it's ok to discriminate on people for arbitrary reasons that in fact have no bearing on who they are, what they are capable of, or even how they should be treated.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 01:26 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:I didn't read anything in it about self-defence.
Indeed, self-defence was a possible reason I mentioned.

TheFuckOffKid said:
And, since the author's point is to make violence against women sound perfectly reasonable in a particular context, of course he's not exactly going to make it sound like he's promoting "sadistic/un-justifiable violence". That would defeat the purpose of his exercise.

By his cultural values and upbringing, it is perfectly reasonable for a man to physically chastise a woman. As I mentioned above, there are two very different sets of cultural values here, which are never going to be compatible. I'm not saying that those values are right or wrong, I am just pointing out that that is the cultural values of that region, and it is not for 'them' to change to 'our' values simply because 'we' disagree with their practices.

TheFuckOffKid said:
I also didn't read anything from him about when it's reasonable, "in context", for a woman or women to inflict violence upon a man.

So? You're not going to get a disagreement from me, yes, it is an unequal state of affairs, but, as above, that's their culture, it is not our place to change it, simply because we disagree with it.

TheFuckOffKid said:
He says: "the husband yields to beating the wife slightly" -- note that we never find out how slightly.

So the limit is not stated in the article. So what? There are limits (I'm sure Al Qur'an or one of the hadith's has reference to the limits for such 'beating', bearing in mind, that when Al Qur'an was written, the word which is now interpereted to mean 'physically strike', did not mean anything of the sort) and the author's comments acknowledged that.

TheFuckOddKid said:
Then he follows that with: "They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran" -- suggesting that violence arises from a misreading.

Then he ignores his own interpretive reading and goes on as if the "slight beatings" are "necessary" somehow.

I disagree with your interperetation of that. The author was clear to make distinction of 'violence', and make note that it was not about gender inequality or absense of women's rights. Personally, I read that section as meaning that the word 'beating' was being misinterpereted, and then in a new section, went on to state that there are times where violence against women might be required. As I said before, the author did not state what those reasons might be, but, one insinuation in the article was in matters of moral discipline, and a reason that I personally thought of, would be self-defence.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 01:31 PM

Zarth said:How is it "key"? If you're advocating moral relativism, I suppose that's all well and good. But here in the real world, bullying is bullying regardless of who does it and where.

Indeed, I am pointing out moral relavitism. As I said previously, what is acceptable by one culture, is not acceptable by another. Simple as that.
I agree, bullying is is bullying, but what makes you think the author was advocating a man bullying a woman? Bear in mind, that by their moral standard, it is acceptable for a man to physically chastise a woman. You cannot impose your own moral code onto their situation and expect the two to be compatible.

Zarth said:So, Spike, when exactly is "limited" violence against women "necessary"?

Well, Cunt, personally, I would say in instances of self-defence. The thing is though, we're not talking about my moral values, though, but those of a writer from Yemen.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 7